I'm going to avoid reading my normal scripts since we don't have an audience out here today. So Ben, if you want to go ahead and get started, we will get going. The first item in new business is zoning ordinance text amendment 823001. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, planning commissioners for taking time out of your busy schedule and coming to the special call meeting. The special call meeting essentially was, I'll get into the more detail, but essentially the main reason is that we have only one single council meeting for June. It's actually next Tuesday. And this requirement by the state requires us to adopt this before July 1. And unfortunately we had that one meeting only and that's what we need to call it a special call. And again, I appreciate and the fact that we have all seven of you here today is wonderful. So thank you again. So as mentioned, this is the request for Tex text amendment A23, 0, 0, 1. This is to ensure compliance with the recent amendments made by the state to the Georgia's owning procedures law. HB 1405 and the Spear Record Appellate Practice Act, which is HB House Bill 916. Just know that House Bill 916 really is not anything to do specifically with the zoning procedures law, but we included it because it sort of has a tie in with the appeal process that's mentioned in the House bill 1405. So in Georgia, local jurisdictions are bested by the state's constitution with the power to control land use and zoning, but we're still regulated by procedural requirements from the state. And that specific requirement is the official code of Georgia, annotated 33-66-1, the zoning procedures law as mentioned, which establishes the minimum zoning procedures that cover in the exercise and judicial review of local zoning power. So House Bill 1405, which deals with the zoning procedures law, the changes to the act stems largely, and this is sort of the background information. From the growing discussion of affordable housing that came up during the pandemic was exacerbated more so by the pandemic, both nationally and locally. And another more specific, I think reason as to why it was initiated by the Georgia State Legislature was in 2021. I think reason as to why it was initiated by the Georgia State Legislature was in 2021. The City of Atlanta, understanding that they felt that there was a housing shortage, and the fact that their population was estimated to double in the future. Their council members proposed to rezone over 2000 residential laws from single family to multifamily, but it was ultimately met with opposition. And so that proposal died. And leading into that, that's when the Georgia General Assembly decided to take this up as part of their House Bill 1405. In addition to that specific process, the Superior and State Court of Pellet Practice Act established through legislation a unified procedure for appealing decisions of the Lord Judiciary, due to the territory to a superior or state court. I'll get into what that really means. So essentially based on Georgia Supreme Court case in 2017, city of coming versus flowers, it limited the zoning decisions to be appealed by social or a, social or a rary, Latin, not my first language unfortunately. Public could only review the record that was previously in front of the City Council. What that essentially means, it's what was submitted as part of the application and as part of the process in the local jurisdiction. That's the record that's carried over to the appeal process. And because of that, they didn't allow for new information to be included as part of any type of appeal. It's just taking the record that was already presented, taking the decision that was made by the local jurisdiction. Local jurisdiction and essentially the judge was reviewing that particular portion of the review and making a decision based on that, not allowing for new information to be submitted. So the update of that process, the appeals process is intended to provide a single, modern and uniform procedure and now they refer to as a petition of the review for appealing a decision made by a lawyer, judiciary, to a superior or state court, allowing for the whole record from the local government to be brought up, but also allowing for competent evidence to be admissible in the trial as well. So House Bill 1405916 recently adopted by the State Legislature, affects the city's zoning ordinance as it relates to zoning variants and appeals procedure. And what you'll see through the presentation is most of these changes are more related to quasi-judicial process and actually more towards the border zoning appeals than necessarily what you deal with as a planning commission or city council in terms of review of land use requests and Again as mentioned Georgia municipalities We're required to incorporate these new legal requirements into our ordinance by July 1 We're required to incorporate these legal requirements into our ordinance by July 1. So reviewing, analyzing House Bill 1405, the first one is new public hearing and notice requirements for zoning applications that are initiated by the city. And they're very specific as to what there were. And again, this stems, I think, more from the example that I gave you of City of Atlanta, and the attempt that they made of trying to convert single-family uses to multi-family. And so what it says is here, 1A allowing multi-family uses in a single-family residential zoning district, abolishing single-family residential classifications altogether, and allowing properties to deviate from existing zoning requirements in single-family zoning districts. I'll get into what that means. These are the specific categories that this new procedure that we must apply. One thing to note is that this does not apply when rezoning cases are initiated by the actual property owner. This only applies when it's initiated by this city. And the intended purpose again is to make sure that there's transparency to the residents, to the public, and so that they're fully aware. So if you require zoning procedures all today, we only require one