Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

March 25th, 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 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 Commissioner Vic Jones, Commissioner Brian Mcnes, Commissioner AJ Bou, Commissioner Stephanie Butler, and Commissioner Fred Edwards. Absent this evening is Commissioner Sumit Shaw. The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed in the published agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures for conducting this meeting. I have a lot to read and one of them involves instructions that if you'd like to speak, you need to fill out a yellow card. So, if you want to get that while I'm reading, um, feel free. 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 its position. If time remains, the opposition will be allowed to rebut. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make closing remarks provided time remains with the allotted time. The staff of the community development department will be keeping track of time and inform you periodically of the remaining time for your presentation.

Each speaker must fill out a speaker card before speaking and leave it with a staff member of the community development department. All speakers will identify themselves by name, address, and organization if applicable before beginning their presentation. When any opponent of a resoning action has made within two years immediately preceding the filing of the resoning action being opposed, campaign contributions aggregating $250 or more to a local government official of the local government which will consider the application. It shall be the duty of the opponent to file a disclosure with the governing authority of the respective local government at least 5 days prior to the planning commission meeting. A violation of the relevant state statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Therefore, if you have contributed $250 or more to a council member and have not timely filed a disclosure prior to the planning commission meeting, the city attorney strongly suggests that you have someone speak on your behalf. Each application has been properly filed with the community development department. Signs have been posted at each site. The matter has been advertises advertised and the notices have been mailed to the property owners affected by the resoning as required by the melting zoning ordinance. The planning commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the city of Milton mayor and city council for final dep disposition at a forthcoming meeting to be held in these council chambers on April 13th, 2026. The community development department has reviewed each application in conjunction with various agencies and departments both internal and external to the city if applicable. The community development department's recommendations, findings, conclusions are here before us in

written form which has been made available to all petitioners and to the public. Demonstration of any sort within the council chamber is prohibited. So please refrain from any applause, dialogue with the person speaking or outbursts. Please turn off or all cell phones or place them on silent. All remarks will be addressed by the planning commission. Please show the same respect to the person speaking that you will expect to receive yourself. In addition, the applicant shall not submit material to the planning commission during the meeting unless requested to do so by the commission. All material that you wish to be reviewed by the commission in consideration of your application should be submitted to the staff at the community development department to be included in the normal distribution of packages to the commission. Finally, to the applicant, if your petition is deferred by the planning commission in accordance with the Milton zoning ordinance, you are required to update or obtain a new sign for reposting. Failure to update or repost will result in further delay. There are no exceptions. Um, so first we will consider the and adopt the agenda. Can I get a motion and a second regarding adoption of the March 25th, 2026 regular planning commission meeting agenda?

Motion to uh accept and adopt the agenda for Wednesday, March 25th. Second. Um, I have a recommend I have a motion from Commissioner Mcnes with a second from Commissioner Edwards to recommend approval of the agenda. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. Um, can I get a motion and a second regarding the February 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting action minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the February 25th meeting action minutes.

Seconded. I have a motion from Commissioner Butler with a second from Commissioner Below to recommend approval of the February 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting action minutes. All those in favor?

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. That passes unanimously. Do we have any general public comment? So, we have no general public comment. So, we also have no preliminary plats to tonight to consider and we have no reasonzonings or use permits to tonight to consider. However, we do have one text amendment to consider it to consider. So, that's the consideration of text amendments to the city of Milton zoning ordinance. The first amendment on tonight's agenda is for RZ26-03 text amendments to the Unified Development Code regarding minor plats and AG1 standards to the following. Article two, general provisions. Article three, agricultural districts. Article six, special purpose districts. Article 9, site development. Article 10, streets and improvements. Article 11, environment, article 12, administration, and article 13, definitions. I would like to call up Sarah Leers, our community development director, and Tracy Wilds, uh, deputy community development director, to present the staff report for RZ2603. And have you all had a chance to put in your yellow cards? Still waiting on one. Have yours.

Okay. Sarah Tracy.

Right. Good evening, Planning Commission. So, we have a lot of content here, but we first wanted to touch on this this more accelerated timeline and just kind of walk through what we've been doing pretty much this entire year so far. This has taken um a bit of our our time and effort to focus on this. So, I'm going to start with a slide we showed at um to city council as we started talking about amendments. So in early January, a emergency moratorum was enacted related to minor plats. So that's lots less than three acres and there's less than three total. Following that, staff did a lot of research on development trends on what we were seeing with minor plats, looked at the numbers, um came back to council on I believe it was February 9th when the moratorium was extended um until additional code amendments were adopted or until uh June 9th of 2026. So following that presentation, we did a a staff analysis, presented some um data to council in February. we came to you all in at your February meeting to discuss some of those trends and some of the data and start talking about what the what the concerns were. Um following that we advertised for the CZIM and then the public hearings which are tonight and the April 13th date. Um due to advertising timelines this that really drove what our schedule is from February 9th on out to April 13th. Last night we held the community zoning information meeting and tonight we are here at planning commission to discuss these proposed amendments. We'll have a first presentation at a special called meeting. It'll actually be April 1st um

not March 30th. So it's a Wednesday morning 9:00 a.m. city council first presentation of these amendments and it will be on the zoning agenda on April 13th. Just wanted to just highlight again why we are we're moving on this faster track with these is because there is a moratorum in place and we were hoping to get through um the review and the analysis and present some some code amendments.

That special called on April the 1st will be the first read. There will not be a presentation that at that meeting but the first read of that item and the the code amendments that were published with the packet. We have made a few modifications to that following the CZIM last night. We do recognize there's a few additional things that will likely change. We'll highlight um a couple of those as we talk through the the amendments tonight, but we we are able to we we'll have to publish um a set of the packet for the first presentation. But um we're hoping to get your feedback tonight and then make any of those changes in order to prepare for that April 1 uh first presentation. So we wanted to start with some of the input that we received following the February 9th extension of the moratorum. We held two public input sessions where it was really to hear from the public what the concerns were, what some possible opportunities that that others felt um that could address the the items that had been brought forward related to AG1 as well as to minor plat. So this is just a summary of from that public input what we heard there was a lot of consensus around the concerns around the problem but there were some different different opportunities that were identified by the public. First of all, development intensity. So, not only more houses, but more on those individual lots that any sort of land division does does affect those rural viewsheds, rural character. Um, that AG1 lot development was really shifting more

towards those minimum requirements that are in the code for AG1. Um some a little bit about division through the minor minor plat process. That was one of the items that had been been discussed as well was was that those divisions sometimes happen with very little analysis of the lot before it's divided. Of course the the financial piece with rising land cost and preferences lead to bigger homes and more amenities. The areas where we did get mixed feedback was on what what opportunities there would be. What is it an improvement to the process limits on division and or improving those standards for lot development? And lastly, finding that balance between rural character as well as recognizing property rights. So that's just a summary of the general public input that we've received.

Yeah. Okay. So, as we looked at the proposed code amendments that we would be considering, we identified three different areas. One, a primary initial focus, and you can see those listed in the top four. While we've identified eight, uh the first four would be the primary focus that we um began looking at. And as we look at lot coverage and buildable area and the natural area buffers along with the minor plat that those areas of focus aligned with the public input uh feedback that we received from those input meetings. Um we also looked at um a secondary u set of items with analysis and public input regarding the asbuilt requirements um and even consideration of a new agricultural uh track exception. Uh again comparing all of these back to the public input that we received as we were going through these code amendments. We did stumble upon some areas that uh we wanted to take advantage of for a code cleanup um almost to sort of take care of lowhanging fruit as we come across that in the code. So you will we will identify that. Uh number eight, the development bond types were an internal um identified area that we came across that we wanted to um consider at this time as well. Okay. Um, just for um, to preface the presentation, we tried to rely heavily on graphics to explain a lot of the code textes that we were changing. You will notice at the top um, we identify what category this fell under. So, I will go back to the proposed code amendments again, primary, secondary, code cleanup.

