Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2026 regular meeting of the Milton Planning Commission to order. Would everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is a regular meeting of the Milton Planning Commission. I am chairperson Judy Birds. This is a seven member commission appointed by the city of Milton mayor and city council created for the purpose of holding public hearings and making recommendations on resoning use permits, concurrent variance applications, comprehensive land use plan and plan map and other related plans and amendments to the zoning ordinance. in attendance tonight. We have a full um house. Commissioner Vic Jones, Commissioner Sumit Shaw, Commissioner Brian Mcnes, Commissioner AJ Bullet. Bulo Bulo. Bulo. It's a tough one.

No, it shouldn't be because it's my brother's best friend's high school last name. Uh Commissioner Stephanie Butler and Commissioner Fred Edwards. My apologies. So, no one is absent this evening. Um, tonight the positions will be heard in the sequence listed on the published agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures for conducting this meeting. The applicant and all those speaking in support of an application will be allowed a total of 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 10 minutes to present. Madam chair, you don't have to read it because there's nobody here.

Oh, okay. And there's no applicants. No. It's just

we have no one is sitting in the public, so I'm going to um skip reading that script. So, that'll save several pages. [laughter] Um, I will say that the recommendation that we make tonight will be forwarded to the city of Milton Mayor and City Council for final deposition at a forthcoming meeting in the council chambers on April 13, 2026. Great. Um so first on the agenda um even before adoption of the agenda is the election of a chair for the planning commission. May I have a nomination for chair?

I nominate Judy Bird. Second. Okay. Thank you. Um we have a nomination for Commissioner Birds for the chair. Um moved by uh Commissioner Bulo and seconded by Commissioner Mcnes, beating out Fred um at the last second. Um uh can I have a vote? Although any discussion? All those in favor?

Any opposed? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you all very much for your support. Um, do I um do I have a nomination for the vice chair? I would like to nominate Brian Mcnes. Seconded. I have a nomination for Brian Mc Commissioner uh McNiss for vice chair seconded by Commissioner Bulo. And I think he's seconding just so I can get his name right before [laughter] the end of this. Um any discussion? All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. That motion carries unanimously. Okay. Now we are to the consideration and adopt adoption of the agenda. Um, can I get a motion and a second regarding an adoption of I'll move that we accept the agenda as written. Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Edwards and a second from Commissioner Butler to um approve the agenda as presented. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing? None. That carries unanimously. Uh, next up we have consideration of the minutes and actions of previous meetings. Can I get a motion and a second regarding the January 14th, 2026 special call planning commission meeting action minutes. I move we accept the action minutes of Wednesday, January 14th, 2026.

Second. I have a motion from Commissioner Edwards with a second from Commissioner Mcnes um to approve the meeting minutes of January 14th for the Specially called Planning Commission. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Uh that motion carries unanimously. Do we have any general public comment? We do not. We do not because we have no one here

other than us. Okay. Our next agenda item is we have no preliminary plats. We have no reszonings or use permits. But we do have two text amendments to consider. So if I we could have Miss Robin McDonald present.

Oh, good evening. Uh, planning commissioners. Um, tonight uh the first text amendment is RZ26-01 consideration of a text amendment to article 8 use provisions, article 11 environment and article 12 administration regarding public hearing notice publication requirements and appeal procedures. So basically the purpose of this text amendment is to update the notice requirements for public hearings to match revisions to state requirements um commonly known as uh the uh zoning I forgot already the yeah ZPL zoning procedures law. Thank you. Anyway, um currently, um it calls out not less than 30 and not more than 45 days and we're proposing to amend it to say not less than 15 and not more than 45 days throughout the unified development code where applicable. Specifically um one is adult entertainment establishments in uh section 8 which is the use provisions stream buffers which is section 11 which is environment the change of zoning map or text changes to the UDC which is under administration. So basically that would be a reasonzoning or the text amendments, requests for relief, um primary variances again to section 12 which is administration specifically to the board of zoning appeals and lastly historic preservation for the HPC which we do not have an active HPC at this point again under the administration section. Uh so this uh completes my uh summary of what you are looking at tonight. So, I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Again, this is just a cleanup um and uh to be with the ZPL regulations.

Does commission have any questions for staff? So, it's really I just had it's really just to shorten the notification period and to make sure that it's uniform across all sections.

Yeah. So, currently now we have the um at the design review board uh they do make a final decision on demolitions. We changed that maybe a year ago to make it shorter because um it just was a made it more difficult for applicants uh for that full 30 days. But now everything will be consistent and to be honest we have a lot of meetings before the public hearing so they actually know things for instance uh for community zoning information meeting uh it needs to be published in the Milton Herald 10 days before the CZIM. So that's at least like a good 20 to 25 days before the planning commission. So technically people know about it even ahead of the 15 days at least in regards to the actions that you all take. So

it's not a problem for staff. I'm sorry. It's not a problem for staff. No. No. In fact, it makes it a bit easier. So yeah, more a little bit more flexibility. So yeah. Any other questions for staff? Um, I will open the public hearing regarding text amendment RZ26-01. Seeing no one in the audience, I will Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this item, [clears throat] Robin? I think the answer is no. I'm sorry. I was just [laughter] getting ready for this. No, there's nobody came since the last time. So, [laughter]

okay. Um, great. Um, so that concludes public comment. Um, any further questions for staff regarding this item. Okay. Motion. I will close the public hearing and and uh be open for a motion regarding RZ26-01. I move we accept RZ 26-01 as written. And just for clarification, you're recommending you're making a motion that we recommend approval. Approval. Okay.

Right. I second that. Okay. Um, great. I have a motion. Any discussion on that? I have a motion from Commissioner Edwards with a second from Commissioner Shaw to recommend a Jones. Okay, I heard it from the right. Um, second. Yeah. Um, to recommend approval as presented of RZ 2601, a text amendment to article 8 use provisions, article 11, environment, and article 12 administration regarding public hearing notice, publication requirements, and appeal procedures. All in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. That carries unanimously to recommend approval. The next item on the agenda to consider is RZ2602, a text amendment to article 8 use permissions with respect to limited food service restaurant and the use table for the crab apple form-based code and section 8.5.13E and to amend 8.7F and article 13 definitions with respect to tastings room tasting rooms. um like to call up uh zoning manager Robin McDonald to repair to present the staff report for RZ 2602. Okay. So, I see a little technical glitch here on the sub on the package and I'm not sure what happened. So that's why I'm going to use this.

So this next item, the purpose of this text amendment is to remove limited food service restaurant in its entirety within the UDC. The removal of this alcohol license for limited food service restaurant has already occurred in chapter 4 alcohol of the city code. Thus making the two ordinances consistent. So here we have um [cough and clears throat] that help. Okay. So, here in my original document, I could swear it was all stricken out. I mean

I'm not sure what happened in is article and for both crab apple and deer actually crab apple establishment that is definition that is being eliminated. That's the first portion.

Does commission have any question? Oh, keep you still have more. The second part of the

Okay, part two. So in the um second part is the use permit for the farm winery or Georgia farm winery to include development standards as required by chapter 4 alcohol to be reflected in the subject use permit. Um and staff has determined there's no changes necessary to definitions. So, just give me a moment so I can reconstruct this. I can't get on to the Can I get on our drive so I can look at the original.