public hearing technically. But with these provisions, if it falls under any one of those three categories as mentioned, then they go through this more, much more extensive public hearing process. Which is, so the public meeting. Zoning decisions shall be adopted at two regular meetings scheduled at least 21 days apart. Prior to the first public meeting, two public hearings shall be held at least three months and not more than nine months prior to the date of final action of the zoning decision. At least one hearing shall be held between the hours of 5 PM and 8 PM is very specific. It also gets into signposting in terms of how many signs you need to have. Newspaper advertisements, it even gets into how large the font has to be. As written, it says the published notice on the newspaper shall be at least nine column inches in size and not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper shall be at least nine column inches in size and not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper. So the intent is again to make sure the public is fully aware of any changes that are being initiated by the local jurisdiction when it comes to single-family residential. The confusion that came up is I don't want to say single-family zoning classifications. It also talks about single family residential uses. Luckily, in the case of Johns Creek, we don't have those abilities to change a single family zoning use or single-family residential use to a multi-family. We have it broken out to zoning classification, which essentially requires rezoning. Nonetheless, there's the language for the state that we have to adopt. And then a hard copy availability, making sure that this, the request is easily accessible in the city, by the clerk, by the department, and anyone that request that it could have access to it. And again, as mentioned, a lot of it has to do with the quasi judicial, the B the BGA, the border zoning appeals variance process. And so number two is new public notice requirements for quasi-judicial proceedings. So the notice requirement was the same for rezoning and also variances. It was at least 15 days and not more 45 days. What they did for all border zoning appeal variance requests was they just made a consistent, that is a 30-day requirement for notices. In addition to that, we're also required to notify the property owner of the variance, which is odd because they're the ones who initiated the variance, but nonetheless, I think it's because they can't cover every jurisdiction in their process and what their sort of nuance cases may be. And then House Bill 916, as mentioned, is that establishes a new and uniform process for appealing municipal zoning decisions to Superior Court. It's much more involved from the technicalities in terms of the procedures, the filing process, and so forth from what I explained. It's again, it's a matter of procedure in terms of how, an applicant, if they receive the denial from the city, will go to the Superior Court, but it essentially outlines all the steps that they have to follow. And then rather than requiring a writ of cert, the Appeals to Superior Court, again, of me, or suppose only this shows, are to be made in the form of petition for review. Again, this is a specific process that's listed out in the House Bill 916. the specific process that's listed out in the House Bill 916. So based upon those updates that the state has made, to House Bill 1405 and House Bill 916, staff is proposing the following amendments to the sections of the zoning ordinance. The first one is actually including the definition of zoning decisions. Sometimes I know there are many of you that were here when we had that discussion of 28.2, the reinitiation process, and then what is a final action? What's the zoning decision? So finally, it's been, there's given a definition by the state, so what we did was, we're just gonna take that and put it into our zoning ordinance. And so that's what it states there, which states, a zoning decision is to find as the final legislative action, would you result in adoption or repeal of the zoning ordinance? The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the approval or denial of a rezoning special use permanent and or concurrent variance, and the adoption or denial of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, to zone property to be annexed into the city. Luckily, the last one doesn't really apply, there's no land to annex for us. The next part, again, there has to be a clear distinction, as mentioned, HB, House Bill 1405 deals heavily with the quasi judicial variance process. Specific to us, we have the concurrent variance. The concurrent variance rolls along with the land use, the rezoning process. So we want to make sure that it's clearly fine. And the reason why we strike through section 2213.9, was 2213.9 is the section of the notice requirement for BZA. Went from member at least 15 days to no more than 45, but then it changed to flat 30 days. But concurrent invariance is since it runs with our zoning. It still meets the 15 days, 45 day window. And that's why we struck that section out. And again, another requirement for this is we want to further distinguish separate concurrent variances from the regular variance process. That's why we struck through concurrent variance. And then we changed all the number of dates required for the notifications to represent the 30 day requirement. And again, this is specific to the variance process. Same thing here, further changes. And then we have to add this one additional requirement that they require of us now, which is the notice shall be mail to the owner of the property. That is the subject of the variance, such notice as only required when the variance is heard by a quasi judicial officer or agency. What this further is this thing which is again, it's in to blanket that they apply it as a state, because every jurisdiction is a little bit different. When we do our administrative variances, we always notify adjacent neighbors, obviously is the applicant, the property owner that's applied