So we'll identify for example in the first one where it says lot coverage and then we have identified what area within the UDC that this is located. So you have a copy of the proposed red line uh there at your at your station. Um so hopefully that's going to be a good reference for each of these graphic slides. So when it came to lot coverage um before in our ordinance we considered lot coverage to be anything on the left side that was in color right any imperous surface. However there was in the previous we would exclude permeable pavers that were proposed for pool decking and sidewalks. uh we would exclude those from the lot coverage but by policy only. That was not identified in the ordinance. As we began looking at this in the new revised proposal, we would now include those permeable pavers but exclude the pools and the hot tub water surface. And that is better aligning our lot coverage definition with our imperous surface related to storm water. So water surface of the pool isn't treated as storm water. Um and so it's not included in that impervious list of definitions. So what this definition change does is it aligns our lock coverage and our imperous surface definition to include the same things. Um with related to permeable pavers, our policy we we had not previously included those for drivable surfaces. Um but we did allow them at one time for walkways or pool decks. the maintenance needs with those and just the challenges of keeping them

actually functioning as permeable is a difficult item for an individual homeowner to maintain. So, we'd recommended while we now exclude those, we would allow the the pool surface as a um as another counter measure to where if we're taking away the use of permeable, we're adding the water surface as a as another opportunity there. Any questions before we move on? And we're refined to pause kind of after each slide just to to make sure the intent of it is uh clarified. Okay. Again, in relating relationship to lot coverage, this example would be in common developments, the lots that are adjacent to a public street would require 20% maximum coverage. In this example, the private street for the common development would allow internal lots to have a maximum imperous coverage or lot coverage of 25%. Um this also the front lots that are adjacent to a public street would also align with our requirement for architectural review. So if you can consider that the in a common development any lot on a in the rural viewshed is architectural this would be the same application that they would also require a maximum of 20% lot coverage related to that same section 6.3 of the UDC We also included that any large lots, lots 3 acres or greater or any side lots

created through this agricultural tract exception that we'll explain more later that those could be that higher percentage whether they fronted a public road or not. Um because those are both incentives for some larger tracks to remain. So the change is to include both of those as 25% lock coverage. So that is the the illustration on the left on the right a proposal is that when we have a 20% lot coverage where the initial coverage is 20% where it fronts a main um a main public road that if that lot was able to designate 10% of the lot area for agricultural purposes which we describe what those activities could be that they could be eligible for a 5% increase, which would take them from 20 to 25% if that incentive is approved. And that incentive would be presented to the board of zoning appeals with a set of criteria related to the the applicability of those agricultural purposes. The um the ability to to maintain and manage those in a in a way that would reflect the vision of of agricultural uses um along frontages or within lots. and um that the lot would not be over the max percentage when they made that request. And finally, that before any improvements were submitted to utilize that request that if those purposes didn't exist yet that they would be installed before any plans were submitted that would take advantage of that lot coverage bonus. And this is one of the ideas that came

up through our public input was that perhaps lots that were limited to the 20% that there would be a way if they were using the property for for agricultural purposes that possibly that an incentive could apply related to lock coverage. Okay, this represents a figure that is within the code.

We know what we just stopped. We just stopped our section of lot coverage. So, is there is there any We'll pause here because we're beginning a new section. Is there any questions related to the lot coverage that we've reviewed thus far? going to define later the agricultural purposes later on. Correct.

We defined those within It's going to be on your code amendment sheet. It's going to be on page I think the bottom of page two. And then we have the nine of 20 page nine of 21 of the code amendments has that description of the um agricultural purposes. So it says involving ongoing crop production, orchards, gardens, pasture, vineyards, berry production or specialty crop cultivation, pollinator habitat or native meadow planting, livestock grazing or animal husbandry or apiaries within the lot. how would they um enforce that?

So, one of the proposed elements that the board of zoning appeals would review is that the proposed use includes a reasonable plan for ongoing maintenance and management and the risk of abandonment, reversion, or misuse is minimal. So, as they look at what is being proposed for that use, if there's something about it that says, "Well, this could easily be abandoned or converted to something else," that's part of the consideration of the board of zoning appeals is how we have it proposed right now. But there's if there's an opportunity to work in additional checks and balances related to that, we would be glad to explore that further. Okay.

Yeah. The challenge becomes is if they can convince the BCA to allow them to have more coverage that's permanent, you know, construction. And so, and then if they don't have the crops or the grazing or whatever, it's hard to come back and say, "Oh, you have to take that building down." So it is difficult to enforce. Absolutely. Um but the flip side of that is not saying I'm against it. I'm just saying how you control it. Yeah. It's you know it's the uh we're trying to encourage gardens in lie of a pool. Sure. Yeah. No,

but it we we see today where it's difficult to enforce that where people get exceptions for tree canopy coverage to put in a pasture and then we never ever see any an animals grazing the pasture. One other thing to note on that is that originally we had thought, well, this could be applicable to those that where the initial coverage is either 20 or 25, but in thinking about it, we felt like if we limited it to only the ones that were at 20% to begin with, we're not going to have any lots that are over 25. So, it's it's almost like taking that private street frontage option of 25, but allowing that same coverage that would be would would be allowed within a private subdivision to some of these lots that may front a public road as long as they they meet that agricultural purpose. So, it is it's putting those two see those two numbers are now in line at 25. So, it's while it is an incentive, it's still 25 is still our cap um citywide.

So, one question is someone wants to put beehives out there. Is it just the little box where the beehives are or if you plant flowers around it that counts, too? I would think um yeah, anything that would support that. I think you do have a reference to to um meadows. Okay. Also says pollinator habitat. Yeah. Habitat. Okay. I think habitat might be a little broader. That's a concern.

Any other questions? Okay, this one is a lot of information on a single slide. What we wanted to highlight here and we've we've revised the new figure based on some feedback we heard at the CZIM. So the figure on the left is what's currently in the code and it just refers to a minimum lot area outside flood plane and it shows a buildable area outside flood plane. It also references a square. It's the code uses a 35 by 35 foot square minimum heated floor area when a zoning district doesn't include a minimum heated floor area. So that's what's currently in the code. What we're proposing is going to show additional information. So we still have the red box that is the minimum 50% of the lot area outside the flood plane. So that's unchanged. We have further defined the buildable area as it's this um shading with the the small dots in it. So that is going to be outside all the setpacks outside the flood plane and outside any stream buffers. So the the previous graphic didn't reference other sort of buffers or easements that may exist on a lot. So, our buildable area is outside of all of those. The additional things we've added on the new graphic is showing a usable area and showing lot coverage. So, the usable area is going to be outside of any rural viewshed or natural area buffer that we'll talk about in a I believe the next section.

So you build usable area can can go all the way to the side property lines. It can include area for septic um drain fields or underground storm water. Those can all be in the usable area. And then the lock coverage is limited to the buildable area. So the lot coverage is the dark gray box and that's going to be what we just talked about on the previous slides. whether it's 20 or 25% of the lot area

and it looks like we're adding a definition of usable area as well correct

in the definitions. Okay. And then related to both usable area, buildable area, and then bringing that lot coverage that we just discussed, we're going to show how all of those overlay with each other and how we're looking at some percentages related to the total lot size and have those be proportional to the actual lot size. So we start with start with the lot area and whether that's in the 1 to three acre category, the 3 to five or the five plus is that's the first thing we look at is that's always the denominator of these percentages is the lot area. Next thing we have within that is our usable area. So the only thing that's going to be offset from is if there's a rural viewshed, if there's a buffer or a flood plane, that's going to be your usable area. Then within that we have the buildable area which is within the setbacks and finally the lock coverage. So what the code is proposing is actually percentages related to again that total lot area being the denominator of the percent calculation. And so of the of the entire lot you have that 40% I guess first let's start with lot coverage. If your lot coverage is a 20% maximum, you still you have to be able to show that there's 30% of the lot that's buildable area within the setbacks, 40% of the lot usable within the property lines and excluding any buffers.

And that's again related to the total lot size. So hopefully that that makes sense. Um, when you get into the 3 to 5 acre lot size bucket, those numbers change slightly. They they're actually a little lower because you do have larger larger lot area. We're jumping topics now. So, yeah, we the last one on buildable area. Buildable area.

