Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good morning, everyone. We are glad you have joined us for today's meeting. The municipal planning board or MPB is an advisory board to city council comprised of citizen members who voluntarily and without compensation devote their time and talents to a variety of zoning and land development issues in the community. All MPB recommendations are subject to final action by city council.

We anticipate the minutes of today's meeting will be presented at the city council meeting on 06/23/2025 for approval of recommended actions. Any person desiring to appeal a recommended action of the board should observe the notice regarding appeals. Below caution, untimely filing by an appellant shall result in an automatic denial of the appeal. Over general rules of order, the board is pleased to hear all nonrepetitive public comment. Large groups are requested to name a spokesperson.

When you are recognized, state your name and address, direct all your remarks to the board, and limit your comments to three minutes per item or as set during the meeting. Robert's rules of order govern the conduct of this meeting. The city of Orlando encourages courteous civil discourse during in person and online settings. Persons making public comment virtually are asked to conduct themselves with the same rules of decorum as they would in a traditional public meeting. When acting on items identified with the letters GMP, the board is acting in its capacity as a local planning agency pursuant to in accordance with section one six three point three one seven four Florida statutes.

Items identified with one star are legislative matters or policy setting actions and are to be conducted according to standard public hearing procedures. Appeals of one star items must be filed with the city clerk's office before 5PM, Tuesday, 05/27/2025 to schedule schedule an appearance before city council in accordance with chapter two article 24 of the city code. Items identified with two stars are quasi judicial matters or implementing actions that are to be conducted subject to Florida spring court ruling and board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v Snyder. The board's decision must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Persons dissatisfied with the board recommendation in such matters may be entitled to a de novo or new hearing before an independent hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter two article 32 of the city code.

A request for a new hearing or an appeal with respect to a two star item must be filed with the municipal planning board recording secretary by 5PM, Wednesday, 05/28/2025. There is a $500 nonrefundable fee for this appeal. The MPB recording secretary may be reached at betsy.brown@orlando.gov or (407) 246-3365. Any person who desires to appeal any decision at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. That includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is made. Thank you for participating in your government and making Orlando truly the city beautiful. Madam clerk, we have a quorum today?

Yes.

Alright. I will call this meeting to order at 09:02AM, and please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Right. We'll open up with a consideration of the April and any motions to waive.

Move approval waiving the reading of the minutes.

I second.

Alright. There's a motion and a second. Any in agreement, plea please unmute your mic and say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? And it passes unanimously. If the MPB has not adjourned for the day or voted to take an earlier lunch break, the board will complete the agenda item reviewed as of 12:30PM and will pause for a half hour lunch break at the conclusion of that item. In accordance with section two eight six point zero one one four, Florida statutes, any member of the public can be heard on any matter before the board today. If the item is listed on the consent agenda, you may ask that item be pulled and placed on the regular agenda.

You may then speak on that item when discussed on the regular agenda. Please complete a speaker request form on orlando.gov forward slash public comments. For those of you joining in person who would like to provide a public comment for any item on the agenda, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to the board secretary. For those of you joining virtually, use the raise hand feature on use the raise hand feature and turn on your camera or dial 9 on the phone to request to speak when prompted. We have no announcements for the day. Is there any conflicts to declare from the board? Alright. Seeing none, I will look to miss Dang for the, consent agenda.

Item one is the 2025 growth management plan refresh project. This is a city initiated application that applies citywide. It's case number GMP2025Dash10002. Amend the growth management plan to reorganize the document to be easier to use and understand, update data and analysis, extend the planning horizon to 2050, and integrate new concepts, including age friendly, future ready, resiliency, and healthy community design. The recommended action is approval of the request.

Do we have any raised hands on Zoom on this item? Seeing none, and we have no in person speaker request, we'll move to item two, which is a deferral. This is the Airport Commerce Center warehouse. The applicant is Zara Abid with Barrios Engineering, and the owner is Larua Development LLC. This project is located at 9197 Boggy Creek Road.

It's case number MPL2023Dash10048. A master plan approving the framework for a future phased warehouse project. The recommended action is deferral of the request to the 06/17/2025 MPB meeting, and that completes the consent agenda.