Yeah,

please stand by for some technical issues. Okay. Okay. He has it. I'm sorry. See, I know I don't know what happened in So, if you Yeah. Scroll down. Okay. Thank you. So, now keep [clears throat] on going. Next one about farm winery. Yeah. Just

Okay, here it is.

[clears throat] That's right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, K, that's um it's not red line, but this is the Okay. Uh, the new verbage is

So that is a rewrite or an addition? That's a rewrite. Yeah. They're not making any amendments to the definition.

I apologize. I'm not sure what happened to the um document when it got That's right. Um does the commission have any questions for staff? I I just had one. So, in the altering of What is it? Article K. It looks like would any existing arm winery or Georgia farm winery as it's currently classified be impacted by that change?

No, because this um development sta what what we call kind of a development standard in the use permit is also located in the alcohol chapter 4. So this is what everybody already we only have one farm winery right now but this is what they adhere to and so in in the future this is again what they would need to uh meet for the regulations. So so is this largely to make it consistent with article 4 on right correct it was a little bit different and we're just making it consistent. So, the the one existing that we do have that we know of would not be negatively impacted by

No, they already meet this regulation. And in fact, um actually they don't they don't even have a use permit because they excuse me, they were grandfathered in because they existed before we created this use permit, but they do meet this standard because it was in the alcohol portion of the city code. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that somebody wouldn't suddenly not be complying.

No, we only have one and they are meeting this requirement, but they wouldn't have had to because they were by right, but they did. So, that's why it's a it's a hard it's not hard, but we have to be careful between the alcohol and the zoning to make sure it's consistent, and that's what this amendment is doing. So yeah, but the existing farm winery does meet this, but they don't have a use permit because they existed before we created the use permit. Kind of like um in AG1, you're allowed to have unlimited horses. We don't have, you know, so at the time you were allowed to have a farm winery by right. You just had to meet the alcohol regulations. So

I'm good. Any other questions? Yeah. So just uh part of the cleanup so for um section so 8.5.13A when we remove that limited tap establishment are we renumbering those 1 2 3 and then restaurant is four. We can yes okay and then um I know you said that wasn't taken out in a red line and then we're removing um F the limited tap establishment definition. Yeah that'll be any reference at all. Alcohol already taken out alcohol, so we're just catching up on this on the zoning side. Okay.

But we'll um we'll renumber it. We'll do that for the uh council presentation. Got it.

Any other questions for staff? I will formally open the public hearing regarding text amendment RZ26-02. But as there are no members of the public in attendance, um I will close the public hearing for RC 2602. Um any further questions for staff? Okay, I will close the public hearing. Can I hit a motion regarding RZ2602?

I'll make a motion to recommend RZ26-02. Uh, and a part of that recommendation is to in section 8.2.2, the use table remove limited tap establishment number three. And then in section 8.5.13 to remove in 8.513A remove limited tap establishment and then make restaurant number four and then in section F delete section F and then in section 8.7.1 F to K. Uh add the tasting room must be located at least 50 ft from any adjacent res residential property lines and no larger than 2500 square ft in size. Oh yeah. Okay. It's E. I'm sorry. Limited food service restaurant is E. So I am I'm the one who did that. [clears throat]

So it's So it's already gone. It didn't catch. I am so sorry. Limited tap establish. Yeah. So we just if you could just make a motion as presented by staff and to to eliminate limited food service restaurant. Yeah. and keep limited tap as well. We'll go ahead and we keep limited tap. Yeah, we're going to pull it up so you can see the red lines. I apologize. I am so sorry. I think you might have to draw your motion while we I will withdraw that motion because that's the whole thing. Yeah, it does go ABC D. Did such a nice job though.

I know. Very thorough. [laughter] I do agree in here

because I think you can just make a motion as presented once you see it. Yeah. Right. Because limited tap establishment stays throughout and they've already Yeah. The question is do you want to reumber? Well, I think in in our red line it's I it might be reumbered already. It's not. Okay. So, number four was already struck and that was limited food service restaurant. Yes. Okay. So, sorry.

So, that's that's that section and then um down to restaurants is number four. limited food service restaurants and then the definition. I would recommend that when you make a motion you can just say as presented with staff but to renumber accordingly and then you don't have to like quote every would that be okay. Yeah. Yeah. But what about the that tasting room K?

Okay. So [clears throat] we'll go down to that one or Yes. Okay. Here it is. Sorry. So the tasting room must be located at least 50 ft from any adjacent residential property lines and we struck tasting room must not exceed and put in and no long and no larger than 2500 square feet in size. So So the original was tasting room must not exceed 2500 square feet in size. That was the original. So that's a cha change. That's a change. So if you Yeah. Make it as presented basically. Yeah.

Yeah. Just make a motion as presented. So I will um present a new motion. My motion is to recommend approval of RZ26-02 as presented and for the reumbering uh reumbering of section 8.5.13A and for the relettering of section 8.513.

Second. I have a motion from Commissioner Shaw with a second from Commissioner Mcnes to make the changes to RZ 26 as recommended for RZ 2602 a text amendment to article 8 use provisions with respect to limited food service restaurant and the use table for the crab apple form-based code and section 8.53E and to amend section 8.71F and article Article 13 definitions with respect to tasting rooms. All those in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Hearing? None. That carries unanimously to recommend approval. Okay. Of RZ 2602. Uh we have no consideration of changes to the comprehensive plan. Though I will remind everyone we have another meeting of the comprehensive plan citizen compreh citizens planning advisory commission I think it's called CPAC um next week on Thursday March 5th so we'll look forward to your attendance there with the other members of the CPAC

Judy what you were saying CPAC looking at the I don't know if it was some notes from CPAC or from someone the public and council about the fact that rural did not appear. I didn't have a chance need to say to go back to the word rural is not used at all in I think the implication was there wasn't a clear definition of what rural or rural character was defined by you're talking about I think the gentleman that came to the podium yes

yeah it's and I I brought that up in side conversations yeah it it something about that it we don't have it clearly defined ed in the ordinance and he was just raising the notion that maybe council consider clearly defining what rural character represents. Right. Well, we use the word rural but don't define it. Right. Pardon? We use the word rural but don't define it. It's a little R, not a big R. [clears throat] Okay. Let's let's um uh I'll try to pass on to Shoua to see that we discuss some of that on Thursday week from week from tomorrow.

Okay. Um we have no old business. Uh we have one item under new business, however, and that is to review the potential amendments to plat processes and AG1 lot development standards. I'd like to call up uh Sarah Leers, our community development director. Is that correct? And uh Tracy Wilds, deputy director of community development to present this item. Sarah, is that a new title for you? Is yes, Sarah. Welcome.

Do you still have your old title, too? I do. Um [laughter] I am serving as the role of both community development and public works and just the having it all under a single umbrella. Um just so many shared opportunities and initiatives going on that involve both groups. So it's a exciting opportunity and having deputies in both departments that are very helpful in running the day-to-day operations is uh where we're headed with within the organization. Great. Well, congratulations. Thank you. I don't know if I was supposed to announce that, but it was in the the title was in my script. So,

all right. So, tonight's discussion on this item, while we did um include in the agenda that it would be related to talking about code amendments, we really wanted to take a step back first. And so this discussion is intended to help further define whether there is a problem based on development patterns and building trends. And we're looking for your input on potential challenges, concerns, and impacts that you're seeing related to lot division, land development, and building within the city. So at this stage, we're not presenting draft amendments yet. Instead, our goal tonight is to first gather feedback on trends, issues, and considerations. So, our future recommendations are thoughtful, wellinformed, and aligned with the comp plan and the city's development goals. So, we do have some public input forums planned. We held one earlier today and there will be another in a couple weeks um in an evening just to let the public come and talk about issues they're seeing, challenges, concerns, and we had a very good um input earlier today. Good attendance and look forward to hearing more from the the public as we look at future amendments. So again, the conversation tonight will help inform next steps as we explore opportunities for code options, but we're not identifying any of those yet. Um, but we are going to start with some background information and then we'd like to move into a discussion on on based on some of these trends and data that we'll share.