Yeah. So in buildable area we would have a new figure graphic, a new definition for usable area and then the pro proposed percentages of what those areas would be allotted. Page three. All right, we're going to move ahead. The next thing we have is our natural area buffer. So the idea behind this is to consider a natural area in relationship to uh lots uh in a in a couple of different scenarios on the top in uh item B and this will relate back to section 3.1.10 where a sideyard is adjacent to a rear yard. So in this example, if the rear yard right now is a 50-foot setback, if that abuts to a proposed lot being development that is in a side yard, your 50 foot rear yard is now adjacent to someone's sideyard of 25 ft. The proposal would be that within that first 15 feet of the 25- foot side setback, that would be a buffer. That would be a screening, a vegetative screen to provide some additional

screening for that rear adjacent property that's next to you. So, rear yard that abuts a sideyard, 50 feet to 25 ft. And that first 15 feet of that the 25 ft would be a natural buffer.

That doesn't doesn't change the side setback at all. Side setback's still 25 ft. So there's still 10 ft beyond that buffer where grading can happen to if the house needed to be right at that 25 foot side setback. The other item related to that is it's preferred to be in its natural state but may be enhanced with additional plantings as required like we would look at with a a rural viewshed or other other buffers that that we would look at what's existing there and on a case by case determine if additional planting is needed consistent with how we've approached it in other situations. This would be side. Is that what that says?

This is going to be C.

And so it looks like from the language proposed you you're in this in these buffers you couldn't put storm water. You couldn't put septic fields. subject tanks. You can put a fence, but Yeah. Right.

And that would limit the usable area. So now if a buffer's in place, the usable area cannot encroach into that because it isn't allowed to be used for those sort of things. And just one quick point of clarification. Let's say we go into any one of these scenarios that's shown if the existing natural vegetation is not dense enough to provide sufficient screening from the proposed new construction, there is an option for the city to require planted screening. Okay. Just want to make sure that was in there.

With the exception of the minor plat. So on E, we did not, that was the one that we were proposing not to add additional items to unless something was disturbed um with the creating access to that new new home from a minor plat. But all the others um we were adding a a condition that and enhance with additional planting as required by the director. So in the example of C where you have a an an adjacent uh single family that's next to a large lot then that proposal would be to have a 25- ft natural buffer around the contiguous property line that's adjacent to that large lot. So if you had a a single family dwelling on a small lot less than three acres adjacent to a large lot then that natural buffer would come into play there along that property linear

side correct side or rear. Indeed, the example would be that if a subdivision, a common development is coming in next to a large lot, then a 50-foot buffer natural area would be recommended to to go along that side. So, let's say you've got um a a shared property line to an existing large lot and a common development comes in on the side. Then that side property line would the new development would propose a 50-foot natural area there to provide screening and vegetation to that existing large lot. And then E would be a recommendation for a right now within a minor plat. The rule viewshed does not apply. So for any lots that are created under the minor plat process for a single family, it would be the incorporation of a 25- foot natural buffer like we have uh on major subdivisions that would go along with the minor plat. And on that minor plat, we do have an allowance for a construction disturbance area. So, we know equipment needs to get in and construction on the the front of the house. So, we've provided an allowance for disturbing that area to be able to access and construct that home that's um adjacent to the roadway. And then we we also note that if there's disturbance just within that area that that would be the only portion on a minor plat that would require additional vegetation. The rest of the the frontage would would remain in its existing state.

Yep. So for clarification, if D applied and you have to put this HOA 50 foot buffer, then C might not apply because now that house is adjacent to the buffer, the HOA buffer of 50 ft, not the large lot. That's correct.

So it's not an additive. It's not like you have to do D and C because C is no longer contingent or abudding the large lot. It's a lot it's abudding the 50-foot HOA natural area. Okay, that's correct. And we have a uh a statement here in in this section that where more than one condition applies to the same lot, only the greatest buff buffer width shall be required along that boundary. So you're right. It's not in addition to, it's one or the other. Yeah. As it applies.

And on any of these scenarios, any of the vegetation within these buffers um would still be able to count towards tree canopy. We're not saying this is an addition to tree canopy. So even that common area in case D the um as those lots come in a portion of that common area can actually count toward the individual lots tree canopy requirement. Okay. Now on to section four which is minor plats. So the first item related to 12.6.2.8.8 is the conditions that allow a minor plat to resubdivide. So the first two have have been in this section of code. We did clarify it by using a bulleted list versus embedding in the code. But a minor plaque can be re-ubdivided first of all if no new lots are created. So if a lot line is just moved, this is the far left example. If the lot line between lot one and two is just moved slightly, that can be done through minor plat or resubdividing something that was already created through minor plat. The next case is if all lots within the minor plat are three acres or greater, it can be resubdivided. Say you had one three acre lot and one sixacre lot. You could resubdivide to three three acre lots because they're all greater three great acres or greater. The final item that we added to this list is lots pursuant to this new agricultural tract exception. So we'll explain a little bit more of this. I may jump ahead to that slide so we can we

can cover it while we're while we're on this topic. But that if a large tract is retained that smaller tracks can be created as long as at least one of the tracks is a larger size.

So if you will in your graphics in the in in this packet that we provided for you go to page 14. So this a tract exception, let's consider if you had uh 27 acres and uh you've had that property for 20 years and you wanted to subdivide that property to give a child an acre of that land and then three years later or five years later you came back and wanted to give another child or a grandchild another acre of that land. Right now the code says that you cannot do a minor plat of a minor plat. You can't have multiple minor plats in re reoccurring. What this would do is almost identify those legacy lots so to speak. It would give you the opportunity to con to do a minor plat now for a child or for a family member. Carve out that one acre and then at a later time come back and carve out another portion of that land for another family member. As long as you maintain some preservation of uh what we are identifying as a is is 10 acres right now. So there are right now there are tracks large tracks that take advantage of the KUVA um the cons conservation use valuation assessment right so that any large lot that has a CVA um identifies that area where the residence is located

right now that term or that duration lasts for 10 years so the intent of this a tract exception is to mirror that there may be large tracks right now that do not are not active in a coova. Right? So if if there was a a large lot that wanted to take advantage of this act exception and they did not have a existing coova um then this allows them to do that. If a track is already engaged in a coova then it would run concurrent with the duration of the kuba that's already inactive. So wouldn't be additional. It would run uh consecutively with if you were in your second year of your KUVA then because right now we're identifying that the protection of 10 acres would be for 10 years following when that minor plat is issued. But if a coova exists already then it would follow that duration that has been applied. And that's a additional condition we would add to both the definition and to this section 12.6.2.8.11 would be to add if a CUVA exists, this shall run concurrent with that applicable timeline. So that if there's already a CUVA in place that we're not replacing that 10 year or that timeline that it may already be on with a new 10-year timeline. So the 10 years is if there's not a coova a way to still add some time length of protection of that larger tract. Help me out. I'm not an expert at Kuva. I will start by saying that. But if they had a cooa, subdividing it would violate the kuba. So they're going to wait until the ka expires before they subdivide.

So it would be outside I believe of that the Kuba would be have identified a 10acre tract. So any subdivision would be outside of that area but they probably would have put the whole let's say 27 acres under Kua not just subdivide. So it's take a look at that because I think the practicalities of KUA is once you have a KUVA, you aren't replatting and paying the penalty. Oh, nope. Somebody that knows Kua is shaking their head out.

Yeah. Yeah, but we're talking about adding an additional acre for multiple. Okay.

