Peachtree City planners advance administrative‑variance draft, outline steps toward a unified development ordinance
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners reviewed and edited a draft administrative‑variance ordinance, instructed staff to forward the revised draft to council and discussed forming a UDO steering committee, consultant needs, public outreach and an 18–24 month timeline for a full Unified Development Ordinance.
Peachtree City’s Planning Commission spent its Aug. 12 workshop reviewing proposed revisions to the city’s administrative‑variance ordinance and discussing next steps for a potential Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to consolidate development regulations.
Staff summarized the variance changes under consideration: adding a residential‑use requirement for most variance types (except parking reductions), removing the need for written adjacent‑property consent while instituting a city mailing notice for adjacent owners, reducing allowable rear‑setback reductions (from as much as 50% in some cases down to a 10% maximum in certain contexts), and adding a 30‑day notification to comply with cited state law. Staff also preserved the planning director’s authority to approve an up‑to‑one‑foot variance during active construction projects.
Commissioner Liotta recommended word changes to improve clarity (for example, using "feasible" rather than "possible"), and commissioners debated whether objections from adjacent owners should automatically trigger the full variance process or whether the administrative committee should first determine relevance. Commissioner Liotta asked that the ordinance require some form of substantiation for parking‑reduction requests, such as a traffic or parking report; staff proposed language requiring "substantiating evidence" without prescribing a single method.
The commission then moved from the variance discussion into a broader presentation on a proposed UDO. Commissioners Hamner and Scott framed the UDO as an "umbrella" to consolidate the zoning ordinance and the land development ordinance and to resolve contradictory definitions and regulatory gaps. The presenters proposed a two‑track approach: adopt the UDO as a baseline document and then develop overlay districts to tailor standards for the city’s seven village centers (for example, Kedron, Lexington, Wilshire and others). Staff warned a full UDO can take 18–24 months and that consultant procurement may be required; earlier consultant work on a UDO had been canceled, so realistic consultant pricing and public outreach planning will be necessary.
Commissioners asked staff to compile examples of contradictory ordinance language and to prepare the items staff will present to city council at an upcoming workshop (scheduled Sept. 12) so council can consider whether to fund or otherwise direct the UDO work. Staff noted the city budget does not currently include UDO funding and estimated the realistic consulting cost could be larger than past low bids. The commission agreed to continue refining the variance ordinance draft and to forward recommendations and the UDO work plan to council for direction.
