Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll move to approve the meeting minutes from Monday, August 10th, 2026. Second.

Can you just explain what you struck again to me?

Well, maybe my question is out of context, but in looking at what development projects fall under these regulations. I'm just curious, in your research, when you reviewed other peer cities and what was done in terms of best practices, how were other organizations treated, like quasi-public organizations, institutional organizations? public regulated entities, local and state, local development projects, government projects, development authority projects, community development corporation projects, non-profits, religious organizations, all these different organizations, they have community or

But how are they reviewed? Are they reviewed by the local staff? Those projects? So like, for example, if a utility or a development authority has a project that's going to be developed in the community, Is it the planning department here that reviews those?

Yeah, I guess my concern is making sure that we treat everybody equally. Absolutely. Private sector, public sector, quasi-public sector, institutional, and what have you. I got you. That they all follow the same guidelines and rules in terms of landscape requirements, whether that's natural.

Yes, I have a question. I think I know the answer to it. Section 1138 prohibited invasive species you added to the list that we had. Where did you get that information and why was it added?

Yeah, just first of all, thank you for going through this with a fine-tooth comb. I really appreciate the work that you guys have done. I do have a question related to the Section C1 on native species unavailability. I have a concern there because previously with our language that we said we had there, it said, you know, if they're unavailable and you have two nurseries, then you can do substitutions. And now it seems like. there really is no guideline for substitutions and how many substitutions you could have. Quite frankly, it looks like you could substitute everything the way this is writt

I guess I just don't understand that piece of it because, you know, the first sentence there is substitutions must be functionally equivalent, can't be sized, right? And it says except two understory trees may be substituted for one. So that really to me is only talking about the size, right? But to me also there's absolutely no, you know, threshold limit on what people can substitute. I would like to see a statement, maybe something that just says substitutions should not make up the great majority of the project plan and maybe leave the discretion to staff.

Well, sure, because then I think there's an easy way for someone who doesn't agree with putting native plants in their landscape plan to just say, I couldn't find them. Couldn't find them?

Well, I don't know if I read it the same way. Because there's just no limitation on substitutions. We're just allowing any substitution.

Doesn't A cover that, though? I mean... If you look at C1, I agree with you, if you just look at C1, but if you look at A, it still has the 60%. I don't think that C1, the way they have it written up, negates the responsibility to follow A.

I think it possibly does. I'm just a little concerned about that, that someone who just doesn't want to follow what we've put in place can just say, I'm substituting. Everything has been substituted. I think we need to make a clear statement that that's not what the intent of this is. That's just my major concern. I understand what you're saying, Jack. I kind of agree with you to a certain extent. It's clear that the intent Yeah, I think there's a loophole for sure. Okay.

See, I think overall I'm okay with substitutions, right? Like substitutions are fine, but substitutions should be few and far between. And yeah, I mean, we could put a cap on it, right? how much of the 60% is allowed to be substituted, we could do that, right? But really I think what I'd like to see is just some limiting language that shows that substitution should not be, make up the great majority of the final product, right? The final product of the plan. That's the language that I would like to see. Okay, thanks. That's all, that's the only question I had. Otherwise it looks great.

Mr. Halverson. Could you clarify the 60% language in this aspect? So you have a site plan, and the exemption in the front, see if I can find that language again, says existing landscape areas within a site plan which are not impacted or modified by a site plan are exempt, right? So is it 60% of the new plants, 60% of the total plants on the site plan? Just 60? New.

Uh-huh. So a site. If I only added four plants, 60% of those would need to be native and the rest of it could be left the way it is.

Okay, because I think that's something we'll need to work on going forward. Because I think that also undermines the intent of the what we're trying to do, because it diminishes it significantly.

If you can't tell we spent months on this.

Yeah, just that one loophole comment. And also in that section, I'm also noticing that we are eliminating the may request language. So I'd love to have that back in there because then I think it forces – applicant to work with our staff here in the city and I think that that's a better result than having no oversight whatsoever and someone could just make their own substitutions without you know any oversight from it not that I expect that we will get many of those but I think it's better to have that language in there still so that's only only comment once again I think it's a really nice job

Yeah. I'm really impressed with your knowledge of what we went through, and thank you for doing it.

Thanks. No other comments? I echo his comments.

I get that if it's open, like you're going to go to Drake field, you're not going to leave your truck out there. But if that vending site is at a construction zone that has a garage and they can store it in an enclosed structure,

Well, it just struck me that if... I used to do construction for a real short time, but they would bring the food truck, they'd just leave it. No, but they would park it inside. It was at a school, they would park it in a garage.

Okay, but that didn't say that here. Well. It just says it can't be there.

I agree with the concept, but I don't like the wording. It strikes me that if I could park it at a data center, it's outside today, we're selling food, and at 5 o'clock I'm putting it in a garage at the data center, this says I can't do that. For food trucks. And still, if it's hidden and out of sight, who are we to say you can't park it there if the data center is okay with it, if the avenue is okay with it? I get if it's in plain view, it's a problem.