[clears throat]

So as we look through the lens of AG1 lots, there are two areas of focus. One is how land is divided. The other is ultimately how land is developed. So our immediate focus for the minor plat divisions is where we think maybe the disconnect happens for lots that minor plats are for lots that are less than three acres and less than three lots total. So we use the minor plat process to subdivide parcels for for those three under three acres and less than three lots. but they do not necessarily evaluate how the lot can actually be built. We identify where the lot lines go and how many lots can be created. On the other side, when land is developed mostly at the building permit or during the land development process, development standards control the building size, impervious surface, but they are applied applied after the lot has been subdivided. So ultimately, the development impacts are evaluated after the land is divided, and we'd rather see that upfront. So as we talk about that the two different areas of concern we have a a driving concern which we've identified as a uh a 1x multiplier. The 1x and 5x does not have any relation to anything other than to say there's a problem and then there's an ex an accelerated or an amplified problem. So, at it at its core, today's building trends, larger homes, amenities, [clears throat] and more site improvements are pushing the limits of existing development standards on

smaller lots. We think this matters because lots get tighter and that becomes harder to meet setbacks, lot coverage, and other standards that potentially can conflict with the rural character that was envisioned in the 2040 comprehensive plan. [snorts] Now, we think what's growing that problem, the amplifier, so to speak, is the minor plat process. The minor plat is a quick and easy process to subdivide lots that are less than three acres in size and less that are three total acres um with little development review on the front end. The result of that is that development issues are caught later in the review process, specifically at the building permit, and that's when options are limited uh and impacts are harder to manage. So ultimately the minor plat process is quick and it's easy um but it's limited in all of the information being evaluated up front. So this is an excerpt from the 2040 comprehensive plan specifically as it relates to central Milton which is identified on the right hand side graphic in the blue area. Central Milton is one of our largest character areas, but in this area there are many large lots that are over one acre and this area has created a uniform overall density that has actually retained the rural character. Um so what we want to point out is the building trends today um are potentially conflicting with that vision and we need help to identify what opportunities might be to help align this. So I'm going to go over a couple terms

that I'll I'll share in the building trends. Um first of all is lot size. So these are a couple examples of of actual lots with the the lot area being that dark heavy line and from that we have setbacks and we have other improvements that fit within that lot boundary the septic the driveway things like that. So first of all it's the lot size is one component of the trend that we're going to look at. The next is the footprint and so that is what's shown as the shaded blue. It's basically everything that's covered by a roof. So, it's the garage, the main the first floor square footage of the house, and any covered porches. And then lastly, we have lot coverage. And that's going to be both that includes the footprint as well as any other improved surfaces. So, the driveway, any concrete walkways, pool decks, um, that are impervious. A pvious pool deck actually does not count towards lock coverage. um the swimming pool surface would count as lock coverage. It's not technically impervious, but it it does count in that lot coverage. Um and then we do have two sets of standards for lot coverage. If a lot fronts a major road um or a public road, it's a 20% maximum lot coverage. And if the lot front's a private road, it is a 25% allowed lot coverage maximum. We did present a lot of data at the February 9th council meeting. Um I had had a good time with the spreadsheets and doing lots of um calculations looking at some averages and some trends and patterns related to a lot of data we had on new home construction. So I I do have those available if you want to see any of the more detailed data, but I

really wanted to just summarize some of those trends on this slide. First of all, we looked at five years worth of data 2021 to 2025. We only looked at AG1 lots. So we didn't look at crab apple or deerfield. Anything that was not zoned AG1 we did not look at. And the other factor was we looked at when a CO was issued. So that's a certificate of occupancy which means the home is constructed and ready to be occupied. So that's the basis of the the data set that we looked at here. And one thing we found is is those lots that are the one to one and a half acres were the ones that had the most feasibility challenge with primarily with lot coverage. We have some graphs again that showed this some of these averages over the five years and relative to that footprint. So that was the house garage porch. Over the five years, we are seeing an increasing trend in the size of footprints on new homes. We also looked at that relative to lot sizes. We looked at both the average and the median of lot sizes. So if there was, you know, one lot that was very large that could throw off the average, we also looked at the median and it followed a similar trend where the lot sizes are decreasing year-over-year. for lot coverage. We looked at some data related to those and point uh plotted each each data point. Um we really looked at that one to one and a half acre lots for lot coverage and again plotted where where those fell within the percent of the lot that was covered by imperous areas. And the trend we found with that was in 2025 that bottom range so the lowest percent lot coverage was much higher than the previous years. Um it's it's illustrated

well on the the graphic um that that we did have for council, but that was the the primary trend with lot coverage was that at the initial build at CO that some of these new homes were already hitting the lowest one we had was a 15% impervious. And when 20 is your max and you may not have installed the pool yet or you want to do a driveway turnaround, you're already pushing the maximum. Sarah, are you also seeing a trend, at least I've noticed it, of more and more gated subdivisions, so more private roads, which also then private roads means they have up to 25% coverage. But I it seems like almost all the new developments seem to be going in gated.

That's correct. Especially outside of the within the formbbased code areas. There's still some need for that public interconnection with with the road network, but a lot of the newer [clears throat] neighborhoods are private and gated and central Yeah. in central Milton and even and the Birmingham crossroads. Right. Um,

and the pictures on the right are actually two adjoining neighbors neighborhoods. They they actually border each other. Um, and these are at the same scale. A clip of the the lots of the same scale just to show the the different building patterns that are happening with the newer newer construction as far as the driveway lengths, the amenities, and the the house sizes. These are are both very close to 1acre size lots. And just to to notice the the difference that that this aerial imagery indicates. And if I I believe these are up in my neck of the woods. Um they are they're both gated. They are. And they're both gated.

So these are both gated. So one could have had more impervious, right? The lower one chose to have more impervious. Right. Well, at least on the north side of the road, Blue Valley and Mayfair Estates. Yep. Yes. [laughter] Sarah, you're not saying they have more impervious. It's more lot coverage and that covers more use than [clears throat] just impervious, right?

Yes. Um they the impervious and lot coverage are almost alike. Um the difference is typically just the the pool deck or pvious pavers could could be considered not considered well I guess if they're considered in lot coverage or not considered in lot coverage they're also not considered in impervious. So um oh they're not in lot in lot coverage. Yeah correct good clarification there. The biggest difference is that pool pool surface is the difference in treating for storm water and and just lock coverage. Gotcha.