Alright. Any member of the board wish to speak on any of these items or make a motion?

I'll move approval of the consent agenda.

Alright. We have a motion from miss Kendrick Trader. Second. Second from board member Hall. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say hi. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the consent agenda passes unanimously. We can move on to the regular agenda for item three wetlands code amendment.

I should have it open in that one. You make it look easy. Thanks. Okay. Thanks.

Good morning, everyone. So let's see. I'm Makayla Petun, planning manager, and I'll be presenting our wetland code amendment today. So this would be LDC twenty twenty five dash one zero zero zero one. The requested action today is to amend the LDC to strengthen our wetland protection and management within the city.

So propose our changes to chapters 58, 63, 65, 66, and 68 to implement the twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four wetland and open space study. So how did we get here today? I feel like this has been going on forever. So in 2021, the city was awarded an EPA grant. Specifically, it was the Wetlands Program Development Grant.

So this grant has a goal to assist in building programs to protect and manage and restore wetlands. Subsequently, in the 2022, we procured consultants to assist with this grant. And then we kicked everything off January 2023. We did community engagement February through October 2023. And then we did an NPV workshop November 2023, and then additional community engagement September 2024 to March 2025, and then we're here today May 2025.

So what is a wetland? Uh-uh. So the definition before you is actually per state statutes. So basically it is got some blockage on my screen. Basically it is an area that is saturated by surface water at the frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation.

So you can see some of the benefits of a wetland. So it would include compensated storage, improving water quality, erosion control, providing for wetland habitat or wildlife habitat as well as recreation, education and overall aesthetic appeal. So really the overall goal for today's proposal is to strengthen protections for wetlands, all the while balancing safeguards for natural ecosystems, seeking to restore suffered losses, and respecting property rights. So really today we are to go over six main topics. So those include wetland assessments, wetland tiers, wetland assessment standards, wetland management bufferssetbacks and mitigations.

So for the first one we have environmental assessments. So the purpose for environmental assessments is to identify protected species or unique natural features on a development site. So really currently our comp plan says if you are going to MPB or city council, those case types are supposed to provide environmental assessments. In the LTC it really is only stated within our kind of overlay section. So we do have three levels of environmental assessments.

So up first we have level one, and that is if the land is cleared. So the requirements for that include a location map, aerial and site photos. So for level B, that is if the land is not cleared and it may contain wetland or some sort of endangered or threatened species. And the requirements for that include a jurisdictional boundary and statement in regards to the site and what could be found there. Level C is if the site is expected to include wetlands or some sort of threatened or endangered species.

And the requirements for that include a full ecological report, wetland delineation, and then environmental impact maps. So with our proposal, we are looking to clarify within the LDC the specific case types that would have to submit one. So that would be annexations, comp plan amendments, rezoning master plans, and plats. And then we'd be looking to reduce from three levels to two. So the first one would be level one, and that's if the land is cleared.

And that would be the same set of requirements as existing level a. And then level two would be if it's not cleared. And that would require existing level b and c in addition to a wetland assessment. And that would be if wetlands exist on the site. So the next topic is wetland assessment standards.

So basically those are required to assess, evaluate, and classify wetlands. So on the screen you can see our existing cuet form. And this form, it is a little dated, so it doesn't include descriptors for the point values. It doesn't really align with the state methodology, so we're looking to update that. So with the proposal, we'd be looking at doing more of a qualitative analysis and it would touch on several factors such as adjacent lands, water quality, vegetation, etcetera.

And this would get submitted along with an environmental assessment. It would also include a new scoring form, which would be more closely aligned with the UMAM, which is what's used by the state. So on that scoring form, if you score between 160, you would be a tier one. 59 to 40, tier two, and anything less than that would be tier three. So on the screen we're actually showing an example of what that assessment scorecard would look like.

So on the left is the form itself. It has four sections and five attributes each. And then on the right is a corresponding descriptor and guidance for each line item and associated point value. So up next is our wetland tiers. So currently, this is our classification system.