And on the vendor property, too. Correct. I think that there's a distinction between the two. We're saying very specifically, at least the way I read it, for a food truck, you've got to get it out of there. But wherever you decide to set up shop, but for a food cart, a push cart, as long as it's enclosed, it's okay. It can be on the vendor site is how I read this. As long as it's hidden.

Which I think is very reasonable. If you have allowed access by the person who owns the property and they have a garage for you to rent, cool, great.

Why can't I put my food truck in that garage is my question.

Yeah, I don't know. That's the part that I'm getting.

I get that we don't want it outside where everybody can see it. But why, if I've got an agreement with the place that I go to every day, and can I park this inside your... garage, why we're not allowed to do that.

All right. That's not the way I read that sentence, though. That's why I was asking the question.

I have no questions except I want to say you did a lot of work, and we do appreciate it very much. It was a good job. Thank you. Commissioner Allen.

My only recommendation would be that if this is not all comprehensive with all the other codes that could affect it, that I would do a reference in the subsection that says please refer to XYZ. Great. So that you're covered and you're not changing anything.

I don't have any questions. You know, when we talked the first time, I did kind of question that copper color. And you had it in the right direction. So I think this is a better choice and it cohesively pulled together better. Thank you.

Can you store a food truck there? Tell me if I'm wrong on this, but the one thing that gets me, I like this better, but my question is, if you knew you had to get approval for the original build, why didn't you think you had to get approval before doing the construction and making the change?

A better choice of color is presumptive, right? I mean, you did make a better choice. Yeah. But if you thought bright pink was a better color, maybe nobody else does. So my just question, I'm concerned about doing the construction without getting approval and then saying, you know, rather ask for forgiveness than permission.

Maybe it's a question for staff in the future. We could put a penalty for folks that come back to us too late.

Commissioner Gant, any questions? I agree with the comments that Jack just made, but I will say that I think this is a fantastic project, and I think it's going to be an asset for the community, and I think the design is very nice. Thank you. Thank you.

I agree with the choice. I think it's beautiful.

Can't wait to eat there. Mr. Chris? Yeah, I actually really appreciate the change because the last thing you want in that busy intersection is a reflective awning. So I think that's fantastic. Looks great.

I do have one question. Sorry. Yes, go ahead. With the approval of the materials, is that tied to the building permit?

Okay, because the question would be if we were to go forward, we could tie the approvals of the Planning Commission to the building permit. And if there's a change to that, they would have to submit a revision to the building permit to get it.

We have a motion. I'll move to approve the building elevations modification to the original approver, J. Alexander's, 100 Marketplace Boulevard.

Not right now. I just wanted to, have we already approved the building elevations on this one? Yes.

Yeah, you mentioned that the shrubs are not and that that will change the percentage, but I assume they're still within the percentage requirement?

Mr. Chris? Yeah, I agree with staff's proposal about the including the plantings in between the building and the sidewalk, but no further comments or questions for me.

It states that AI states that Adagio Maidengrass is invasive, so we would want that replaced.

I move to approve the landscape plan for the daycare facility at 1501 Georgian Park with the condition that the staff recommended requiring plants in the areas between the building and the sidewalk in front of the building. and that the applicant must work with staff to remove any invasive species in the plan.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the UDO Steering Committee's meeting for March 9th, 2026.

It's all good. While we're waiting, can I ask a question? So you mentioned the... new versus the old, and if somebody comes out and says, hey, this used to be here, Is there a wait for them to, is there a table of contents that says this used to be here and now it's here?

But it's easy to find. Yes. That's what I'm saying. Okay, thanks.

Well, you know, I would just say initially is give the Inspire team a compliment. I think you've done an outstanding job and are doing an outstanding job. I think this is going to be a great tool. not only for the staff but for the city council as well as this commission so with that let me just think about i may have some questions later sure sure we can come back all right now i'm impressed with the amount of work that you've done the changes that you've made already thank you thank you

Yeah, I echo those comments. I used to write legislation and statutory drafting in Illinois, so I really appreciate the detail level work you guys are doing. It's great. A couple questions. So I think you said in the timeline there's going to be like a workshop in early next year. What does that look like out of curiosity? What is that process?

And you like to do it jointly with us and the city council.

Not really. So we're thinking about like a whole day type of thing or a whole afternoon? Just out of curiosity.

Got it, got it. You see how many, how substantive the changes are. And then there was a slide that you had about the comprehensive plan and making updates based upon the comprehensive plan. Yes. I just have a quick question about that. So does this look like when there's a policy statement or some sort of requirement that exists in the comprehensive plan that doesn't necessarily exist in our ordinances? then what you're saying that you do here is you actually suggest an ordinance to be created or a requirement to be created and written so that we have consistency, I guess, amongst all of our p

That's great, yeah. And then last thing, just to give you some feedback on the what should you know slide. Yes. You know, in our city, we have a lot of overlay districts, and that can be quite confusing, even for us. I mean, mostly for us, probably, and for staff. From my perspective, it would be really cool if we could put something together, like a table or something, that kind of very clearly outlines the differences between those. You may already be working on that, but that would be really interesting for me.

