The committee extensively deliberated on various zoning and land use considerations, including the definition and inclusion of alternative fuels and charging stations within the category of fuel service stations. The conversation also addressed whether to allow crematoriums in industrial and office commercial zones. Furthermore, regulations concerning duplex and multiplex residential uses in the West Mitchell Hammock Corridor (W MHC District) were debated, with the committee expressing the need to revisit the definition of allowable single-family detached residences before making a decision on allowing bed and breakfast establishments in certain zones.

Another discussion revolved around the definition of “multiplex” in the land development code, focusing on the types of housing it encompasses and the allowable densities. The committee reached a consensus to simplify the definition, allowing a mix of typologies up to eight dwelling units per acre, and acknowledged that architectural standards and height limits in the zoning districts would control the character and design of multiplex developments.

The meeting also covered changing outdoor recreational activities in certain core areas to special exceptions rather than permissible uses. A consensus was reached to have the staff revisit the issue, with the aim of providing a better approach that doesn’t lump diverse recreational uses together.

Regarding the classification of communication towers, the committee made a motion to allow monopole and camouflage towers as special exceptions in specific zoning districts, with a focus on avoiding the installation of unsightly towers.

The alignment of future land use designations with zoning districts in the comprehensive plan was reviewed, with the committee identifying omissions such as the rural Country Estates zoning district and the downtown core future land use designation. Discussions also touched on the creation of a new mixed-use zoning district and the placement of public land and institution zoning in various future land use designations.

The downtown core and the potential creation of a zoning district for the Milton Square and Washington Park areas were also considered. The committee discussed adjusting lot sizes and setbacks in the R2 zoning district to better align with desired density and housing options. A motion was made to allow duplexes as a permissible use in the R1BB zoning district, with further discussion on the required lot sizes needed to meet the desired density.

In terms of permissible use tables for R1 BB zoning, the committee decided to revise the table to allow duplexes without changing the minimum lot size. Additionally, the measurement of setbacks in the downtown mixed-use district was debated, with a consensus to measure setbacks from the property line instead of the streetscape.

The committee tackled the challenges of landscaping around utility boxes and equipment, considering changes to the requirement for landscaping to be more flexible. The expiry date of development agreements for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and the assignment of zoning districts for expired PUDs were discussed. The committee recommended the deletion of the mobile home park district and deliberated on the target area and density and intensity bonuses, with a consensus to revisit the issue later.

The language in the code related to affordable housing and Green Building was also a topic of discussion. The committee expressed confusion about the mention of a “Redevelopment trust fund” and suggested widening the language to include sustainability practices. Criteria for historic structures and the deletion of specific language related to density for townhome developments were also debated.

Finally, the committee approved the concept of requiring two access points for developments with 50 or more units and discussed the prohibition of standalone bars in certain zoning districts, with skepticism about the likelihood of this change being implemented. They also considered the exemption of entertainment uses from the noise ordinance in specific areas and discussed the need to ensure that this exemption is reflected in the code.