And we did we did spot check a few of these and one of the the trends we found there too was that sometimes what is shown on the plan isn't always what's built. Um, so we have a we're looking at opportunities to to put in place some measures to ensure that that we have an accurate asbuilt condition of the lot coverage. So what what happens when they home is built and then they decide with the pool in that included the percentage

sometimes it's planned for on the building permit sometimes we'll see on the building plans that they have already and Tracy can speak more to this than I but that they have already planned for a certain size pool on the lot so that it's already included in their calculations. Um sometimes it's not shown at all and they get a surprise when they realize that

already. In fact, the pool permit is required to have a separate permit. So, a lot of times when when an applicant is coming in to do the building permit, they may identify a future pool on that building plan, but they've not and it may be estimated, but then later and then that could be the same year or or you know, two years down the timeline from when they get the building permit, they come for the pool permit. And that the size of that estimated pool may may get larger. Um but again that's something that we as staff go back and check to make sure that the initial coverage during the building permit how much how much percentage is left uh for that for that pool. So sometimes it's it's included all together. It still requires a separate permit but not not necessarily permitted at the same time. The last two trends we wanted to highlight were just concerns that we've heard as a department from new homeowners, from adjacent neighbors, and just from generally about the that rural viewshed. So, new homeowners that are have challenges that their lot is already nearing the that maximum lot coverage. adjacent neighbors. It's about sometimes it's about a side setback where a new side setback adjoins an existing rear. It just changes the perception of um because the side setback can be closer to the the property line. So, those were just two other couple other concerns that we had we've heard heard uh several times recently and just wanted to identify those as a a potential trend that we're we're hearing um from residents.

So, this slide was was just to illustrate and I've got a um a next slide that goes into more detail that that there are variances that do go to BZA um board of zoning appeals for and we're going to focus on lot coverage on the next slide so you can see what kind of volume we're seeing with that. But, but there are the ones that that are are advertised. they're part of the um the application. The the board considers those. But then there's there's a lot of things that happen below the surface that we're seeing an increase in the number of inquiries. Uh residents that reach out and say, "I'd like to build a pool. You know, what do I need to do to look at that?" And they realize that that they're already at the impervious. So, they have to take out part of their driveway or use impervious pavers or or sorry, pvious pavers or we had we actually had a slide for council that had a lot of those case studies that showed different things that people have reached out about that that we've been able to come up with alternate solutions there.

Yes. Where then does that decision that staff makes that decision or does it come before planning or or a variance? So if if someone's just reaching out initially staff does try to work with work with the requesttor to say well let's try everything we can to not need to get a variance. Um and so that that number of of people reaching out and finding alternate solutions is growing. And

um there there could be uh situations where something is built without a permit. Um someone finds out they're at that lot coverage cap um but they build their driveway turnaround anyway or um they may not build it to plan. They may say, "Yes, we're right at the 20%." And then when they build it, it gets built a little larger. So there's we feel like there is some variance data below the surface that that that may not be readily in our numbers of of number of variances. So that's what this next slide shows. Um, so this is again that five-year data plus actually the month of January. Um, in 2026, we're already at three three inquiries about a pool where they're at they're hitting that lot coverage already. So the the boxes with the red outline around them are cases that that went to Board of Zoning Appeals and were approved. Um the blue with the red outline is the pools that went to BZA um to get a variance to allow a pool that was putting them over their their lock coverage. And then we had one instance with a driveway in 2025. All of the others that don't have the outline around them are what [clears throat] our um our zoning liaison to the board of zoning appeals our staff member that works with the the requesters and the property owners to try to find alternate solutions or sometimes they may just abandon their project and decide not to move forward. So you can see over the last couple years we've got quite a growing trend of people that are reaching out to find other solutions and are hitting that maximum lock.

But I think what this also shows is that 90 95% of them are being solved by the staff and working with them to address. Right. Yeah.

And so you've always got these exceptions which one or two a year not bad. And if those footprints continue to grow that back to that once the house footprint gets bigger then then are we going to be able to find solutions or it's going to be harder to keep carving away at other areas to get within that that lot coverage cap. We're starting to actually experience some of that now, which [clears throat] is why it's why this information isn't is relative um because we are um credit to the um liaison staff with the BCA. They work weekly, daily um with applicants who are inquiring about how to make alter, you know, alterations to their lot in order to get the desired size of the pool or the extra accessory structure on their lot. So if those did come for planning then staff would already we would know that the coverage um was allowed or you had already said no you can't you're already in coverage before we would see that. Is that correct? when they inquire about a pool, typically they do they typically do a um some sort of application first to state their existing conditions or

they do they do so there's an application to identify where the existing um coverage is at on the lot with the existing structures that have been built and then staff works um all different angles to see if we can get if they can get it down. Sarah mentioned maybe they take out a portion of their driveway or they implement imperous pavers around the pool. There are some instances though where as creative as staff gets with the applicant to work around those those uh maximums, we still can't meet the desired uh outcome that the applicant wants at that time. If that's not the case, then it would come to the BZA.

Yeah. One of the first steps in that pool process is looking at what your current coverage is. So, it is identified pretty early on if there's an issue um as they start looking at a pool permit. And does this mean that every time that it came to BCA seeking a variance that it was ultimately approved 23 to 25, five instances? I guess one driveway and four pools if I'm reading that correctly.

Right. And so in preparation for again that February 9th discussion with council, we knew the data was one piece, but how how these outcomes make people feel was another component we wanted to get a initial response on. So we we'd identified 66 potential stakeholders um that had had reached out to us. Maybe it was an owner that had an issue with um with lot coverage, someone that owned a large parcel that we knew was it could be redeveloped in the future. So, uh we compiled a list of some various stakeholders, sent out a survey, and we only got 24 respondents, but it did represent all the groups that we were hoping to get input from. And so, we asked several questions. And then there were a series of questions that then if depending on the answer to the the type of respondent like realators got one set of questions, large land owners got another, developers got got another set of questions. But one common question was is too large for the lot a problem? And the that's what the piraphph represents with the green being yes whether significant or moderate the blue being no and the orange unsure. So this this leads to why we're doing these public input sessions is we we have this one slice of data um or input from stakeholders but we want to want to hear broader uh thoughts on on the issues and the concerns. So that's why we're going through those public input meetings right now and looking for other opportunities to get as much as much input as we can to make sure that if we're pursuing code amendments that they do address what what we've identified and the communities identified as issues

if I can. These may be out of order as I'm looking at this. I may want to I I think it's important to stop for a minute and and revisit me remember our two our two issues or challenges one what's driving the what's the root cause and our concern and then the amplifier so there's two pieces to this one is the minor plat process which is a quick avenue to divide land the other which we've just seen several slides on was the building trend the building trends are the research that we've done. Lots are getting bigger. Bigger bigger items, bigger houses, bigger accessories are being desired on the same size lots that we've had previously. So again, it's it's good to just stop and remember that there's two there's two focuses that we're wanting to to uh discuss about tonight. As we go down to the minor plaque process, I think I want to start with this slide. This is a this is a powerful slide in that it should explain exactly what staff is seeing and seeking information for for small lots for minor plats. That's again, and it's worth repeating over and over, that's lots that are less than three acres, less than three total lots. They follow the process on the left. So the minor plat process allows them to subdivide a parcel. It identifies how many lots can be created and where those lots lines are. So the information that's required up front is relatively minimal. It it does meet all of the zoning review requirements that are are needed uh as well as Fulton County Health Department uh for lots that are created. But then as soon as that minor plat has been subdivided and it meets our zoning