Yeah, so the requirements of the overlay district. So if you're in the overlay district in Crosstown versus the overlay district over by the avenue, let's put them side by side. I think that would be really kind of neat as a tool for us and for folks that are coming into the city and looking to do development or redevelopment. Okay. Just an idea, because it's not always super clear. Yeah.

That's some sort of guide. It sounds like you guys are doing these kinds of charts all the time, which is awesome. I love really seeing that. And to help organize this material, from my perspective, it might be nice to have no overlay district, what are the requirements? Then overlay one, overlay two, overlay three, and we just have it all in one place potentially.

Gosh, that's a good question. I mean, it would be cool to have both, right? I mean, from our perspective, you know, because we look at these things all the time. Sure.

I would suggest an example, like have you do a sample first. Yeah, yeah. And then instead of doing the deep dive. Yeah. Got it. That's a lot of work.

I have two questions. Based on your experience, because part of the UDO of this process is to wash all the different conflicts and things like that. In building code, we typically take what's more stringent, because there's a lot of conflicts in that. Do you take the same approach, or how do you wash out conflicting information, and can you talk a little bit about your process with that?

It's also nice to have a reference if there is something that could supersede it. Just say, this is what the ordinance is, but reference this just in case. Second question. In your experience, when you're putting these together all over the country, what other than the color coding and some of the restructuring that you were talking about, what devices or methodologies are you employing to help our staff and the local once you're done and you're providing this document it's gonna be a mountain right and it's gonna be clean and it's gonna be great but from a referencing organizing just use path

No, I'm just curious if there's anything from your experience that you've done in the past that this works better than just providing a document that has links in it that's searchable.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead. So could you put the chart back up that shows the schedule of meetings?

I'm just wondering on the upcoming public open house, How will you advertise that?

Got it. The reason I ask, I'm just, you know, the design community, the architects, the engineers, the landscape architects, the ones that work for the developers and the contractors and what have you, are the ones that are going to have to pretty much interpret all this for their clients. And I'm just wondering if there's a a special way, a mechanism to invite those, that group of professionals in to review this whole process as well and have some input into it. I guess you could invite them to a public house, but to me it almost, to me a special workshop just for that group i think would be

Yeah, I think that's what I'm looking for. I think, especially in the design community, they're the ones that are working for the developers and the contractors or whatever, individual corporations, having to pull this information out of the UDO or different ordinances and apply it to their design. So I think some kind of a special workshop just for that group could be very helpful. I don't know.

Go for it. In Boston, about 15 years ago, they were doing a wash. And I saw you guys were up there, too. But they were doing a wash about 15 years ago and found that there was still a law on the books from the 1700s that said you couldn't take baths on Thursdays. When you're doing this for us, are you, is the process looking for outdated material and, or we've talked about this a lot, just conflictions statute, this says ordinance, this says you can, but ordinance, this says you can't, or do you find those conflictions or outdated material?

On top of that, so I guess this would be for staff. If you find four different definitions for right away in a document, how do you decide that we're going to go ahead, since they're all legal documents, you decide, well, we're just gonna stick with this one instead of, I mean, it's not just random decision, right?

You do it. I guess my question is, you do it in September, then you got several months in between. What is January getting that September didn't, or vice versa?

I guess the only request I have for you is that these are milestone dates, which are great, but if you could provide staff and in turn provide us a little bit more fine grain detail of your work process schedule so that we understand where you are and how we can provide you feedback in real time.

The other request would be between February and March, Um, on that milestone listing, when are you going to have a draft document for us to review ahead of the March and is March realistic is the next question. So, I mean, it's always good to have milestones to try and hit, but once you get into review processes and feedback and then reincorporating any comments, it always kicks out.

So I just echo what my colleagues have said. They're positive statements. I look forward to this for my own purposes. I think I look forward to this for staff. I know it's just a nightmare sometimes to deal with some of this stuff, so I think this is going to be great for them. Yeah, and I look forward also to getting those pizza slice bites of the stuff that comes out so that we can look through it and give feedback. I think that's going to be a really good process and And my only request there is when we get close to that, let's kind of map out what that looks like. What does success look li

Mr. Allen. I'm just impressed with how much you've done so far. Thank you.

I just think back to my city planning days, and I think about Shayla here and her planning days. And I wish we had gone through this process when I was in Columbus, Georgia, when I was planning director there. And so I just want to just compliment you again on that. the work that you're doing and how much this is going to be very helpful to all parties, not only the city but the private sector as well. And I would just encourage you as much as possible to bring in those private sector design professionals in the earliest possible in this process and make a special effort to invite them into th