Okay. Just Yeah, double check and make sure we're in compliance. It's one thing we also wanted to make sure we did with this allowance was to to set some sort of a cap. if it's a 40 acre land lot tract where if a 10acre was set aside that could allow up to 30 1acre lots and that that isn't the the intent of this. So we did put a yield a maximum yield for how many carveouts there could be based on a 3 acre lot density. So that is another component of this. Um if if any of the lots created do trigger any of those natural area buffers, whether it's the frontage on the public road or it's the adjacency to a another large lot that this doesn't exempt from those natural area buffers. It exempts from the number of times the minor plaque can be divided and from that may be the only it seems like there was another place in the code where we referenced with the exception of this agricultural tract exemption. Oh, it was the lot coverage. Lot coverage is 25% for anything any of these 1acre lots that are created through this provision can have 25% lot coverage. And that concludes the minor. No, there was one more on minor plats, isn't there? So this is a change to article 13 definitions for both the

driveway modified single family residential access or shared private drive and the driveway detached single family residential access or shared private drive. So we have two definitions related to private driveways. one is primarily for and maybe we start with showing what these the driveway we're going to call it the driveway mo modified driveway. So that was created as a um large lot incentive where when developments of 3 plus acre lots were subdivided, they would not have to provide a traditional private or public paved road that they could utilize a driveway instead. So what that allowed is on the top left. This is the consery of Sweetapple

um development off Sweetapple Road. So the lot lines you can see are in that yellow that outlines the four different lots that were created with that development. And the modified driveway is you can see it runs across all the lots. It it functions like a roadway access. It it doesn't have to meet all the roadway standards only the the fire access standards. But you can see how in that case it didn't have to be in its separate ride of way and it's allowed to serve all of those lots. The example in the lower right hand corner is actually the homestead. All of those lots in the homestead are larger than three acres. Three acres or larger. So that incentive for large lot was to be able to utilize a modified driveway. So in the homestead, this is a shared modified driveway that's in the homestead. So these large lots do not necessarily have a frontage to a a road, a what we considered a road because this is a modified driveway, and they do not have frontage to Hopewell, which is the exterior road that this development's off of. But as an incentive, because these are large lots, the modified driveway does apply. Now, the modified driveway can be built, as Sarah said, to meet fire standards, but it can meet, you know, road standards as well, but it's not a right of way. Um, in what we think of a a right of way in a common development, that's that's uh that's a true road.

So, our modification to that definition is to expand it to say or. So, it it talks about that it it's um provided access to any number of single family lots provided they're accessed are each a minimum of three acres in size or lots created through the agricultural tract exception that we just talked about. So, lots created through that can also use this modified driveway. So, they don't have to create a roadway to access the one carveout lot that they're creating. So, it's going to be able to be used for the agricultural tract exception. And then we also added a modified driveway shall not be constructed to public or private should not be considered a public or private street and shall not be improved or converted into a public or private street intended to serve additional lots. So, just additional protections on that that driveway that that it isn't intended to be a road um or to stub out to another parcel where it could could become a road. And then back to the other definition. So, this is the definition of driveway detached single family residential access or shared private drive. So, the situation we have with this one is that definition allows for two lots to share a single driveway. And this um plat example shown at the bottom of this slide shows a situation where we we have one of these and we're running into lot coverage issues already on a 2.2 acre lot and a 3.2 twoacre lot because of the the length of that

driveway and because it's it's shared and lot two is having lot coverage for that driveway beyond where their driveway ties in. So they're they're having the burden of additional impervious from that driveway that's accessing lot three. So, what we're proposing for minor plats is that individual driveways are allowed, public or private streets are not allowed, shared driveways are not allowed, and that those three plus acre lots can continue to use that modified driveway. And that concludes our section four on minor plats. Now we are moving to the next tiered group of things that came up during our public input that realized were were good items to consider as well. So Tracy, we'll start with the asbuilt requirement.

So this would be an asbuilt requirement at the time of CO. So uh in this instance um I want to bring attention to the box in the upper left hand corner where it identifies the lot coverage. This was also a a feedback in our public comment uh even at minor plat include this lot coverage that's allowed for a minor plat so that it's visible to the user who will be applying for a building permit or developing that lot to truly know what maximums are in place for that lot that's been subdivided. Um but at the time of CO uh the recommendation would be that a asbuilt requirement or an asbuilt survey be conducted. Um that would state the maximum allowed coverage. Uh it would also um identify when that foundation survey is needed. So if it's within 5% of your maximum lot coverage, it would be required. um if it's within a foundation, you know, within five feet of a setback or a buffer or an easement or another structure, then it would be required. Um that would be to verify the location footprint and then you see the requirements of the asbuilt survey which it lists all of the impervious, the lot coverage, any setback compliance um and then your your certificate of occupancy would be issued. The great thing about this is that if later this same resident wanted to come back and apply for a pool permit, it would be very easy for staff then to go back, pull this certificate of occupancy, look at this as built and identify how much uh lot coverage remains. So in the example of the box, you would see just in this example and for example only that this would have a

max coverage of 20% for this lot. It would show what their square footage of impervious that they're that was existing and proposed and what that total is that they are at a 15% um at the time of CO issuance and then available would be a lot coverage of a 5% remaining So, this was an area in the code that we came across that we wanted to clean up. Right now, um the code um says that for any lots that are adjacent to a lake lot, then those lines would extend to the center line of the lake. Now, it could the lake could encompass one single lot. Um, but what we did not want it what we wanted to clearly state in the ordinance is that in the right-hand example, if it's a common area that's owned by an HOA, then the lot lines would go up to that that flood line or up to the lake. It would not extend the lot lines into the center of the lake. That would just clean up any ownership of that lot and not have shared access of a common area. Okay. And then the last item for cleanup and this was internally identified was development bond types. So we have development bonds that are associated with new developments um particular in in LDP's land disturbance permits and um the idea here would be that any bond that's um right now an applicant has an

opportunity to provide a cash bond or a shy bond. But we are encountering a problem with the cash bonds exceeding the 18-month duration of a normal agreement for bonds. So if that were to exceed the 18-month time frame, then at that time that cash bond that does not exceed 250,000 would be transitioned to a shity bond. And then all maintenance bonds be a shy bond instead of a cash bond. And again, lowhanging fruit that we identified that we could um identify as a cleanup in the code as we're looking at this related to AG1 lot developments.

I had a question going back to the asbuilt requirements. If we can go back just a few slides there. What what constitutes and I not the language here. constitutes quote completion of principal structure end quote. So that as built so in this example if the that the foundation the porch for any house that's to be built then it would go back your asbuilt would identify uh any structure that's been constructed on site. So so it could be principal struct it could be number it could be principal structure or structures right? That's correct. Okay.

That's correct. It could could be structures if there's multiple but then I'm I'm just thinking about and I'm reflecting on my own experience of getting a co if it's like okay before I can move into my house I have to get this you know if the if the principal structure has been completed like how do you define completion completion of of what the foundation completion of the house to the point where everything's in it is it just completion of the structures that would impact the lot coverage what I'm saying is I don't I don't want a home a homeowner to get to the end of construction and have to wait four more weeks after they really could have moved into the house, but they've got to comply with this requirement if we're really just concerned about verifying that the lot the structures impacting lot coverage how they were built, which is essentially the foundation or any other structures. Does that make sense? Am I making sense? I don't. Yeah, I could. Can we get what's needed done when the building is finished on the outside and the pool house is finished, but we haven't

painted the interior drywall yet. Yeah. Yeah. Or put the appliances in, which doesn't impact lot coverage whatsoever.

Yeah. But it does affect a CO. You got to have your water heaters in. So this would be a requirement that's identified early in the process for that building permit and on the building permit plans on the plans that's that's submitted and approved if the applicant is following that approved plan the as built would be pretty quick. You've got you've got your proposed plans that been approved and unless there is some some drastic change to the footprint that's been applaed to to those plans, the the asbuilt survey should be uh a pretty quick process.

Yeah. The exception I would be is I think that I I was not the original owner, but for example, the people that bought the house came in and said, "I want the deck to be bigger." And the builder said, "Okay, I'll make the big I'll I'll make the deck bigger." Well, that would affect the lot coverage and it would affect the as build even though it was something like the appliances were in, the paint was done, the trim was done, but it was a add-on at the end.

That's correct. And that happens, right? I mean during the process there may be there may be revisions during the um during the construction process but then a revision could be submitted that that then is an amendment to the approved plans. Uh again that's that's a good point. It's it's a way of checking to make sure that the final product matches the approved plans that were that the co was issued for. And in in addition, any driveway or PA patio or things that may not be associated initially with the the actual vertical construction of the building, but do impact lot coverage. We want to capture those at the final point, too, um, of how the driveway was actually built or if a a PA patio or some other impervious was added that wasn't on the site plan. I think the last slide again was just a a recap of again what we heard um from our public input meetings. This is

so as you read through some of these, we did capture those in the first slide and this was a lot of information. So we're we're happy to go back over any slide. This does conclude the the presentation the graphics portion. Um but we can certainly revisit or take questions.

