Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and then come back later and ask for a special permit to actually change that um for a fee. or if they transact the property and a different owner comes in and they want to do something special, which is what the flexibility we're trying to create, they can do the same thing and say, "Okay, I'd like to change this and here's the fee and this is what I want to do." So, it's a perpetual, it's not a oneanddone scenario. Um, but the benefit of it in my mind is that it gives people flexibility. Doesn't tell them they can't do it. It just gives them a cap on how much they can do as long as you're willing to, you know, pay the fee, whatever that is. Any other questions on this? All right, option number four. So, this is incentive based for the tree fund. Um, so there's no hard native percentage mandate. If you achieve 80 plus% native voluntarily, you earn a reduced tree fund contribution on this. The pros is that it rewards strong performers without penalizing all owners equally. Remove staff burden of making subjective approval decisions. Addresses the concern that small properties face disproportionate disproportionate impact could organically drive uh higher compliance rates over time because again this is a this is a carrot uh and preserves property rights while aligning financial incentives with city values. But the cons is that there's no guaranteed floor uh could result in very low native plant uptake across the city. The treaty fund is a crucial resource of reducing contributions there could have downstream impacts that we don't want to happen. The incentive may not be compelling enough to change a developer uh behavior at scale. It's difficult to enforce a track without a baseline requirement and could favor large developers who could strategically optimize to hit the 80% from there. Option five. So I said the last one was a bit of a carrot. Uh this is the stick.

So monetary disincentive for non-native heavy design. So this basically says that there's no native percentage mandate uh on this at all. Owners can choose uh uh owners choosing really heavy non-native plants would just incur a additional fee or cost associated with it. So the pros on this fully preserves property right owners uh property owner rights and design freedom. It's uh you know discourages non-natives without overright prohibition through uh financial um signals and uh and fees. Removes all staff judgment calls on themed or non-native designs. It's arguably probably one of the more simple and transparent options available for us. If you want to if you want to plant what you want, you just pay for it. And also the revenue from fees could support green bell or tree fund or anything else that we decide or that's decided from there. The cons, there's no guaranteed baseline and native plant use. Uh owners with deep pockets can simply just pay and plant whatever they want. Uh and that undermines the goal of potentially an ordinance like this. Uh a fee structure may be hard to really calibrate. So if it's too low, you know, just this will just be ignored. And if it's too high, then yeah, you litigation, courts, lawyers, all that good stuff. Uh does not actively promote native plant uh knowledge or awareness. It's the weakest ecological outcome from the options discussed so far and could be perceived as selling exemptions from envir uh from environmental standards. And the last one, hold on one sec.

Yeah, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Okay, no problem.

Option six, invasive species ban only and then just encourage native. I would say I would argue that this is pretty much pretty close to where we are right now minus the invasive species component of this. Uh but in summary, it's just saying like invasive species are not allowed. Um, we would love to see native species, but there's no mandate or uh or incentive really for private commercial or industrial use on this. The pros is that it addresses the most urgent and universally agreed upon problem. Again, the invasive species ban. Uh, it's from a regulation standpoint, it's minimal and the b uh and from a in a small burden on well no burden really on private uh property owners from a native perspective uh but still from an invasive perspective. Yes. Uh there's no staff judgment or subjectivity that comes into this. Um it's easy to understand, administer and enforce. Uh the invasive ban alone delivers would deliver you know a good measurable ecological improvement for us and it leaves maximum design freedom for commercial development. But the cons somewhat similar to what we've been talking about so far is there's no floor on native plant use. uh the outcomes of the adoption of native plants uh could vary wildly based on the owner and the decisions made by the owner. It would represent a missed opportunity to build a lasting native landscape identity for Pree City. Uh it does not align with the original policy intent of the commission and the council. [clears throat] May not satisfy community survey values across green spaces. It has limited financial uh or environmental return on investment relative to the stronger standards and encourages but cannot require the behaviors that the city wants. So the next steps which uh we're about to do step one right now is really just let's talk about and debate these options. uh you know we can rank uh obviously again I'm going to go back to

the overall list in just a moment uh and uh we can talk about the pros and cons of each one of these and maybe come up with uh uh something that uh we'll meet you know most of us can uh most of you voters can approve on uh for this and then uh have a consensus on the way how we treat native species. Uh then I'm going to revise based on tonight's meeting. I'm going to revise the draft ordinance. Uh you know, again, what was in the agenda, uh the packet was just a baseline. I'm going to go back and revise that. Uh then we'll schedule a public hearing uh where the staff places this item on a future agenda as a future uh formal public hearing to allow the community to comment prior to a final vote. And then our recommendation will then move forward to city council. Well, they'll consider it and uh and go from there. So, with that, I'll toss it over to you guys to see if there's any thoughts in terms of uh these options, what you guys like, what uh you would not want to see, and all that good stuff.