for that variance. Same thing applies here, but it's just the language that we carried forward from the recent update. And then further, it is the requirement to simplify and also identify the appeal process. Because we always listed in our ordinance that says you have 30 days to appeal, and if you're appealing to and what that process is that you must follow which was the rid of cert. We got rid of that rid of cert replaced it with the petition for review because that's the correct process now. And then also further defining who they could serve, who serves as a secretary so that they could serve a notice when the lawsuit is filed. And so in the ordinance is already states that as a secretary of the zoning board of appeals or even for a planning commission is actually the community development director. So it's specifying again the secretary of the board of appeals is authorized technology service. We had to do that in order to provide clarification for wherever was to follow a lawsuit. And again, this is specific to the land use, the rezoning process and their appeals. And again, just striking out rid of cert, replacing with petition for review, and further clarifying as provided by law, we didn't necessarily want to identify this specific statute in the code because code's changed. Okay, and this particular section has to do with that one item that I went through with the public notice, even how large the fawn has to be in terms of the advertisement and so forth. Essentially what we've stayed here is if it's an ordinance amendment that is initiated by the city of John's Creek, by the city itself. That does one of the four items, if you recall, one or more zoning classification and definitions related to single family residents who are used to allow multi-family use to such single family residential zoning classification, abolishing single family residential classification, or allowing properties to UV from existing zoning requirements in single family residential zoning district. What we're saying is the city of Jones Creek will follow that requirement, that extensive requirement of having two public meetings, one public meeting being between now is a 15. All the good stuff that's included in the House Bill of 1405, that's what we're saying, because we reference it by code. And that's what we're gonna follow. So with that, that's the extent of my presentation, and that's the update, and happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Song. As usual, I think the city's done a great job taking the information provided by the state and integrating it into our zoning ordinance. I don't have any questions. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Som? Mr. Cathern. And on the comment under staff analysis, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the statement under the fifth bullet, staff notes that this requirement does not apply to rezoning of properties from a single family residential zoning district to a multi-family zoning district. When the rezoning is initiated by a property owner or their authorized agent. Question. Yes. What if the property owner is the developer who wants to do something to the property? Is there a potential for conflict? No. So you're saying if the developer is the property owner or you're saying the developer is an agent of the property owner by submitting the application? If you clarify what you're saying again, it will repeat. It's hard for me to clarify. Or repeat what you said again, if you don't mind. It's the statement that you have written. Page two. Staff notes that the requirement does not apply what you said again if you don't mind. It's the statement that you have written. Page two, staff notes that the requirement does not apply to rezoning of properties from a single residential zoning district to multi when the rezoning is initiated by the property owner or the authorized agent. Does that mean a developer doesn't have to? The developer would be an agent of the application. So I think your question is, I think one thing that's missing is when the rezoning request is initiated by, that's one. Maybe I don't know what that clarifies it. But the main thing is this. What I'm referring to is this elaborate process that they put in in terms of procedures, that procedure specifically does not apply to them. They still default to the original or the general procedures for land use petition review as already provided in the only procedures law which we follow today. So this whole thing is brought about so that the city can't on its own initiate a move from single family to multi family. The main issue is again, who's initiating? Present shooting, right? So all the city initiating it and we go through this more extensive elaborate process. If it's the property owner or their agent or the developer as an agent or the property owner, they just follow these procedures that we're following today. The regular procedures. Correct. Thank you. Yes. More for our city to get an option where they can start this process. They can do a multi-family or something like that. Yeah, I think again it was just to make sure that the public has a proper notice required for something major, some major rezoning, especially converting single-family uses to multi-family and making sure that the public has advanced notice. And more than that, just as many opportunities to come to the podium to, I guess, voice their supporter objection to it. One more question. Okay. Do you know who in the legislature had champion this and where they're from? They're several, but the main name that came up initially for hospital 1405 was Shea Roberts. She's a land use attorney based at Atlanta at the pleasure of dealing with her when I was in Brookhaven. But she was the one and she was coming more from the standpoint of the appeal process because of what she's experienced. The rid of her process was just so, there's so many different processes that they could proceed with and that's why she sort of pursued it. And then there was multiple amendments that came along. But there was four or five