And the definitions for the three tiers is actually pretty piecemealed within our comp plan and our LDC. So tier one is considered protected and that is defined as being determined to be fully capable of performing its natural ecological functions. Tier two is if it is not tier one and it is greater than 0.5 acres. And then tier three is anything less than 0.5 acres. So with the proposal, we would keep that three tier system, but everything would be better defined, referencing function, features, size, as well as the assessment scores.

And I went over the scores earlier, but it is listed on the screen again. So in regards to wetland management plans, the purpose of these is to ensure wetlands are maintained consistent with approvals and are thriving. So really, in our existing code, there are no set standards. It's more on a case by case basis. So with the proposal, we would be to require wetland management plans for preserved and created wetlands to ensure renewed and improved functions are established and maintained.

And there would be monitoring and maintenance requirements for about five years after approval. And we would also be using conservation easements for protection in perpetuity. So up next are buffers and setbacks. So currently, the code has a minimum building setback of 100 feet from protected wetlands and 50 from the other wetland tiers. In regards to buffers, there is a 25 foot minimum, 50 foot maximum buffer from protected wetlands, and then a minimum of 15, an average of 25 from other wetlands.

So with the proposal, we would be looking to align our buffer standards with the new Orange County standards, and that was approved, I believe, June. So those standards include a 100 foot buffer zone, and that would be retained with exceptions being acceptable in three instances. And that would be if the parcel is less than five acres in size, the development site is urban infill or redevelopment site, and then the or if the parcel is predominantly comprised of wetlands or surface water. And in those instances, a minimum width of 25 feet and an average of 50 feet may be permissible. And then this buffer zone would need to be retained in its natural vegetative state.

So for the proposal in regards to building setbacks, we are proposing to measure from the buffer zone instead of the wetland boundary, which is the current code. So from a tier one wetland, the setback would be decreased from 100 feet and that 100 feet is currently measured from building to wetland boundary and it be decreased to 50 feet, and that would be measured from building to buffer zone. And then the setback from the other two tiers would go from 50 to 25 feet. Again, that would now be measured from building to buffer zone. So up next is the topic of mitigation.

In the existing code, there are really no set standards. It is on a case by case basis. So with the proposal, we propose to use this as a tool to ensure that affected wetlands result in equal or better function compared to the function prior to impact. In many cases, State and Federal mitigation will supersede local requirements. Local mitigation may be used for wetlands that are not regulated by State or Federal agencies or if the application is part of a, is requesting legislative action.

So three mitigation options are proposed. The first one is on-site enhancement, and that entails providing enhanced plantings, removal of invasive species, and demonstration of appropriate hydrological function. The second option is creation or preservation, and that includes creation of new wetland areas or off-site preservation of currently under protected wetlands. And as part of preservation, you would be required to use conservation easements. And then the third option is for an environmental trust fund.

And this fund currently exists. It's referenced in the comp plan. It just has never been used before. So the formula for this fund would pretty much align with the state. You would take the average market rate for mitigation credits, multiply that by the impacted acreage and then the assessment score shown as a percentage.

And the funds could be used for protection, improvement, creation, restoration, or replacement of natural resources or habitats within the city. So in conclusion, the proposed LDC amendment seeks to strengthen protections, better organize standards and requirements, as well as helping to restore suffered losses and provide a consistent outline for management and mitigation, as well as we always strive to be consistent with state statutes and protect property rights. Are there any questions? Oh, I did forget to say that Mark sees us here, the wetland manager. So if we have any questions, he is here and ready. That's it.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff from the board? Well, I'll go up the list here and start with board member Marino.

Thank

you. I think the seems very comprehensive. I just had a question about the setbacks. So the it's now gonna be measured from the buffer. What is the thought there? And let's say you get a variance on the buffer. So then the setback would be to the to the wetland line. What's I guess, what is the thought there to change it change the setback to be measured from the buffer?

So the overall thinking with that is the purpose of the buffer is to create a zone where you're providing for additional protection and things of that sort. So, really, to not have included that in the building setback before, it didn't make the most sense. So we just wanted to acknowledge that. I think Elizabeth wants to add something.

Right. Do you want to explain kind of the difference of what can be within a building setback versus what can be within a buffer?

