The Alpharetta Planning Commission approved two sets of Unified Development Code (UDC) text amendments: a parking amendment (PH-25-07) that raises minimum parking requirements for portions of the downtown overlay, and a cleanup amendment (PH-25-03) that standardizes master-plan terminology and corrects density labels across zoning categories.

Kathy Cook, a city staff member presenting the parking research, said the staff analysis used industry guidance (National Parking Association) and a 300–600 foot walk-distance bubble from public parking to identify areas of the downtown overlay where on-site parking should match citywide requirements. Under staff’s recommendation, commercial properties north of Mayfield and south of Old Milton Parkway would follow citywide parking standards rather than the lower downtown overlay ratios. Cook said that will increase required spaces for new development in those parts of downtown.

Examples cited in the staff presentation: within the downtown overlay a restaurant currently requires 1 space per 500 square feet, while the citywide standard is 1 space per 100 square feet; retail downtown requires 1 per 500 square feet vs. 1 per 200 square feet citywide. Staff noted the change applies to new development only; existing properties and permitted projects are not retroactively affected.

The parking amendment also raises the minimum parking assumption for new private elementary and middle schools: staff recommended increasing the requirement from the current 1 parking space per classroom plus five visitor spaces to a minimum of 2 spaces per classroom and administrative office, with the separate "+5 visitor" language removed. Staff said their recommendation was based on counts at existing local schools (Manning Oaks Elementary, Hopewell Middle School) and typical observed needs.

On the cleanup amendment, staff described a series of non-substantive edits to correct cross-references, standardize the term "master plan" across zoning tables, and realign future land-use density labels (for example, adjusting R‑4A/R‑4D/R‑8A labels to match the future land-use map). Staff said the edits reflect current practice and do not change permitted uses.

Commission members asked questions about impervious area, how increased parking might affect site design, and whether shared parking agreements and variances would still be available; staff said shared-parking arrangements would still be encouraged and that council-approved exceptions can override code minimums. The commission approved the parking amendment and then approved the cleanup amendments; both motions carried by voice vote.