requirements, that minor plat can get recorded with little little site review. Then that lot is sold and then at the building permit, that's when the site analysis the of the building footprint, lot coverage, tree canopy, hydraology. That's where the review really gets into the the details. But that's after the lot has sold. And at that time if there are issues that are identified then it's further into the process and oftent times there's variance requests or there's additional storm water that may be needed and so those issues are identified late in the process. In contrary on the right side when you look at the preliminary plat that ultimately comes to planning commission all of the items that are in blue in this funnel are done relatively upfront. There is preliminary studies done for hydrarology for for topography where the house will go um what site constraints are on the on the property. So there's extensive information that's done early in the process and those things can be identified and it doesn't mean it eliminates perhaps a need for a variance but those items are identified earlier in the process um when you have a little more flexibility to manage that. Um so it's important um overall the takeaway of this of this slide is that the focus of when the lot is created and sold uh within the overall process oftent times the person or the applicant who is subdividing the parcel is not necessarily that the person who is developing the parcel. Um so that's worth um this this is telling this is telling at

the end of a preliminary plat final plat you can see when the lot is sold versus when the lot is sold in the minor plat process and um and so when we look at that I want to go back now to this graphic this is just a good metric that we pulled um at our plat data from 2020 21 to 2025. This again excludes large lots. This is lots that are 1 to three acres in size, but we had approximately 83 lots that were created by the minor plat process. That was over 36 plat approximately 173 acres. And then comparatively to the preliminary plat process, we had eight plats that produced 104 lots um and just under just 10 acres shy of our minor plat. So this is just an example to show you that the minor plat process and the preliminary pro process has created about the same number of lots relatively 83 versus 104. The 104 had an extensive review up front. The 83 did not. They had a review, but it was later in the process. So, [snorts] you know, there's a we're saying this several different ways, right? For a minor plat, the lot size has been set when you divide the parcel and you create the lot. So, the lot comes first, the function of the lot comes after. Um, and so when you look at site capacity, what's going to fit on the lot, what the ultimate desired outcome is for the end homeowner. Um, sometimes everything doesn't fit. There's there's changes that need to be made. There are revisions that need to be made. Um, so when lots are sized before the analysis has been done on the site, we necessarily don't see the problem until much later in the process.

So another if if an individual has to know they're looking at this lot, they're going to have to know that instead of saying, you know what, this what we envision our house to look like on that lot. They're gonna have to have all of this information ahead of building or coming to you or us or

Well, it reality is is that when someone is subdividing the lot, they don't necessarily know who the end user is, right? They they may not have a house in mind or they may not have a buyer that has been identified yet. But I I used this example at the council meeting and I used it earlier today. The best analogy that I can get my my mind around is you are moving into a new house or you're buying a new house, but you go buy all the furniture for the house before you've even seen the house. So, [clears throat] you've bought all this furniture that you really love and you've invested money in, but it doesn't necessarily fit in the rooms because you didn't size the rooms before you bought the furniture. That's kind of an analogy of what we're, you know, what we're saying here. you you subdivide the lots based on our zoning requirements for one acre. Um but you but the enduser may have some desires that may not necessarily fit on that lot. And some of our research for the building trends is has identified that those those house sizes and the amount of things that are wanted on these lots are getting bigger. So again just identifying the two different the problems. one being the, you know, the the bigger the bigger problem of the development of the lots, but the minor plat accelerates or creates another another avenue quickly that increases the number of 1acre lots that may potentially have that problem.

Have you also looked at um or started to analyze other surrounding jurisdictions in terms of their process with minor plats? Yes. are they similar to our process right now? So, we that's in some of our research that we're doing right now. Um I think it's safe to say we're still conducting some of that research, but it's um it's safe to say that building trends are happening all I mean other jurisdictions are having sort of the same problem. um

let's say our neighbor called Alpharetta um would have a major I think looking at what I see the development under these some of these restrictions I don't know if they're ahead or trying to get there but I would say that's major problem

yeah and my question was more my comment was more about other jurisdictions in terms terms of what they consider minor plat having a different process than what we have that maybe does stay ahead of what that development might be versus the issue that we have. I was just curious in the research so far, have you seen how other jurisdictions do it and if anybody is kind of ahead versus what we're talking about where you know the development is going to come after the minor plat and then here's the issues. Right.

Right. And in terms of also with that analysis or research are other jurisdictions even providing uh a greater percentage versus the 20% limit that we have you know unless it's you know is there anything else like that too that could help uh alleviate maybe some of the issues.

Sure. Sure. And that's that's some of you're right. So I don't have the I don't have the final answer on that. that is a part of the research that we're doing and that's part of some of the development opportunities that we're researching as well that might can address some of those um some of those concerns for smaller lots. Um so to come to to come right and also to consider a lot of our surrounding neighbors don't have one acre lot minimums in their areas. So, you know, you'd have to go north to like Cherokee where you see more of that.

Um, and make sure [clears throat] I I would say try to find someone who is doing best practices, not necessarily next door. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, if you can research anywhere else, right? Yeah. Yeah. One of the I think as I'm seeing this, if I can recapulate what I think I'm hearing is

in our area, I I've even noticed too, it's kind of like I've seen in the 20 years I've lived here, it's kind of gone from rural farms to estates um to a large extent. Land prices have gone up three to five times. um with higher land prices to be able to recover that they're big building bigger houses. Um so you've got I think I saw the data when you presented to the city council home sizes in the last you know comparable periods not even that long are up 20%. So what used to be a 4,000 foot home and Milton is now a 5,000 foot home. Um and the other thing that I think um the COVID pandemic did is more and more people wanted onsite amenities. So where you used to have let's say a development and they had a community pool and community tennis courts now people want those in their backyard. So they so there's also this increase of amenities. And so those factors with the those economic factors I think what I was hearing you say is driving driving two issues that we need to consider. One is how do we consider given those trends what's the right development standards for those 1acre lots whether they're in a preliminary plat or in a I'm subject and the other is you're starting to see issues because as a load on you things are getting approved before they're fully considered and so there's a lot of rework work because someone just took three acres and went a third, a third, a third, but this acre, this lot had trees that wanted to be

this one had more more offset on slope, etc. And so that review did not consider that and so now we're trying to fit that um fit that there where maybe the answer was, gee, that really should have just been two lots, not three, etc. Um I've I think though they ask for us as a planning commission is do we want to take on the review because the and if you make the minor plat something more like a preliminary plat that's going to be something we would see I think is your recommendation and do do we feel we could add value to that for the making it more like a preliminary plat Um, and then the other thing is just our thought process of how do we not make the how do we not make these estates look so dense? Yeah. [clears throat] Um, how do we keep a more open feel and and and yet make it economically feasible but and desirable? I know as an example, there's two houses being built in Milton and they are humongous and they're 60 feet back. I can I can look at I play golf so I kind of have some some perspective of yes, they're meeting the foot, but because they have so much across the front, they look humongous and look really close to the road. And we don't have this concept that says, well, if your house is so wide, it can be 60 feet back. But if your house is wider, it needs to be set back.

That's right. Further, you know, to give that world view.