Yes. So within the building setback, you can still do parking, for example, compared to the buffer, which would need to be the vegetative condition. So even though we do have the building setback, you could still do parking and the associated landscaping in that area.

Okay. Thank you.

Board member Hall.

There was mention made of the Wekiva River Protection Area. It just seems to me that that's a little overly expansive. I can see imposing those requirements in the Rosemont area around Lake Orlando, but way south of there, it just seems to me to be a reach. And because it it as long it seems to me as long as the hydraulics work imposing some kind of open space requirements or that sort of thing to protect the Wekiva River when you're many miles from the Wekiva River and would have no impact on the river itself. It seems to me, except for water flowing that way. That seems like an overreach to me.

So with these amendments, we're really not proposing to touch the Wakiva overlay boundary. That's really set by state statutes, and it coincides with I forgot the exact name, Elizabeth, if you could remind me. But our overlay boundary matches what we're required to do with the state statutes. So with the proposal, we're not impacting that overlay.

It just seems to me there ought to be a little bit of discretion in evaluating any project that is way beyond the limits of actual impact, but it it happens to be drawn in the Wakanda River Protection Area.

Board member Baldacci.

Thank you, mister chairman. So if you purchase a piece of property that has no wetlands, but the adjacent property has wetlands, you you would still have to apply the buffer?

Yes.

Okay. 100 foot buffer kinda seems like a lot. I I guess you guys have case samples. I get it. If you took a five acre piece of property that was surrounded by wetlands and applied the buffers, you would have two acres of developable property. If if I'm just using a a square piece of property, that seems extreme.

And, we are also providing exceptions for those three instances. So if it's urban infill redevelopment sites, if the parcel is less than five acres, or if it's predominantly wetland or surface water, we would allow for a more reduced setback or, a more reduced, fur area. But if it is on an adjacent property, you still do need to respect, the buffer zone.

This other question, you said you were the scoring was getting to be more aligned with UNAM. Is there a reason that we don't just go with UNAM?

So when we were working with the consultant, the UMAM form itself is pretty intricate and complicated, and planning doesn't really have too many biologists or professionals of that sort, so we wanted to make it a more simplified form for our staff in addition to whoever was filling the form out. So the two forms are aligned, but they're not identical.

So what happens in these instances that I see is you get water management district out coming up with a wetland line. You get the local jurisdiction out, and you have different wetland lines and all the different and different buffers amounts. And it it gets pretty confusing.

So we're not proposing to do any delineation. We would take the the boundary provided by the water management district.

Okay.

We wouldn't do any delineation of our own.

It just may have a different score, or you're using a different score to come up with our tiers as opposed to water management, which only uses the UNAM for their mitigation.

Yes.

Alright. I I just take the buffers a little I I I like I mean, I hear what you say that you're gonna use common sense, but it doesn't seem like built in.

If I could add to that, the local city scoring system will help us when we're reviewing evaluations to change the future land use from conservation to another land use because 80% of wetlands in the city are designated conservation, which is a good thing. But we still get requests to move the boundaries and everything else, and we want to be able to make our own assessment independent of the water management district because they're looking specifically at their set of rules, whereas as a community, we can make a broader decision about the vision for the city and where we want open space. That gives us data to help evaluate that request.

I appreciate that. I think my my biggest concern is someone owns a piece of property right now, saw this advertised, and nobody's don't look like anybody's here from the public, which is a good thing. I think, like you said, most of our wetlands are conservation, so this is not a huge impact, I think, citywide. But someone here their property has no wetlands, so they think, oh, that doesn't affect me, And now they're gonna lose a 100 feet of their property as a buffer because the neighbor has it. So that was kind of my concern with this. That's it.

Board member jury.

So I I appreciate all the work that you guys have put in over all of these years. And I think, generally, everything makes a lot of sense. And to to sort of build on what board member Baldacci said, the the only because I do think that if your neighbor has a wetland but you don't, there should be some mechanism for assessing what that is. And and what I the only thing I don't like in the language, of the LDC is actually the the the last section of two in the wetland buffer zones two a because you you and I think even in the presentation, you made the point that, you know, if if the parcel's less than five acres, if it's more than 90% wetlands or if it's urban infill, then it would be excluded. But the language actually only says it may that a 25% buffer may be acceptable.