Um so does the commission have any questions for staff? I have one is more of a comment and um I think 250k should be spelled out as 250 comma 0000 just and it's in two places. That's a nitpick and um this to me this was very helpful to be able to have the presentation and be able to go and say okay we covered that. Okay, we covered that. What questions do people have? Um, one basic question I have going back to your very your slide where you had, you know, the number one through eight on the proposed agenda. It's almost like a table of contents. Are there is it safe to assume that the primary is the most important that we get settled? The second area is the next most important and the code cleanup is if we didn't get it done by April 13th, it wouldn't be the end of the world. with the exception of number six or sorry number five because as we started looking at whether we changed the minor plat eligibility or the process the asbuilts really while we didn't identify them initially they really rose to a a kind of a low hanging fruit and easy easy one to document some of the concerns through through that asbuilt um process. So, it was identified secondarily, but I believe it is a a fairly important one for for just tracking and for um verifying lot coverage and building area and buffers and kind of all those things that are in that primary list. The the asbuilt helps

confirm those. So it's almost like in your opinion we need to at least cover one through five or one through six to be able to feel comfortable recommending that the moratorum be lifted or 1 through eight.

I mean that's really tough. It's a tough question. I think I think if there's anything that is is questionable, if there's anything that there's a large discussion about tonight that needs a little more thorough thinking, I think that we could consider that. But we've what we've tried to do is identify some primary, secondary, and and low hanging fruit items that So just just general question about the process. So, and I want to make sure I understood a comment that was made at the beginning. Have these amendments been presented or made available to the public yet prior to this discussion tonight. So this one

because I know there was a CZIM. So the CZIM we we published these amendments on Monday the 23rd. Okay. in preparation for this agenda tonight and then also shared that as part of the the meeting documents for the CZIM. So those were published Monday and then so they were published before the CZIM but that was the first time that they have been available. But in a general sense they've basically been out there for about 22 days 48 hours or so forth. Right. Correct. How many people attended the CZIM? roughly four.

Okay. And that's my concern. Um, is that, you know, stepping back and looking at this from a high level, there's a lot of parties that are impacted. I mean, these these are some pretty dramatic reddrafts. I've read this thing. Um, it impacts existing land owners. It impacts existing homeowners. Uh, it impacts the development industry, developers, builders, all the trades, realtors. Um, so moving forward from today, how how many opportunities are there for public engagement regarding these new reddrafts before this goes before city council for for adoption? And where I'm going with this is knowing how much it's going to impact the viewshed of Milton, the economic development of Milton, the home building in Milton. In my opinion, there needs to be substantial feedback and interaction and engagement with the public. And really, all of those, I'll call them facets or silos of people that are going to be impacted. It seems to me like there should be significant engagement before this is presented for adoption. And I'm just speaking for myself, not for the whole panel. Um because there there is a lot in here. Um and there are some significant changes. And I'm just curious how much between now and I believe it's April 13th this is being presented. How many opportunities are there for sort of deep dive public engagement before this goes for approval?

Well, for one, it looks like we have a lot of interested parties here that have filled out their cards. So, we have coming up and then at the April 13th meeting. But people are always free to write an email, give their inputs. But I think they, you know, a true public forum because of our process was last night, tonight, and April 13th. So, as it stands on the calendar right now, there's not another public engagement meeting or activity scheduled between now and adoption. Am I understanding that right?

Yeah. Because that's not the process. processes for public hearings are CZIN planning commission city council but you can always write an email well again my concern being outside the people in this room there are four people that know about these revisions so point they haven't seen those people haven't had a chance to review it exactly I have basically real problem with it

any other questions for staff Of course, we'll have time after public comments. This is just kind of for anybody that wants to speak in public comments. Got to get your cards in pronto because I'm about to make the call for them. Okay. So, I the public hearing is now open regarding text amendment RZ 2603. Those speaking in support of the text amendment will have a time limit of 10 minutes unless a motion is made to approve is approved by the commission to extend the time limit. Are there any members of the public wanting to speak in support of the item? We have four. We have two that identify opposition and two uh we have one. Let's uh let me invite uh Mr. Ben Kapaka to the podium.

Just as a reminder, please as you approach the podium when you're um identify yourself with your name and your address and organization if applicable.

All right. Uh good evening. Um thank you for the discussion so far. My name is Ben Copeka. live at 14115 Brittle Road. Um there's a lot here and I appreciate the concerns that you guys have. Um this all started with effects to the minor plat process. Uh that is how this was conveyed to the public and what we're working towards. Um in my understanding there may be some uh unified development code changes um that are required as a part of that um change or adaptation to the minor plant process. Um, as you read this document, there's 21 pages here. Um, which is a very heavy red line for a unified development code. Um, so in my opinion, uh, this has shifted from a focus on the minor plat process to potentially 90% of the more of the work now affecting the unified development code. As you stated, um, this affects a lot of people. the first option where the city asked for the moratorum. Uh the first public meeting after that I believe there were four people. Um the next public meeting I believe there was another four and then yes last night at the C CZIM there was another four. So approximately 12 people have looked at this in this forum in this room. Um I received the download after the CIM CIM meeting yet on Monday. Um I did not have time to read it like much of you. uh was able to work through it and then when I got here to this meeting I was handed an updated version from that um just within 24 hours. So just to show you how fast this process is moving um and going from there uh there's a lot of good in here. Um I can't say what is good and what is bad here because I haven't broken it down. Uh but hitting on some of those. Um so so many meetings we come in here and we talk about how we offer incentives to uh

owners. a lot of residents that do not involve a tax abatement or a tax credit. And um this agricultural opportunity uh I think pairs very well with Milton its comprehensive plan and uh our goal and intent of rural and agricultural land. Um and how that applies is if I have a small lot or small lot I'm constrained by allowable lot coverage. If I engage in agricultural activities, I can benefit from that as a property owner. The city and its residents also benefit benefit from that because of the agricultural purpose and it's agricultural in nature. Um some of your concerns or challenges is uh you know how do we enforce that? Um there are a lot of good resources the UG uh a extension office um the kova process and even the gate card process which is your Georgia agricultural tax exemption. All of those require some form of a farming or business plan that are already out there publicly available and a draft of that or a similar fashion of that could be something that a landowner submits to the city to help uh show them what your intent is um how you're going to do it. You could also designate it on a lot survey as the area you plan to use or just within that business plan. um that would allow us to potentially police it uh with with tools that are available and potentially your concern of if someone builds a house and then stops the agricultural and uses that as the excuse to build a house. There could be a penalty payback period for that current owner that goes back to the city uh into a green space fund or into agricultural somewhere in the city. Um there could also be uh when that property transfers over if you don't carry on that agricultural intent or again there could be a penalty but that will be known uh via the business plan maybe even a survey. Um from a constructibility standpoint switching here to the asbuilt survey requirement. Uh the foundation survey is a little much if you don't do construction you process for foundation.

You excavate you compact. You do your geotech testing for the soils. You then do your rebar and form work and then you you uh get that inspected. uh that could take three or four days depending on the side of the house. If you add a survey on top of that at the foundation stage, um surveyors aren't necessarily available. They're very busy to get someone out there on that time before a rain event window, which resets most of those previous inspections. Uh you will have a severe challenge in doing that. Um the asbuilt alone at the end should be enough of a policing tool. Um, I do think that should be added I do think that should be added to um the deed where it states the lot coverage um on the survey itself so homeowners know new homeowners are aware and the city can police it. Uh I would like to see the city offer that asbuilt survey as a paid for service uh by the city. Um if you do the foundation survey for the asbuilt the foundation asbuilt and the um uh finished asbuilt you're looking at probably $1,500 for each of those occurrences. So, a $3,000 ad to residents. Um, you could uh waiver existing revenants residents and just charge developers. That's one option as we come to time here. And so, that's what I see in a brief review, but I would ask that you guys extend this moratorum uh and give it the time it deserves uh for input and public opinion. Thank you.