Yeah. And to give that feeling of I don't have this huge house right on the road. So I think, you know, and that's not a condition we have. And that might be something to add to the list to say. So I think you're hearing us two things. Do we want to review want more review on minor plants including our own? And secondly, what are some of the thoughts that you as staff or we can give to how do we make these estates look more more stately [laughter] and not so, you know, I have to Yeah. Yeah. I have to say some of these it's some of these I've looked at and said, "Oh my god, I you know, I feel like those because they're so big or they're not landscaped, they just look like they're on top of each other. Who would want to live there?" Yes,

I totally agree with everything you said, Jud. Well said. I just think about at what point do we start getting into impinging on property rights? Yeah, I totally agree. I can I can drive up and down certain streets and I see, boy, that's a mega house and it's, you know, probably meets a 60 foot setback, but it looks awkward and it looks funny or, you know, yeah.

Um, and I totally get, you know, with the minor plats, you've got people that own four or five acres and yes, they could feasibly cut it into a third, a third, a third, and you have two prime lots and then you've got a crap lot that has topography issues and all this sort sort of stuff, but it gets platted and creates issues down the down the road. So, I don't necessarily have a solution yet, but I thought but your your points are well stated and then and then mine do we do we start getting into property rights issues. Mhm.

And is it is it possible to have um I'll call it shared amenities, but that's not really what it is. Like some of these these larger residences because of their footprint size require underground storage or and many of them of course require septic systems. But if you had, say, two or three of these houses that would share uh an underground storage or a septic system, it would give you a little more to play with on the lot because I know once you get a lot that's an acre and you try to put a septic system on there and an underground detention and somebody wants a pool on there and now you got to have your trees and it you're you're really packing everything in and trying to meet your setbacks and everything. But if you if you were able to sacrifice a piece of everybody's lot and I know that like you're saying Brian kind of gets into property rights. You can't really force people to and then there I'm sure there's other issues I haven't thought of too. Um

the county also likes you to have a secondary septic site right on the lot too. So that takes up a lot of room.

Yep. But the other thing that we talked about at CPAC, remember, and I was bringing that point up too, and I think somebody else had talked about it too, which could kind of play into this is kind of like you were talking about, Judy, where also the overall trend now is potentially and kind of has been the feedback that we have received and I think the city's been receiving over the last few years of these smaller kind of, you know, one street, 10, 12 houses, you know, that whole thing, which then leads to having your own pool and everything else on your own property, right? Versus the bigger subdivisions where you've got all those amenities. And so, I mean, this is the research for this, which is still going to come into play. But another another way of kind of tackling this is kind of like we were bringing up in the CPAC meeting the first time where from a city standpoint, do we want to have areas or or another area where you can have a larger subdivision, you know, and have that kind of trend back into the city so that you don't have these smaller just 10 12 home subdivisions, but you have a larger subdivision that now has all those amenities there. And so not as many homeowners are going to need to put pools on their properties and whatever else. And that's going to alleviate some of that too because you've got all of those amenities now in a bigger subdivision again. And you know, are there pockets of the city where maybe you could put some development like that, you know, and do we want to look at something like that from our standpoint or uh from a vision standpoint, you know, with the 2040 plan of having an area like that, right? And maybe that helps with some of this too.

Or are we getting to a point in our development where we should consider AG1 being an acre and a half or two acres? I think is a core question too. So it's [clears throat] not AG1. [laughter] That's what we're that's basically what we're getting to. But Brian, when you do that, does does your problem scale? Well, I think when you look at the minor minor plats, I think it gets them to be a little bit more thoughtful, right? Mhm. And if you're a if you're a private property owner that wants to have a minor plat, you're just going to those two maybe it's two lots instead of three and your your land values are going to go up, right? Yep.

So you build even bigger houses on that. Yeah. It's I I think it's a con convoluting. Have you considered is there I [clears throat] know we have hired consultants to help us with comprehensive plans with you know rewriting the UDC all sorts of things. Um, are we to the point we need, is there a good outside consultant that can say, "Gee, I understand enough about this kind of stately rural development um or equestrian development that can say here's, you know, here's some solutions to this or I feel like we're trying to find an answer

and I'm find and I think it um somebody else's what what are other people doing? Can we bring in some ideas or ex are we to the point we need other ideas or do we think we can solve this ourselves? So are we allowed to then also include for instance on a minor plat restrictions or limits let's just say limits on how big the house footprint can be. I know we got setbacks, but lot coverage, lot coverage, right?

There are some footprint ratios, there are amenity ratios there. Um, kind of looked at a quite a few opportunities that that we could we could look at, but there are the approval of the minor plat here's these, right? It could say maximum ratios say this is the maximum size house and then this is the square footage of imperous. That was what I was saying is this has got to come forward ahead of that so they can

Right. Yeah. I mean and that's the that's the whole idea in the analysis I think right. So then if we did that on the front end then okay fine you can split it up into three but here's the maximum lot coverage that you can have for the house and and for the you know anything else and tackle it on the front end. Right. So you're talking about kind of basically subdividing the maximum impervious that's allowed. of let's say it's 20% on the public road or whatever and you're saying okay you're allowed 20% 85% of that can be house under roof footprint and then the other 15% can be other impervious driveway pool cabana whatever is that kind of what you're getting attempting to define something

so that way you kind of have your maximum as to you know how big the the house footprint or whatever could be on the property as through the approval process of the minor plat So then, you know, you're kind of tackling it on the front end so they know, okay, you want to split it up this way. Here's the max. Here's the max. You know, don't come back for the variance later.

Yeah. [laughter] I I'm I'm recalling and four of us were there two uh four years ago when we were looking at a preliminary plat and we looked at it and said that's fine but you will never fit a pool on these lots as you're proposing to develop it and I think it was Commissioner Weissong at the time made a comment that her recommendation was the deed had to state that there was no room for a pool on this So when the people bought the lot, they weren't expecting, oh, I'm going to come in and put thing. I think of another lot where, you know, they were doing a lot of and there were a lot of variances on that, but then I, you know, and I'm sitting there going, "Oh my god, they barely fit the house on there on the littlest bit of space that was buildable." And then the realtor advertised that that they could build a pool. And I'm like, "Uh, about the size of a bathtub. Yes." you know, so so some of that idea that says, you know, what can you do so that when the developer goes to sell the lot, they're not misrepresenting what could be what what is what's possible on it.

Can we have just for a second, can we go back to the aerial the slide that showed the two aerial developments? I think one was 2013 and one was 2017. Yep. That one right there. So, just in a kind of at a high level, is the implication or feedback that we're getting from the public reflective of what we're seeing in that lower photo, which would be the trend today. There's something either bad or negative about that that's either impacting those homeowners that live there or the adjacent homeowners to that new development. Is that the feedback that's coming in from the community?

Yes. As well as the view from from the roadway. Um, so one thing to remember is there's a minor plat usually creates what we'd call like a standalone lot where it would have its own driveway off of a main road. And then a preliminary plat or final plat would create what what you see here. Both of these were created by, you know, it's a we call it a common development. So it's got the interior roads. So while this is the challenge within the internal developments is just that these lots are right at the at the capacity um so just no no flexibility no no buffering um in ability to make any changes um once it fronts the the main road it's actually a lower percentage coverage and that challenge is just the the more of the view from the road. So, um, the standalone lots that were typically be done by minor plat are going to front those main roads. And so, you know, that just adds to the challenge of of the minor plat.

Sure. And a smaller percentage. Yep. Right. So, and then can we flip forward one or two slides to the ones that showed the um the issue the number of issues per year? It's a bar graph. That one right there. So, going back to what we were talking about earlier. So in 2025 it looks like there were ballpark 20 issues. 18 of them got resolved without variances and it looks like what one pool and one driveway went for variance application. Correct.