And so I would my only change I would recommend is that we go ahead and and say that a 25% buffer is acceptable and not and take away the discretion of May because there's there's lots of situations where where you could envision that being held up in exchange for something else. And, in in this case or in those cases, I don't think that would be to the benefit of the community. And the other thing I would add to that is that I would go ahead and specify what urban infill is because I think that that's another case where, like, we know it generally. But instead of having someone come and make the case that they're urban infill, I think just providing clarity for those couple of situations would be would would be better for everybody, involved because I think there's there's a chance to maybe have some things either fall through the cracks or get leveraged in ways that maybe they shouldn't be.

Member Kinnick Schrader.

I had a question actually to follow-up a little bit on mister Drury and mister Baldacci's point. I'm just wondering, how do you know if your neighbor has wetlands on their property? Because in my experience, that's usually a physical on-site inspection. And how do we gain legal access to an adjacent property to actually determine if there's a verifiable weapon on that property?

So within our current applications, there's actually a requirement to provide information on adjacent sites to include right of way within 300 feet of your property boundary. So that's actually not something new. And some of that information is available on the Water Management District site. So even though it may one example I can think of is the Shadow Ridge apartment complex that was approved by the board a few years ago, and the adjacent site was a city park, and it did have wetlands. So using the information from the water management district page, they were able to provide that information.

Or remember in Moreno. Yeah.

I have a final question in the form of an example. So let's say you have a 10 acre site that's developed. You put in a stormwater pond that has, you know, over time become a wetland. Would that be considered like, let's say it has all the markers of a wetland at that point. If the community or developer at that point wanted to, for development reasons, build something close to that pond, would they have to then get a like, would they be subject to the 100 the buffer?

And then if they did impact it, would they have to pay the mitigation to be able to do that?

So I'm gonna ask Mark if a retention pond could kinda morph into a wetland.

Can I ask one more related question to that, which is if you can't provide the buffer, there's a provision that you can you can mitigate for the buffer that you can't provide? Is what's the at what rate? So is that the same as a as a wetland impact, or is that is a buffer impact sep separate mitigation than a wetland impact?

I I can speak a little bit to that because I actually kinda lived through one of those very similar scenarios. And I'll tell you, the state recognizes that as a wetland. So it's it can become a jurisdiction of wetlands, but, typically, mitigation won't be required in a situation like that where it's it's something that we created and built. And, again, all of that's contingent upon, you know, quality. Where's that in the landscape? You know, is there a sensitive water body right next to it? You know, there's just so many things that go into. It's not a simple easy answer. But I think for the most part, you know, we can work around some of those types of scenarios.

So

I have a I have a follow-up to that too. I had I had some earlier questions, and and staff provided some good explanation of what mitigation costs and things might be for, say, a tier three wetland, which generally, as it's listed in there, the water management district wouldn't wouldn't necessarily recognize those categories. And you could remove them generally at at right without any mitigation. And some of these would would get picked up, and I think, you know, maybe the impact is is minimal. Also, there's the ability to remove it and and mitigate it for it by, say, enhancing your stormwater ponds or what have you.

And I think all that's good, and I think there's there's a good explanation on on a couple things you can do, improve hydrology, do additional native plantings. I don't know if there's somewhere in the code that defines to what level you have to do additional plantings or to what level do you have to improve hydrologic function. Clearly, the goal is to provide a net ecological benefit, you know, maybe equaling what a pond in this case, you know, say it's a say it's an old we're out Sunbridge or something like that, so we're not in the urbanized area. Maybe things don't fall in conservation. You essentially have a cow pond that's turned into a a wetland over time that might qualify to be a a tier three, and then suddenly and it's not covered by the state.

Normally, you could just remove it. But now we're gonna have to consider it to some level. And there's gonna be a buffer, whereas there wouldn't have been, and I think it could be impactful on the net ecological benefit of that of removing or keeping that tiny wetland, which is under half an acre perhaps, is de minimis. There's no there's no real value to it. In fact, anything we're doing out there in creating stormwater ponds, and if we do provide additional planting, there's gonna be create better habitat than that pond probably provided to begin with. So I wonder how cases like that get get handled. And it sounds like there's discretion. Common sense comes into play, and you go, well, there wasn't a lot of value there, so remove it. But I think that what's written doesn't doesn't clearly state what may or may not be considered a wetland. There'll be a score.