I'm just going to go ahead and open up the floor to the commissioners. You want to go ahead and

Yeah. I I just want to say thanks to Ken for putting this together. It's a really nice effort here. Um really appreciate this. Um I just have a quick question for staff before we maybe get into this because I I I I do like Commissioner Halverson's uh special use permit idea. After after a landscape plan is submitted to us and if a commercial uh property owner wants to come or wants to change their plan, is there any requirement currently for them to come back to us in any way? If it substantially changes the plan. Yes.

Okay. And and how how is that enforced? Like you know because if what is substantial mean you know so if there is a um heavy draw of removal of trees um changing trees things of that nature. Yes. They are required to come back to um you all for that change of the landscaping plan for an approval. Yes. Now if there's a tree that has died and there is needing to replace it or remove it [clears throat] that doesn't come back to you. So small changes, little parts of the property wouldn't be a big deal, but a larger scale, correct,

change either they, you know, someone in the community might report them to code enforcement, I would imagine, or the property owner themselves, if they're aware of the requirement to come back, would do so willingly before they did that. Okay, that was that's the only threshold question I have. Um, [clears throat] yeah, something So yeah, Commissioner,

just thinking about all these um [snorts] you know, in terms of kind of the order of things that that I think that I would like to see in it. Um, and and this is mostly opinion right now, but I I like the goal where we push for an overall higher percentage of uh native plantings. Number one, and even if we have to offer incentives to do so, push them to push them in that direction. Um, an ordinance that's easy to understand both by the developer and easy to enforce by the staff. Um and so having a standard baseline and understanding that standard baseline on both parties part I think is really important in order for both uh compliance as well as enforcement. Um something that that doesn't you say one of those options, it doesn't undermine our overall goal. Um, but also something that does allow for some percentage of individuality. And for example, I know that many businesses have have beds all around their properties that may that are annual annual bids that they change out every every season, so to speak. Um, so we want to, you know, we don't want to take away something that they themselves want to personal personalize their property either. So those are kind of like four things

that came to my mind immediately from just from this basic discussion.

Absolutely. Go ahead.

All right. So where this kind of started was Ken had a great presentation and then I came on board [laughter] and we are kind of uh on different ends of the spectrum and me not so much a distaste for native plants but we had a a [clears throat] builder that wanted to do a Japanese theme around their hotel and I feel that it what we were presenting originally was restrictive. I believe that we should not have invasive plants anywhere. I believe the city should have full control over city- owned property and whatever they want to do. I fully agree with that. I thought I still think that a privatelyowned business should have the right to do what they want with their land. That said, Ken has also come up with some great arguments and concerns over the last several months and I think that I'm I'm willing to to I have moved my opinion up from number six

to something in between two and three. If we had uh I think 60% is a fine number and I like the idea of the uh special use space. If we did something like that that was an incentive or a detriment, however you want to look at it, but gave them more room. I think 10% is uh almost unworthy. It doesn't give them enough room. Like go ahead, put one Japanese pine out there and you're done. Uh but I do like the idea of coming and meeting in the middle. And I would support something in the in the middle there between two and three. Which I think is a significant jump from where I was.

Yeah. I mean, I would I would tend to agree with Commissioner Allen that that the compromise situation that allows a little bit more flexibility [clears throat] is at least in my opinion what I would like to support. Um, I I do I do really like the special use permit, but I worry about the burden that that might place upon code enforcement if someone were to say, well, X, Y, or Z individual is not meeting this. They don't have the permit. Um, and then there has to be some sort of back and forth about how you calculate the percentage of plants on each parcel. [clears throat] And I I don't know if that's something that has been considered.

Yeah. I mean, to submit a special use permit, you'd have to submit a landscape plan which shows exactly what it is, where it is, just like you would a regular landscape plan that they would approve. So, they'd come out there and say, "Yep, that's that. That's that." I mean, it's it's very spelled out. It's not a I'll just do 25% and I'll let you know what I did later. You have to actually submit it for them to be able to review and approve it. Okay. So, this is a going forward requirement and as a permit. So, folks that have this their situ the situation that they have currently, it's not something that's going to apply to them only redeveloping.

Yeah. I mean, if they wanted to come back and do something that they didn't think they could do previously and they would say, "Hey, that's a great idea. I'd like to do this." And then they would get a landscape architect to So redevelopment and new development, right? Yeah. Okay. So it it it's fully transparent to anybody reviewing it and approving it. And then if there are changes, they'll already have that design in their pocket. Correct. And they can bring that up and say, "Well, we only change these few little things."