Okay. And then the previous year's 15 one and then the previous year there was 12 and two went. So yeah so basically five variances out of 12 15s 27. So out of 47 that only resulted in five. So basically 10% plus or minus. So um I mean is is the general consensus that's a high number of variances that are being generated or is it more that it's a high number of issues that need to be resolved by staff to get around the variance issue? Is that what it is?

I think yes. We're just seeing that, you know, we're seeing this increase and are we reaching a point where where we're going to see a lot more, you know, we're trying to catch the the trend um by allowing pvious pavers. That's helped on a lot of these, but is that really should that really be counted towards lock coverage? it's it's an improvement on the ground, you know, do we want to continue allowing that or do we want to look at, you know, other options with that lock coverage? Um, so impervious or pvious papers has been a um that was kind of a something that we were able to work out a few years ago to come up with a policy that as long as they're not being driven on, they can be used for walkways or around pools, but for driveways once a car starts driving on them, you lose some of that ability um for them to function like like they should, but they're still covering the lot. So from a fundamental standpoint, that's something to to consider too.

I think there's a sense too that the staff has been a able to be persuasive in the past to say you can go through all the time to take that to the BCA, but what your ask is going to be rejected. So, let's try to either get that asked to be the, you know, the smaller variance of a foot or, you know, a small amount that they would approve and and not have to bump it up to city council because it was so asked. So, what I see in this line of it going up and up and up is they're pushing they're pushing back. They're trying to find solutions. So far, they've been keeping it from being an issue and getting it to the BZA. You know, some of which do not, you know, some get approved, some do not,

but when's that tipping point come of I just can't help them anymore. And and people will get upset because, hey, I bought this lot and they're not letting me build on it the way I wanted. So, I mean, I I look I look at this graph right here and I I the conclusion I come to is that staff has been extremely effective at resolving issues. That's I mean that's the So, credit to all of you all that are involved in that process. That that's the first thing that jumps off the page. Um this data is I'm assuming is pulled from historical data related to permits. Is that an accurate statement? So,

so the in inquiries isn't tracked related to a permit. That is that was pretty much an email search of all the lock coverage requests over the over the years. So, it didn't actually, you know, get sub submitted. Sometimes it was again worked out. um there there would have been a resulting permit for um for the solution that was worked out, but the as far as getting the number of the because some of these may have abandoned their project and said I'm just not going to move forward or hopefully didn't do it without the permit. But um but the the data that we're seeing in this bar graph I'm assuming comes from permitting data.

Okay. So the the other question I would have is that ha have we looked at other factors that might be driving this trend this I mean we're this is very clear what's going on with the permitting situation and that and but it occurs to me there may be other things driving this and the first two that come to my mind are one the economics of development in the building industry um land is becoming more expensive building homes is becoming more expensive so there's probably a component that's being driven by that. The other one that comes to mind initially would be uh buyer trends. Are buyers looking for larger houses? Are they looking for the more amenities? I mean, I would think that the trend is yes, given the the number of houses that now have pool permits, maybe pool cabanas or or carriage houses or something additional that we didn't used to see 5, seven, 10 years ago. Um, but I'm I'm wondering, do we need to look at those other factors that may be driving some of these trends in order to really wrap our head around what's really driving this? And I I mean, I'll just throw out my opinion. I think basically Milton has done such a great job of creating a wonderful community. Everybody wants to be here and there's a finite supply of land and there's a relatively low inventory of homes.

So what do you get? It's a supply demand [clears throat] curve thing going on where it's going to naturally drive up the cost of land and in order for the at the previous comment in order for the builder to recoup that sunk cost than land they've got to build a bigger house that they can sell for a higher price. So it becomes sort of this vicious cycle. Um, and I I'm just wondering if if you know we need to look we're not going to solve anything in a single night obviously, but if if we need to look at some of those other compounding factors that might be driving these trends. Um, my gut feeling is that it's a combination of both that it is economics, the economics of the building industry. It's it's the e it's the supply and demand curve kind of overlapping that. And there may be some notion to the fact that Americans just or the people in this community just want bigger houses. I don't know. And again, just something to consider.

I am a little bit concerned though, AJ, that in three years, the amount of issues that the staff had to deal with has almost doubled. Oh, absolutely. You know, and that that's Yeah. We need to get out in front of it for sure. Yeah. How do we get out in front of that? um you know to help them because I'm I'm sure the asks keep getting bigger every time too. It's not just the number. It's also you know the the the how much you know gee it looks like I'm over by X. Well you could do this. That'll be that's an easy fix. So it gets to your point at the bigger the asks are the harder the solutions are.

Sure. But that being the case, would it make sense to solicit sort of a wider array of feedback from existing homeowners that have run into issues, land owners that are looking to subdivide and maybe sell or develop, large scale developers that are doing the bigger platted subdivisions, smaller builders that may do your 1 357 subdivision. Maybe get some feedback from realtors, too, to see what the buying trends are. I mean, does it make sense to really sort of deep dive the issue and what's really driving the trend? If if we're going to try to draw a box around this is the issue, this is where we want to be and define the process to get from from A to to Z, I guess. Do we really want to do a, you know, broad sweep investigation of what's really driving it? I mean, sitting here today, I don't know. Um, what I do see is that the trend is definitely going up fast, right, in terms of the workload being created for staff. You guys have done a great job of of nipping most of it in the butt, at least keeping it outside the variance process, but if that trend continues, you know, we're going to be looking at, you know, 50 60 70 conflicts going forward.

Yeah.

And if 10% continues to roll over, then then yes, it becomes a much bigger problem. Um I know that so and I I'm trying to still to me this is two separate but independent levels. One is the minor plat issues don't get addressed soon enough. The other is we've got a lot more in issues with density um on the lot. Do you have the data that says of those requests, these are the ones that come from minor plat? We did a minor plat and it wasn't reviewed. These are we did a preliminary plat and it wasn't reviewed. This is gee this home voter has been there forever. Now they want a pool, you know. So do we have a sense of the cause? Is there a cause and effect? Is the minor plat process contributing to those tw you know how many of the minor how many of the 20 were because of the minor plat not being reviewed earlier.

That's good. That's good feedback. Yes. Yeah. So is you know is it if it's 10 we got to fix the minor plot practice. If it's one Yeah.

That's great feedback. Um, I know me personally if it would be helpful to staff to do more sooner on those minor plats mainly because on preliminary plats we've been able to review them and give some good feedback and suggestions and they've moved septics and stuff like that. Personally, I don't mind taking on a little, you know, yes, there'd be, you know, I think what last year we maybe did a handful of preliminary plats, so there'd be, you know, four times as many of that, but they I would think be fairly quick from that. It's still it's it's not as quick for the div for the home homeowner, however, that owns that three acres and wants to divide it to have to come in and say and present, but they're presenting to you as staff anyway to come and come to us for 20 minutes and make their case. Um, if it saves time down the road and saves them headaches down the road. My one thing too is sometimes a minor plat is I want to take these two lots and combine them.