different senators, sorry, House of Representatives that were involved in the initial drafting of this bill. Were they primarily metro area or other more? That I don't know, what I would say if it was truly bipartisan in terms of the bill itself. I don't exactly know where they were, where they are in the state. Thank you. Yeah, anything that increases the visibility of the public to whatever the city's doing or any agency, I'm a fan of. So if there's no other questions, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend adoption of zoning ordinance textment in A2301. Oh, seconded. Seconded. And all in favor. Seconded by Commissioner Sanders. All in favor. Mr. Right-Anne. Motion passes, seven to zero. Thank you, Mr. Song. Thank you. I think we had another item, maybe to add to the agenda. Is there going to be a motion to add another item to the agenda? I'd like to add an item to the agenda to see for a great conversation about the potential to have a workshop to look at code. And here is that the code can be enhanced to address types of site planning conditions, building orientations that is not covered by the cover down. Now we're starting to see as developers are coming in with, we're not better toward the need for deciding what their buildings, especially in out parcels, where the fact of the building is on the main through of their, for influence or... Understood, so we have a motion by Commissioner Katzen. I'll second that. Seconded, all in favor of adding the agenda item Motion passes item is added so Commissioner Katzen if you'd like to yeah continue to explain Thank you I had a meeting with Ben a very constructive and very enlightening to me of areas in the code that have worked for years here. And as the city is growing and it's about to explode, I think, thank goodness. Not necessarily explode. But as it grows, there are areas I think are in the, there's areas to enhance in the code that do not cover adequately some of the types of developments and site planning that we're starting to see. That's a broad statement. There were some examples that Ben and I had talked about and an idea is to have a workshop for us to understand maybe some of those areas that can be enhanced in the code. Maybe we can help or have discussions and look at some kind of path to where and how the code can be enhanced to help staff and developers understand a few more expectations of the city of John's Creek. So Mr. Song, what's the mechanism that we would use to put something like that in place? Or is there a mechanism for planning commission to provide guidance or recommendations to your staff to go through a process. I mean, it's definitely first of its kind in John's Creek, which is not a bad thing at all. And it's worth discussion and I'm happy to have all those discussions. And what we could potentially do is it doesn't necessarily have to be in this particular setting. We could still advertise the meeting, right, because we'll have a quorum, but we'll just have it essentially where it doesn't necessarily have to be in this public, well, such a public setting where it's streamed, but we could have an OSE conference room where we could speak a little bit more canonly or a little bit more specifically to what issues there may be. But it's something that I can schedule and try to set up a time. So if you can do that, sorry. Well I was just going to say the reason that I seconded that motion, I think it's a great idea is just because we haven't done it before, doesn't mean it's not a good idea, which you can acknowledge. And we as a city have changed a lot in the last pick the number of 10 years, 50, whatever number is from the very beginning. And it would be crazy to think that every rule that was laid out the first year would still be the best rule given where we are today and what we've got going on as far as development goes in our city. So I actually had a great idea and moved forward to that. Yeah, one recommendation, if there's a way to do it, and obviously we can work with everyone's schedules to find a time that works. But I think having a blank sheet of paper in front of us is probably not the right start. So if there's a way for Commissioner Katz and your staff, anyone else on the planning commission or wherever else we could pull resources from, pull resources from, to have something to look at and work from. And that way we'll at least know where we're focusing. I think a good start is what Commissioner Katz and Ann already drafted and what we initially discussed about. I hope it was helpful. Yeah, I think what we could do is start from there. Because what materialized out of that discussion or out of that list was, okay, we're sort of going back and forth as to different scenarios. That may be applicable, some areas may be not. And to what extent do we want to regulate? What extent do we provide some flexibility where we do have some more for site? But those are all, it was a good starting point, and I think that's something that we could build on and how that discussion and materialize, right? And we call it a workshop, it probably workshops, right? Because there'd probably be more than one. Because there's other sort of particular planning efforts that are taking place right now, which I was gonna share as part of the department updates and sort of how does it all coincide with that potentially because it's different character areas that we're working with in the comp plan. I think that makes sense and as part of that as part of this overall discussion I think that as a group we need to be reminded by city attorney, by your staff, where we're asked, where councils ask to step in and provide approval or guidance and where there is that flexibility for the landowner to retain that ability to customize and do whatever they need to do. Yeah, but I think in this particular setting for the workshop, I don't necessarily think there has to be any limitations per se. Once we develop whatever it is that comes out of this commission, the planning commission, then that's the next step that we'll take. Perfect. But it'll