Um Paul question, I'm sorry, Paul. When we have speakers that haven't declared opposition or in favor, do we ask them to declare? How do or do we how do we handle that? For and against is is a is a tough tough uh call for uh text for an amendment. Um, I would probably recommend you be somewhat lenient on whether it is uh for or against uh I mean they can declare there for a minor portion of it and so that they get their comments in.

I would be against the proposed uh for the reasons of the quick timeline uh that this path is currently on. Um I don't think we need it for purposes of you having an ultimate declaration. Uh only if you are intending to hold to a strict timeline would it become relevant? Yep. Is it possible for us to let's say make a motion to allow each speaker five minutes whether they are opposed or in favor?

Uh you can do that. We'll just make sure that uh that each if we do need to make sure that there is an opportunity for a minimum of 10 minutes for those speaking in favor and those speaking opposed according to the zoning procedures law. I think that that's going to be satisfied, you know, based on both pros and cons that people are presenting. I think if you would make a motion to Yeah, I'd like it to make a motion that in addition to allowing the those in favor and those in opposition 10 minutes total that we allow each speaker five up to five minutes to speak.

Second. We have a motion and a second to change the time allotment. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that makes it a little easier. So, we're still on the people I think that are in favor that said they were in favor. We have none. Do you want to call the ones that have not declared? How's that? That that was that was clear. That was

that was non-declared. Okay. So, those speaking in opposition will have a total combined time limit of 10 minutes plus five minutes a piece. Um, as we have approved a motion to extend the time limit. So, as just as you are called, please approach the podium when your name is called and identify yourself by name, address, or organization. Who's up next, Tracy? I invite Mary Kron to the podium.

Good evening. I'm Mary Krunk and I live at 600 Hickory Mill Lane. And I apologize, this is not going to be real organized and I apologize for that. I'd like to be organized. Um, there are a couple things in here that I think are really good enhancements and I also want to say that uh the folks in community development have worked so hard on this and it is so difficult to get everything right in this short span of time. So I'm kind of along with everybody else thinking I know we have a moratorum and I know that there are developers who want to move on this but I think it's more important that we get this right for the city before we make changes that might have a delletterious effect on the city. Having said that um I do think the natural area buffer is a good addition. It'll help protect people like who are next to these large lots and they're very short uh from their side to the rear. I think that's a really great addition. Um I do I like the idea of the um the agricultural district if there's a way for that to be more enforced and and to require people to have evidence that they've already done this portion the 10% before they come to BCA to apply for the additional 5%. That that would be a really important component. Um, I think my biggest concern would have to be um, oh, one more good thing is having the information, the asbuilt survey. I think that's brilliant. I think knowing upfront what people can and cannot do will save a lot of heartache for homeowners and it'll save a lot of time for city staff. Just make a more streamline and productive process. Um the agricultural tract exemption is the one that I think this is really complicated and being able to model this after KUVA and try to have it so that it's very straightforward and very specific

particularly when you look at um number four what period of time it's a 10acre minimum further no further subdivision for another 10 years does that go on top each time that you may do that additional if carved out another one. How does that work to really be specific about how much time you're tying up the rest of that that 10 acres for? I think that um being more is as specific as possible on this would be great. I also agree with the um define completion of principal structure or structures to say exactly what that means. Is it all the foundation? Is it you have to have this this and this in place? I think that's a really really important point. Um, one thing I do want to make a comment on is that part of the reason for this was to address the minor plat process. But I think another component from being in some of these groups that responded to, you know, what's important, what do we need to change was looking at some of the extremely large homes that are being built in Milton. And while they might meet the 20 or 25% because of the size of the home, a 60ft front setback looks a whole lot different on a house that's this big and this wide than looking at a a single level home at a 60-oot setback. And unfortunately, I know that that's very it's much more complicated, but perhaps we could look at doing some sort of a formula so that if your home is x square feet, um you need to be x amount, your front setback needs to be x amount and do it based on a proportion because the perspective is a whole lot different. and the viewshed. When we talk about viewshed, the houses cover, you don't see anything but that house. Where if

you have a house that's back farther, you would still get more of a viewshed. I think that that's something I know it's complicated. Um, but perhaps that's something we could address, if it's not right now, soon because I think that a lot of people are concerned about those really large homes that don't seem to fit in with the pattern of what we've seen traditionally in Milton. Thank you very much for your concern. Sorry for jumping around. Next speaker, I invite Julie's honor Bailey to the podium.

Uh, good evening. Before my time starts, I just wanted to clarify. Are we in the 10-minute or we're in the five minute per speaker? We're in the Actually, because there's there's so many of you, it's probably going to be five minutes per speaker. Okay? Because there's there's at least four people, right?

And and also before my time starts, I just wanted to mention that as Mr. Fricky said, with an amendment, it's hard to say you're for it or you're against it. Um certainly there's some things that I'm in support of. There's some things that need additional clarity. Um, so just before my time started, I wanted to make that um that point. Um, my name is Julie Zoner Bailey and I reside at 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia. Uh, the document before you covers many details on numerous changes. Staff is working under a tight time frame, meaning the community has had limited time to review all the changes. That said, the community development department has been very open to hearing the input, concerns, and suggestions from some of the community. Certainly more engagement would be helpful uh if the timeline were extended. While some of the items have been incorporated into the latest draft of the document that is before you and us tonight, there is still a need for more clarity regarding certain of the concerns that have been brought forward. Uh I have a number of comments in different sections, but I'd like to start with the importance of the agricultural exception for minor plots um plats. It is an important incentive for large lot land owners and it's consistent with the effort to create incentives for large lot land owners, but it does not yet reflect what's been discussed by staff at the CCIN meeting and in some earlier discussions. I did hear some modifications to the language that I think are positive. Um, and I appreciate hearing those kind of uh current suggested changes to what's currently before you. Um, the agricultural exception for minor plats is an important incent for large lot land owners, but the current language does not yet represent all that is needed. As an example, the 10-year constrained time period if a 1acre parcel were created through the minor plat process could be more restrictive than the current conservation use valuation. I did hear some language that maybe is going to be uh modified so that it would be concurrent with the current CUVA. I certainly would support that. Otherwise, we would be more restrictive,

which would be a disincentive to large land lot owners. And instead of preserving land, you're going to have people selling large lots and getting the heck out of Milton, and you won't be preserving exactly what we're intending to preserve. So, we need to be careful with unintended consequences. As residents age, it's my understanding that Hoover requirements reduce from 10 years to a shorter renewal period, whether that be at 65 or 70 years of age. The language proposed here needs to reflect those same conditions. So it's not always 10 years. It could be 10 years or less. We just need as as Mrs. Birds indicated, we need to be consistent with the Kuva law, whether that be before 65 or 70, but also including 65 and 70 um stepdowns. Furthermore, it is unclear if the subsequent minor plat usage would trigger another 10-year period or another concurrent period every time there was an additional use of the minor plat. So, if you have three or four kids and they're going to build three or four homes on 50 acres, is each one of those going to trigger another 10 years because we'll all be dead. Um, so I think we need to think about how many times that triggers? I'm assuming it only triggers once. That just was not clear. Um, so I'd certainly love to hear what staff's perspective is on that, but the language needs to be modified. Um, so what's needed is clarity around this language. I certainly support an exception that allows the minor plat process to be used because the intent is to preserve large lots uh for legacy purposes, right? To allow a child or a grandchild to live on land that's been owned by a family that also can be concurrent with a Kuba. Um, or it could be for those that don't have a Kuba. Um but again any constraint on that land should not be more restrictive than kuva. It should not including that step down period by age and the constraint period should not occur other than with the first minor plat would be my suggestion. Uh again this really needs to be clarified but I do support uh the