I don't necessarily need to see that. So this is more subdividing not minor plat subdivide not combine because sometimes people will buy two lots and then say I want to make them one because I want to put the house right in the middle. Go for it. the minor plat process to um modify lot lines or to combine a parcel that would that would that would that is not what's being contemplated that would continue in the ma in the same minor platin it's the creation of new lots that would it was the example of having more due diligence up front [clears throat]

large lots would still follow that minor plat process that's another incentive for the large lots correct process being more streamlined. So it would So I do understand there is a threeacre lot that has is having trouble meeting their 25%. [laughter] It's a lot they're putting on there.

One other kind of sidebar question. So the the the two categorizations of impervious so 20% on public facing 25 on private. What was the the driving I guess reasoning for that? Is it a function of storm water? Is it more to maintain the sort of rural historic look that Milton's always had or I'm just curious just being new to the process where historically that what the driving force was or maybe a little bit of both. I can see probably

has that always been 20% and 25% Robin. Um so when I initially we did the research probably 12 years ago um I think it's what we found at the time was the why there was a difference between um private and public was that there are certain subdivisions that one it includes um golf courses part of their lot and or in a few cases the actual pavement of the road that goes to the center line on private streets. It's not super common. So, I think that the council wanted to allow some uh, you know, relief for those situations where you have cart paths, you know, going on your property that would be impervious and in very few situations where even the street is part of the lot as well. So that was why we were seeking to give typically what was private streets uh a little bit more uh percentage than the public streets.

One of the surprises to me is at the manor many of those homeowners own the golf course landing. Exactly. To get their one acre. They own the golf course. In reality they have less than Yeah. But again they don't have uh septic systems. They have it from public sewer from for but there's still one acre but and where kind of where I was going with it I mean perfect or the nearest example I could site some of the new development that's going on say just slightly east of the downtown Alpharetta area in the green I mean you look at those homes and I mean I'm a civil engineer I I see 70 80% of the lot is impervious right

and I'm thinking that can't possibly be the development standard over there right so are all of those builders that are building those mega mansions, are they getting variances? You know, how is the storm water being made? I mean, you're you're I those are massive massive developments and I'm you know, I'm just curious how they're one, how are they getting it approved um every time you drive by. Yeah. I mean, there's countless example. It used to be an anomaly and now it seems it's the norm over there. Yeah. But as their their storm water is not to retention ponds, it's no it's to it's to county full county

county handled storm water not not necessarily retention and flood and there's there's no room on those lots to put underground detention and stuff like that. So I'm just like you know

I'm just curious how they're getting away with it. uh what I even when I was with the city council, it was like trying to get like what's the problem? Like it's kind of like yeah, what what's what's the cause and effect? What's the what's the what are the drivers? And therefore, if this is the issue, how do we solve it? And I I'm still a little squishy on that with this, but I have has that kind of been clearly defined? And that's I'm coming on the same page as you.

Have we clearly defined what the pro is it is it an aesthetic concern? Is it um the homes are too close together? Are the lots throwing off too much storm water that we're either not in compliance with our agreement with Fulton County or stuff like that? like what is the act like can we draw a box around what the problem actually is it sounds like a lot of it is based on aesthetics from what I some of it aesthetics and the other is the staff workload it's driving

as I understand it is uh it's it's a it's a bit above of what's the impact on the staff workload and then also what guidance does the staff is saying Should we appro Are you okay with this or do you want us to uh drive people in a different direction because we want it to look more like X rather than Y. So I think there's a little bit of staff workload but also guidance seeking guidance to say what do you want this to look like? you know,

ensuring that, you know, the codes reflect that vision of the comp plan and going back to that and and some of it is is, you know, it's not not necessarily numbers or we can't, you know, put it in an equation, but it it's a little more about feeling. And going back to the the comment about working with the the CPAC to to define further define rural and yeah, we feel like just the from the feedback we've heard and from what what is um just the patterns now of of the development along the these main main viewsheds is, you know, are we are we still meeting that vision? um and do the codes allow us to you know work within that within the codes to meet that vision. So that's that's where um you know we are with it and we've we've been so much in the weeds on this but yet we feel like we're not not quite there on the the problem yet and getting the the input from this board as well as from from the public will feel like help help bring do we have you know one one solution are there many is it going to be drawn out over some time is there anything we want to move forward with immediately so that's that's where we start with

should we bring in a consultant? Yeah. Or should we consider is this something you want the plan the CPAC to to look at as an issue? You know, so I'm

right. Well, being old enough to have sat in the original [laughter] CPAC uh with consultants as you're saying it was we got x amount x amount of storage that we can handle but aesthetics was it. I mean every presentation had this is what we want it to look like and I can easily say it was you know large slots for sure and we didn't worry about anything else but that's the vision that everybody had is that you know what everybody says is great right now about Milton is you know it is rural

and I personally think that that's one of the key key things. Yeah, it's a secret sauce. That's why I live here. Yeah, for sure. Yep. Wonderful. Any other comments? V R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R Brian here. Your feedback has been very helpful. Welcome. A little bit of going here, there, and everywhere, but we got there. [laughter] Great. Um, other thing I guess on new business, um, Robin, what's up for the March meeting? What does March look like? [clears throat]

We have a couple of, um, text amendments, some more cleanup text amendments. I'm trying to think what else any more present. Yeah, but yeah, these amendments will be coming up. these actual ones along with a couple other cleanups. So, tax amendment night again. Great. No, no, no new like use permits or anything. No preliminary plats. No preliminary plats. No use permits. No, I don't think it's going to happen. But we are from what I understand the city on this issue we just discussed the city council wants to get a recommendation CZIN to officially uh made by us and to them by April.

Well so we need to hear it special called um meeting on the 30th correct for city council. So we haven't set the date yet but before the 13th. Right. So, because of spring break, there's odd council dates. It's all been pushed because of spring break. So, um I think they're looking at finalization on the 13th. Correct. Yeah, that's a nice way of saying we need quorum at the March meeting. So, thank you for [laughter] attending. But you're correct. We have CZIM the night before your meeting on the and then this and then fairly quickly the city.

Yeah. Okay. Are you all seeing I mean obviously there's a moratorum on anything that's impacted by the AG1 you know the issue that's kind of up for debate but are we not seeing applications for other smaller developments that are outside or possibly larger developments that are outside that they're just not coming in right now?

Just the the whole process of development takes a bit of time. We do have a couple of developments that have been in that beat the moratorum that's been in our process for a while that we're meeting on like for subdivisions uh preliminary plat um I do believe that um with minor plats people know about the moratorum so those we haven't really had a lot of inquiries I think they're waiting to hear what happened so we do have some um preliminary plat kind of in review right now. Okay. Um that had gotten well that didn't include

as well as some more use permits in the Deerfield area or potential. We don't have anything official yet, but we anticipate some more. They're having some meetings. Yeah. Yeah. It's not quiet. It's just it may be quiet on planning commission, but we're pretty busy on the staff level. So, yeah. So yeah, I do see we met with another group on another parcel um in Deerfield. So I mean in the next, you know, six to nine months, I'm sure you'll be seeing more uh come before you. So I would think now that now that that first one got approved. Yes. Not not that it's going to open the floodgates, but now everybody there's a standard. Everybody knows where the mark is. So

Right. Right. [clears throat] Okay. Any other questions for staff or Paul? Thank you, Paul. You've been helpful but quiet over there. Rainful. Uh, with that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. We have a motion to adjurnn for from Commissioner Mcnes. I believe Commissioner Shaw snuck in with the second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are adjourned. Thank you all very much.