It will get picked up. It may be a tier three, but I don't know that there's any any mechanism for measuring other than mitigation costs. You could do that with the score and the acreage of the wetland. But to what if they don't wanna do that and they just wanna enhance a stormwater pond or or something to provide a net ecological benefit, say they're removing a lot of small cow ponds, to what level do they have to enhance their site? I I don't know that I've come to a conclusion of what that would be based on what's written.

So we didn't want to be too restrictive or specific in terms of the three options. So the language we went with is mitigation should result in equal or better function as compared to the affected wetland prior to the impacted activity. And then if there's any if there's an inability to to come together, it can come before the board, and we can have those sort discussions.

Okay. Yeah. I think my my general thought on it is there'd be some some level. You know, if I I could I could say, alright. You're gonna put in stormwater ponds, which are already gonna hold more water than perhaps a half acre tier three wetland was ever going to. And it'd be just add littoral plantings to some percentage of your stormwater ponds. You're good. No mitigation costs, or you can choose to mitigate if you want to in cost. Something I I would think you'd wanna be more specific at because I could see there being conflict. If someone comes in, they go, look.

I've had the the state review my site. They didn't recognize any of these ponds. You add them all up, and they they're impactful in some way to my project. Margins are pretty tough these days on development, so any little thing is tough. And if they said, alright. Well, I'll just I'll just enhance my my pawn banks and create littoral shelves in certain instances, and that provides an overall benefit to the site. That's an easy choice, I think, for most developers to make that they can handle. But, again, I I would be I would like to see more specifics in that note, so I'll just leave it there, just a general comment.

And you also wouldn't be limited to necessarily only choosing one of the three, mitigation options. So they could be creative and do some sort of combination option. So that's where we also didn't wanna be too limiting. It it kinda reminds me of the bonus section of in in the OEC where you can choose to hit that 3%. You could do two different uses. You could do three uses as long as you're hitting the percentage, and you're making your resulting in equal or better function.

Thank you. Can I ask you, is this so say you're out of tier three? You're in tier one or two, and the state water management district has recognized them and there's already and this is not the conservation and protected within the city. Are we just going by the state's mitigation requirement at that point and it voids local in that case?

So you're saying if it's tier one or two and it is not designated conservation?

Yeah. Currently. And I'm thinking of areas that are maybe, you know, our Southeast area where they just have not been picked up.

So I think that would really align with example two in the report where we would be open to whatever the water management district is requiring, and we would take that into consideration.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. That's all I've got. Board member Valdocchi?

I in general, I I support this. We've got not that many wetlands left in the city. We should protect them. So I I I I do support this. I just wanna make sure there's enough wiggle room or ability for staff.

I like the thoughts of ability for staff or the board to be able to, you know, do have some common sense. But just we could run through a million examples, and we'll never figure everyone out. But just a real live example, Orange County project, the an existing facility before all these laws, the parking lot was there was a parking lot fence and then the wetland right up against the wetland. They're redeveloping it. By the letter of the law, they would have had to tear out 50 feet of the parking lot, you know, and find somewhere else to put it.

But in discussions with Orange County EPD, common sense prevailed, and we only had to apply the wet, the buffer to the areas that were undeveloped. So I think those kinds of things, you know, getting some common sense into it and still protecting our wetlands is important.

And that's really where the other sections of the code would kick in. So it sounds like this wasn't even a substantial improvement or enlargement. So, again, we would be on the same page as Orange County.

Miss Moreno?

I just just a follow-up on my my earlier question on the, you know, stormwater pond that may or may not be considered a wetland, you know, in the future. If we designate all because I'm assuming, do the stormwater ponds I probably should know this, but would that be if it turns into a wetland, do you have to have conservation designated in the plat for the stormwater pond? Meaning, you could never take that stormwater pond out of service.

So so you're saying somebody is coming in to redevelop, and they already had a retention pond, and it's now a wetland?