be great to have that initial discussion just to see what you all think and just to get, inform you again of what is on our code, what we want to regulate for what we traditionally have regulated for, okay, what are the things that we may want to look into. Great. So is there a lot coming up in the next couple of months for us to look at zoning wise? I mean, do you see because of the town center basically? Yeah, well, not really town center wise, just because those two major projects, those are the only thing that we have in the horizon right now. Specifically, we have two rezoning that are coming up. One fairly well, the one that was supposed to be scheduled in June 19th that's been postponed to July 10th that's the shake-shap request the other one is a very simple one for a neighborhood that is trying to get rid of a condition so that's coming up in August the only the the time constraint just to be honest with you right now that we have from the department standpoint is because we're working on two major projects, which is the revisation plan, and also the comprehensive plan update. And those are on a very tight schedule because comp plan, we're trying to get that completed by August, and then the revisation plan simultaneously is going and that we're trying to get that in September. But we'll try to at least squeeze an initial discussion. Hopefully, sometime this month or July, at the latest, they have that initial. Yeah. We got to have that. Now we're slashing this. June and July. Not going to happen in July. Some of these discussions in those settings, or less formal settings, would help us brainstorm some of these things, highlights of the comp plan, whatever you're working on. So we can provide over inside in advance, right, rather than waiting for it to be prepared finally. I mean, we're open, I'm open to discuss whatever and however, but the initial discussion, I think the start of it would be what Commissioner Katzen head develop as a list. I think corporate America needs to be back to get through. And even when my parents and their standard goal is to get standards getting feedback from home and developers, staff, operations, whatever, it's still applicable. Yeah, because five years and now standards today, they need to get through. Absolutely. I'm kind of kind of pruned to that. Yeah, sure. I think I've proved a lot of was our code tells developers and architects and engineers the basics of what the city wants right there are design approaches, site planning approaches that are not necessarily what the city wants and we need to codify it to say what the city wants. I don't think we can say what the city doesn't want. You know, I want to be able to tell the architects and engineers, a developer or whatever architects and engineers, thanks to avoid. And the only way to do that formally is to with some kind of code language. Right? You know, again, it's a balancing act at the end of the day. So, you know, the balancing act, how does it stem, sometimes it stems from the general overview in terms of policies and vision and goals that are set by council. The other part is how do we want to be seen as a business friendly community and to what extent. And what do we actually want to control? What is that purpose of control to what extent? So and again, those are the discussions that I think we can have in our larger sort of context, and then we'll break it down and we'll go a little bit deeper because, again, when we talk about our residential, or sorry, commercial uses, most of the character is very similar. You got your typical commercial that backs up to residential. There are certain ads locations that are off the major arterial roads, which is state bridge, 141, maybe a portion of habits to a certain extent, you could call it that. So those are the things that we could talk and discuss and go over again what's in our ordinance, what is sort of ideas that we could discuss, but we'll build upon that. Would you like to have a short meeting one day and come up with a few topics that we can then share? My initial, the way I usually like to, I don't necessarily want to narrate or steer this discussion any which way. I really want to get your feedback first. OK. Let's set it in the chat. Yeah, we can start with the list that you got to come up with. We'll pick a date for that and let's start the discussion there. I think it'll be a good one. Thank you. Thank you for being open to it. I'll make a motion to close. No, because he's got department updates trying to kind of shut you down too soon, Ben. I'm going to shut you down too soon, Ben. Great. As mentioned, June 19th, planning commission is canceled. It's been transitioned to the July 10th meeting. The revalidation plan, which is the four corners of state bridge, 141, that plan has kick started. Actually, we're having our first community meeting tomorrow here from 7 to 830. The comp plan update, first in commuting engagement meeting Lord I had the date and then I didn't write it I just wrote the time. June 22nd from 7 to 9 again here in the council chambers so Yes, yes, yes size more group is the consultant that's performing the revitalization plan effort 7 to 9 7 to 8 30 here exactly right here in the council chambers Tomorrow June 1st And right again, it's the first initial community meeting what that means yes It will be but the only thing is this the presentation part will be recorded But the rest of the meeting is going to be very interactive. We'll have boards, you know, sort of you're typical. You have your boards with different ideas and different visioning boards and sort of people go and pick and shoot. You know, you do it all the time. Sorry. It will be streamed, but again, you'll just get the presentation portion. You won't be able to interact and be part of it. The best way to be part of the planning process is to actually show up in person. Yeah. Seven. All right. Thank you. Okay, now. Motion to close. I make a motion to close. Second. All in favor. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Song. I'll send out a couple of dates.