exception. I think it's it's a it's a strong incentive and we need to get it but we just need to get it right. And so those are on pages two of 21 and 13 of 21. Those need work. Um, I'd like to then beyond agricultural exceptions, uh, I think requiring the asbuilt survey is important, but I loved the suggestion by our first speaker that said, "Let's have the city pay for it." We shouldn't be burdening land owners and uh, individual homeowners with that additional um, cost. So, I'd like to at least see about the expiration of the city perhaps paying for that. Uh, but we do need to ensure that people are building what they're claiming they're going to build. I think some additional buffer requirements make sense. The 15t buffer within that 25 set side yard. If you're building a 20,000 square foot home next to somebody that's lived in a ranch, that ranch homeowner deserves to be protected with some increased buffer coverage. Um I also believe as um the last speaker mentioned that we do need to address the scale of homes. I believe that council and mayor their intent with some of these changes was to do just that. I don't know that we've gotten there yet. I know that the last slide summarized the need to address scale. Again, big homes perhaps being further from um the street. Um there were some different comments about coverage of lots. I know that some of the citizens have said that that if 25% coverage is allowed on a private street, perhaps 25% should be allowed on a public street. Or conversely, if it's 20% allowable coverage on a public street, why is it not 20% coverage on a private street? So, consistency might need to be reviewed. Um, I'd like to point out that I think it's incredibly important, and we've heard this in many cases, that any variances should not be what drives people. um the BZA right there are four standards and much of that historically at least was um attended to with

diligence and fidelity uh I think perhaps we've seen some increased use of variances and approvals when perhaps the four standards of the BCA have not been met uh real hardship it's legally defined the BCA is a quasi judicial board and we don't need to have variances being the the the wave of the future um var variances should be few and far between, but I think that needs to be looked at. Again, it was one of the points that was on the the note. Um, but maybe some additional education and and maybe some additional oversight to see when variances being approved. Are they truly legally meeting those four standards? Um, I also think we've got an opportunity to educate buyers and realators in advance, and I know staff is working hard to do that with some of this, and I know some other folks have made some suggestions that have been incorporated. Uh again, I I think that um movement towards allowing some flexibility with the minor plotting process is very helpful. I think we need clarity of language. Uh the timeline is quick. If the timeline's going to be quick, it needs to be thorough and we need to make sure we don't have unintended consequences for those that have been residents and who've lived here and protected this place for a very long time. Thank you very much for your service. Next,

our final uh comment would be from Mr. Scott Ree. You're invited to the podium.

Madame Chairwoman, members of the board, I'm Scott Reese, Braum Reese and Associates doing business at 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 34. Um I've been doing this for 40ome years. Um this is a lot of information. Um I've heard several timelines. I received my document uh yesterday and was you know had about six hours before the CZI but I also had a con conflict. So, I've gone through it some today and there are a lot of questions that I have that we don't have time to go through as far as the devil is always in the details and there are a lot of details here. Um, first and foremost, I think the thought of every time someone divides a five acre track into two parcels that it would have to come before you guys is a complete and utter waste of your time and the money of the uh person building that. A minor plat is going to have to be created by a licensed uh professional in the state under the guidelines of the UDC. It's going to be reviewed by your professional staff. Um I understand with a major subdivision um the need to alert the public to you know a radical change to the 30 or 40 acres that were next to you. But a simple division of track without any infrastructure, I just um can't see adding that additional

burden of money and time um to making every minor plat come before the planning commission. I'm sure every one of you were validictorians in your class, but are you are you prepared to learn the ins and outs? And if it made it through the professional designer and the planning or the public or the professional staff um then it has been deemed to be of quality and met the code then exactly what is your purpose in in doing that. So I think that's just a burden that doesn't need to be placed upon that to me is a bigger burden than a uh requiring anvil survey. Now, um I can't imagine someone spending a million dollars on a house and not having a survey that shows them that they're that their structures, their driveways, all the things uh that are important to them that that is creating a burden. you know, I understand, you know, the cost because I deal with that every day. Telling people what it costs, but how the city can pay for that is just beyond me how uh you're going to in in in step into that area. But uh that being said, I really think that is going to cure a lot of the perceived problems with the overage in imperous areas, houses that were uh permitted under a different site plan. Uh it's going to clean up a lot of uh of what the public has perceived as a problem. It's a pretty um once it's put on public record that a um asbuilt survey is

required. What we need in place at that time is any permanent structures, the footprint of the house, the footprint of any other accessory structures, the driveways, the patios. So just a little bit of planning by the builder. uh those things should be in and allow you know a definite period of time for the interior of the house to be to be uh finished. I don't think that uh the timeline is as critical uh as it's coming out or maybe been described. A little planning would uh take care of that. Um because it it has nothing to do with the interior finishes. It's just the the permanent structures and uh improvements on the property. So, that's timing the buffers and I know that I'm u against everyone else here, but absolutely. So, tonight I'm also representing my cousins, the day girls that own 178 acres. They're surrounded by approximately 68 parcels around them that were developed up to the property line. But now we're expecting them to provide a buffer for everyone of those properties around. That is, you know, I know fair is where you put a ribbon on a pig, but absolutely it should not be completely on the burden of the person or the people that held the property for all these years and has been completely developed around that. We really need to do a lot of research into that. So, I know my time's going to run out, but I really think that this timeline does not work. Uh, there needs to be work sessions, not just a presentation and

three or four people that uh are in that time. So, I really think there needs to be an extension. Um what I would hope is that if there is a um person that is burdened by not being able to do a minor plat that they should either be able to go before the community develop director and they make an exception or the BZA. Uh but I think haste is really going to make waste. If our if the driving force be behind uh these amendments is just to meet a timeline then uh I think that's a misplaced priority. Getting it right is more important.

You need more time. It's expired. Yeah. So um thank you for your time. Any other speakers? That concludes the public comment request.

Okay. Um, so that concludes our public comment. Does the commission have questions for the speakers or the staff regarding an item? And I do have one. Um, in looking at page 14 on the preliminary plat approval, was your intent that minor plat should come before us? And if not, maybe we need to clean up some of that language because I was apparently not the only one confused.

Uh, you read my mind and I'm glad you said that. So, I have turned to page 14 as I was sitting over there. That's not the intent. So this I I will agree this pa page 14 under section 12.6.3 is confusing as it reads right now. This was a find as we were reviewing this this section of code that seemed confusing to staff and so we we've made the wrong m the intent is that minor plat would not go to planning commission. In fact, when this was first presented for the moratorum, we identified that there was a minor plat division aspect of this and then a lot development aspect of this. If you remember some of the presentations that we gave early on, we identified that the lot the minor plat process lacked upfront due diligence. Right? a part of that process. As we have reviewed the steps in this the proposed code changes, um it is not being proposed that the minor plat process change. I I think some of the development items like the asbuilt, the lot coverage being identified on the minor plat would would bring some attention to some of those items that have in the past been maybe overlooked or not at the front of that review process when you're dividing a lot um come to the surface. So we would not be pro be proposing to change that process and it would the minor plat would not come before the minor before the planning commission and we're not proposing that change in this text amendment. This change referenced on page 14 under 12.6.3 applies to preliminary plat. It it's it's incorrect in the ordinance right

now. It under preliminary plat it references minor plat. We wanted to take that out and reference plat. So we need to correct that that text revision there. Okay. But that was not the intention. And how so would you say don't make the red lines on page 14 or you we need different red lines for page 14? I believe we'd strike through number three completely and leave number two as change it from all plat to preliminary plat. Correct.

And we could still leave that lot lot line configurations don't require those plats to come back to planning commission but we would strike through number three altogether. Okay. So rename two preliminary plats and rename and strike three in total. Correct. So and and so minor plats which are not preliminary plats would follow the same process. However, there are some additional requirements that hopefully will ease some of the challenges we've had with them. Correct.

Okay. Great. Any other questions for It looks like we have an request for another public comment, but we've already had public comment from Yeah, go ahead and make the motion. Can make a motion to reopen public comment for those that would like to speak. Seconded. Second. Did you turn it? You need to turn in a card, Bill. We can let you do it afterwards, though. Thank you.

You need to get a vote just formally. There's there was a motion, a second. We need a vote. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? That passes.