Yes.

I think that's something we would take into consideration. It depends on, the functionality of this new wetland. So we will look at the environmental. And if it's pristine enough to merit a conservation easement, that's where we would work with the applicant on that at the time of their application.

Okay. I was just trying to make sure that we're not putting conservation on all, you know, which may prohibit development.

I would also add, we're not in the business of rezoning other people's properties. So if it's on private property, that could potentially be a negotiation tool if you protect this piece and you can develop over on the other side, but we wouldn't go in and say, we're rezoning this retention pond to conservation.

Right. Any additional questions from the board for staff? Alright. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to discussion here. Thank you very much.

Could I just respond to some of the comments that came up? I think the two specific requests for revisions, you know, that Blake had, that 25 foot buffer is accepted. I mean, I think that's reasonable change. And the question about the definition of urban infill, we do have in our comp plan, figure c eight, which is called the urbanized disturbed lands area. So we could change it to refer and then that way, you're if you're in the map, which is basically this traditional city boundary.

So it's not everywhere in the city, but it's that true, you know, where we have transit and that kind of thing. So those would be my suggestions if you wanted to make a motion with revision.

Alright. So I think I think we ought to discuss through these things and see where see where people are, particularly to those suggested revisions and and anything else. I don't I don't think that covered all the comments that were were made, but I'm not sure how convicted any one person is on on what was brought up. So if we if you don't mind, just entertain a discussion. My my thought is I I agree with board member Drury on those points and fill in the 25 foot buffer making that clearer. I still have I like I like the overall intent here. Right? You know, we wanna protect wetlands. I think that I'm all in favor of that, obviously. I'm in the business doing that.

I think that I would just like some clarity on, you know, on what some mechanisms are when it comes to you know, like I said, the the payment of mitigation fees is very clear. That's something someone can calculate, but things that that someone might address in the field to mitigate on-site. That that language is a little unclear to me. I think that that could that could get into something that is much more costly than just paying the credits, which, of course, someone would just do. They would just pay the credits.

But my goal would be to have someone address on-site enhancements to mitigate rather than paying the the mitigation fees. I actually I I prefer that someone improve their site, improve the function of it, keep things as, you know, those actions point source as possible would be would be a goal I would have. So if there was some clarity on what that means, and I and I don't know that we'll be able to craft a description of what that means sitting here today. So that's kinda where I'm hung up. But other than that, I think it's I think it's great. So I'll open it up.

Yeah. You know, was just going to say my only concern is going back to the point I raised about the ability to due diligence if you are in a real estate deal on your neighbor's property to determine if there is actually a wetland on the property. You know, I see some potential logistics issues there. And then, you know, on the conservation easement, I didn't know if that is something that would be granted to the city or if an easement has already been granted to the district over that same area, if the city would accept that as part of their mitigation. So those are just some logistical thoughts that came to my mind while we were talking about the process.

Any additional discussion or a motion?

I would like to make a motion to amend the code with the buffer amending the buffer zone limits that board member Drewi recommended and bring more clarity to the

I believe that was

boundary limits. It was urban infill. That's right. Creating more clarity on the definition of what urban infill is.

It's a motion by board member Barrett. Do we have a second? Second. A second by board member Brown. All those in favor, please unmute your mic and say aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? And it passes unanimously. Alright. That takes care of the regular agenda today. Do we have an appeals update? Alright.

Before the appeals update, I wanted to embarrass Mikael a little bit. Yesterday, it's before city council, she was awarded the McNamara employee of the year award. So so alright. Had to had to get that in there. So, yeah, we do have one update, and that is again the Starwood PD communication tower.

The city council or the hearing officer upheld the MPP recommendation of approval from, I guess that was back in January. And yesterday, city council had the quasi judicial hearing and the recommended order was approved or the the MPP's recommendation was upheld, with one condition. The mono, the mono pine is no more. It is now a mono pole. So and so that's that was the big change in that one.

Okay? No no monopine. Monopine went away. If you remember, I think the rationale for the decision was a lot of folks had concerns about the environmental impact of the needles or the material, and so this was the decision that they made.

Alright. Thank you. And we are adjourned for the day at 09:50AM.