Uh, thank you, Judy. My name is Bill Lusk. I live at 1355 Summit Road, Fields Crossroads, Georgia. And briefly, I re um I agree with all of the comments by made by the previous speakers and most importantly by by Mr. Ree. Um, having been through this process for 11 years, I'm kind of amazed uh about the work that has gone on in this process. And what immediately strikes me is the amount of red ink. There's more red ink in this document than there is black uh ink, which obviously uh indicates that it's a massive change to this part of the code. Uh agreeing with Mr. Ree, I think there ought to be some work sessions called. I was only notified of this meeting two hours before I got here. Um there's some pretty serious issues involved here and we're talking about land and use of land and uh I think there needs to be a more concerted effort on the city's part to encourage more people to come out uh to establish work sessions and really get some open and honest discussion about it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions for staff or any of the speakers? Okay, I will um now close the public hearing. Um I kind of feel like I'd like to have some discussion before we can form a motion. Um, one comment I would make, I would really like to commend the staff. This was a very heavy lift and obviously a lot of intense thought and thanks. Where I sit is I like what you're proposing. It is a lot to absorb. Um I didn't you know there with a with some exceptions of you know that were brought out that we'd like to clarify like the CUVA or you know no it is not our intent to put minor plats through this this committee or this commission. I generally like the changes I see. I think they're in the right direction. though I also understand. So if time was of the essence, which I get the sense it is, I'd be comfortable to say staff did a lot of work, few minor things. I could feel comfortable personally recommending it. But I but I also would love to see a opportunity for more public discussion given given the time frame of when this excellent work was ready to be presented in the amount of time. So, I'm kind of torn between I know we'd like to see it move forward, but I also would like to

see more input. And I don't know if I want to recommend that the that because we can also recommend that the council defer it. We don't have to defer it. We could recommend the council the city council defers. So, I'm kind of like I'm I'm I'm with you on a lot of those things. And then the council could also decide just to lift the mortorium without any changes, right? So, they can't or they can they can, right? Yeah. There's not

I haven't seen the actual resolution, but typically that is a provision that's included that it it is subject to a time frame or sooner if there because I agree with a lot of what's been stated and a lot been shared by my my uh fellow commissioners about the tight timeline. Not taking away from anything the staff the city's done a great job put putting this together and there are some a lot of things that I do agree with but the tight timeline for everyone to review a lot of details to absorb and then I'm still just stuck with this whole thing that's been lingering the whole time about just lift the mortorium and not make any changes or take time making some of these changes and get more input over the course of the next weeks months and extend the moratorum. Yeah. Extend the mortorium or

lift it.

Yeah. And keep working. Yeah, agree. Um, I received this um actually um and and could not believe that I had and and this is not against our staff, which in reading over this, it's fantastic. And I agree, as you say, um, in most cases, but I didn't really have time to say, well, I don't know if I agree with that or not. Put a question mark. Whoop, it's time to go. So, I am I'd be hard to do any of this until we have more input. I would agree. I'm I was not validictorian as this is this is a lot

and I would jump in. I I want to echo a lot of what Judy said to staff. Um this is an incred I mean I do this for a living. I'm a civil engineer. It's an incredible amount of ground to cover in a very short time frame. And I realized that constraint was put on you by city council. So I mean hats off to you all. This is this is a huge lift in terms of effort. Similarly to the people from the public that came out. Uh I've seen many of you. I've been to all the information sessions. All of you have come out. There's that saying if you care you're there. All of you have been there. So you obviously care about this community. So we appreciate your feedback. Um, I'm going to go back to my earlier comments that there's so much significant change. As Mr. Lus pointed out, there's more red ink in here than black ink. And every one of those red ink comments has the potential for aesthetic, economic, viewshed, quality of life issues and impacts to everybody in the community. Whether you're land owner, property owner, homeowner, builder, developer, tradesman, whatever, equestrian farm, um I'm going to retreat to the idea I think there needs to be much more significant engagement with the public, all aspects of it, um before this is adopted. At the same time, I'm also reminded that an extension of a a moratorum impacts people's livelihoods. It impacts their income. uh you have people that may not work because of this moratorum. Um we're going to significantly reduce the available inventory of new homes that that impacts property value that impacts a whole bunch of things. Um, so it it would be, you know, my choice to find the balance between definitely engaging with the public more while at the same time not necessarily penalizing the community with an extension of the moratorum. And that's not really for us to decide. That's

really for city council. That's kind of where where I land. Um, it's I mean it's a tough balance to juggle quite honestly. It could be extended. it could be lifted. Um I think in the previous presentation we saw in the last three years there's only actually been five formal variance applications, right? So it's not like to echo his comment, it's not like the current code is generating a huge Yeah. backlog of of variance and again to staff staff mitigated

you know 90 plus percent of those from the numbers that were proposed. So that's I agree with what AJ's saying too. I think that we need to be able to strike a balance somewhere between these um and um to avoid like Julie said uh you know these unintended consequences. I think if it's rushed through, things will be missed. Things won't be done as they should be in the best interest as we move forward. So, I agree.

Um, I'm going to make a motion regarding RZ 2603. We'll see how it flies. I make a recommendation that the planning commission recommend to the city council that they defer final opinion on the proposed changes to allow more time for public engagement and input. and recommend to the staff that they make changes to the agricultural track exception. and the reference to agricultural track exception in section 126 2 11 A little IV to make the period of time to be concurrent her with the landholders current uh Coover requirements or tenurs whichever is less. And to make changes to 12.6.3 6.3 preliminary plat approval to rename sub bullet A to preliminary plat and to strike sub bullet three with the opinion that we recognize a lot of significant and positive work that is done by staff and are generally favorable to those opinions. given the limited time we've had available. So basically recommending that they

defer and then clean up some of the things we identified. I think I'd prefer to just defer it because it you're capturing some of the things we talked about but maybe some of the other things that we were in agreement about like defining completion of principal structure and I don't know. I'm kind of I'm kind of of the opinion we either go through with all our edits or we just do a clean recommended defer. That's just my opinion. I think we've all got edits and comments and things, but

that's my opinion. So, um I will amend my motion that we recommend to to city council to defer to allow more time for um staff to um seek additional public input and to incorporate some changes that were mentioned tonight or might be forthcoming.

I'll second that. It's been moved and moved by Commissioner Birds and seconded by Commissioner Edwards to recommend deferral um to the city council for RZ's 2603 text amendments to the United Unified Development Code regarding minor plats and AG1 standards to the following. Article 2 general provisions, article three, agricultural districts. Article six, special purpose districts. Article 9, site development. Article 10, streets and improvements. Article 11, Environment, Article 12, Administration, and Article 13, Definitions. Paul, are you okay with us making a recommendation to defer?

Just making sure. Exactly that question. Making sure no prohibition. Well, technically it says you can vote to defer or recommend approval. Approval with conditions or denial. I'm sorry. That's with respect to applications. I don't see a restriction on the amendments. I don't see a restriction on your motion with respect to amendments.

So, we're good. Okay, we have a motion and a second and an opinion from legal that we're okay to recommend that. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. I might want to add now that we have voted. Uh I think um if I was sitting at the city council uh at first reading um I might just want to move that uh moratorum

because of the fact I don't know they're going to be able to digest all of this at one time. I I see that kind of since we we don't really weigh in on moratoriums. That's kind of if if they if they want to lift it, lift it. If they want to extend it, extend it. If if we have an opinion about it as individuals, we could take that up with our council person who appointed us. Right. Y um how does a working session work? Um, so I would think since it is a zoning thing, it would have to have public notice. And I didn't hear the question.

How does a working session work? Um, if you're meeting to discuss business, we would recommend that it comply with ZPL requirements. I'll leave it that tech. Technically, if you don't take action, doesn't necessarily have to. It's ZPL applies to public hearings. Uh, but for for any meeting, I would advise strongly that it have notice. Yeah. Notice and any open invite.

Um, we have no items under changes to the comprehensive plan and other plans. We have that meeting coming up again in about 10 days. We have no items under old business. We have no items under new business. Any discussion for the good of the order? I just like to thank everybody that came today and made public engagement. It really is helpful and encouraging to see people take an interest in our city. So, I appreciate that. And what else? What am I looking for now? AJ, motion to adjurnn. Second.

I have a motion to adjurnn from Commissioner Bulo Bulo and I have a second from Commissioner Mcnes. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are adjourned and we're out of here before midnight.