Yeah. I I if we're going to do a special use permit, I'd want to know where we were going to put the fee. And I I would support a higher percentage than 25. I don't think 25 is enough to give the creativity that we we've seen in other proposals. That's why I was going with the 60. Sure. So that was I kind of did the 70. I was suggesting the 7525 just because it was trying to meet the spirit the spirit of the the original um proposal um and give the flexibility at the same time. If we want to lower that slightly, I'm totally open to that. And I don't know two things. What is a usual and customary fee that we would charge for this?

Um, is it $1,000 a percentage? Is it $10,000 a percentage? More than that, I don't know. Probably not. We We don't want it to be prohibitive. Um, we want to incentivize people to do this to actually contribute and, you know, help the city um in whatever bucket it wants to be in. Um, and then how do we how does the city actually implement that is the next question, right? So, and that's out of my purview, so I don't know, but that those are the two questions that I have. Ken, what do you think about my proposal?

I like your proposal. I like where you're going as well uh on this. Um, you know, I think that meeting somewhere in the middle is the the best is something I would absolutely support uh on this. And I think again, you know, we've had a lot of ideas thrown out over these year at this point. Uh, and I think that uh meeting somewhere in the middle could be really good on this. I would say though I'm lean if if I had to pick one of these I do like three but um you know the more I think about it again you know let's say there's a monetary uh fee for the special use permit it favors large parcels and large developers so much more from a monetary perspective because again you know if we're saying like okay a certain percentage of your land is you know a thousand dollars you know that you're going to get a lot more bang for your buck on on a large property percentage- wise than a smaller uh one uh on that. So,

oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I maybe not didn't describe that the best, but yeah,

I I would say this. If I had to if I had to pick one of these, I'm leaning towards number two. Uh just something that's just straight up saying, "Hey, you just need to have a percentage of of native. It's clean. It's easy." Um and you know it it it it eliminates a lot of the potential complexity that can come from three, four and five uh on here. And as well something to consider is that you know even passing something like number six is a huge change from where we've been [clears throat] already on this. And um you know we can always we can always go test something like number two and just come up with a percentage on it and it can be revisited in the future. But that's already a a significant change from what we have today which is

really nothing. And and that's exactly what I was going to say. I mean we're going from having nothing at all to having at at minimum an invasive

species ban which is which is excellent. um and then seeing where we can fall um you know or or come to a consensus where we where we come up with a percentage or or something like that. Um, you know, I I think the thing we can look at also is kind of exactly what you said. Um, you know, if we go ahead and and recommend something and it goes forward, um, and and we see that it I don't want to say it's not working or sees that it needs to be tweaked in one way, shape, or form, you know, we are able to go back in and and change it to update it um, you know, along the way. So I mean we look at our ordinances they're they're written in stone but they're not quite um you know they are kind of living documents as we go go forward with them also.

Sure. So and and I I yeah I mean just banning the invasive species is a win for for Peach Tree City. Yeah. It'd be huge. Yeah. Yeah. Can you put back up?

I think number two is well thought out. Yeah, I like it. Yeah, I I do like number two because it's it's easy for everybody to understand and most most of all staff it's, you know, just easier for everybody. Well, I guess the only and this kind of falls into maybe some of the others, but I mean, do we want to have something that is specific for city property um where it is a little bit different than than the 60% and keep the 60% commercial? I mean, we have we have that option to look at something like that saying, hey, you know, it might be a little bit more work, but is it something that we'd want to think about? I don't know.

So, we have comments we would like to add. Sure, please. Okay. Apologize. Yeah, sure. Well, several things. Um, one though about the city property. There's already something in the ordinance that says that we don't have to follow our own ordinances. So, that would be a conflict. Um, And really on this topic specifically or on any topic that's some that's everything. Yeah. Okay. Some some other city staff had concerns about that as well. Um you want me to read some of them?

Sure. Uh so uh originally uh whenever this original draft was put out uh last year um it was sent to um city arborist, city engineer, uh code enforcement and the public works director and um the public works director was concerned about um you know the city having to use 100% native uh species requirements. Um, he said they do make every effort to use native plantings, but they frequently re rely on things such as arborvite for screening. Um, and he said he was pretty sure those weren't native. Uh, the city arborist said he didn't think we needed to include sweet gums on the invasive plant list because he says it is not. He realizes most think it's [clears throat] a nuisance tree, but does provide benefits to the environment. [clears throat] And I I think he says it is native to the southeast. Um let's see. For us to hope prohibit it or have it removed. Um he didn't think we needed to go that route. Uh let's see. The city engineer was concerned that we make sure we're not inadvertently prohibiting required plants or trees or grasses that are listed in our storm water manual for ponds or from the erosion control manual, I guess, otherwise known as the blue book and the green book. Uh and then uh code enforcement said he he listed a couple of things that he didn't see on the grasses list that he thought was one of the main culprits uh that people were generally looking to keep out. And I can't actually pronounce all [laughter] of these things these three items that he uh listed, but there were um some about three species that he listed

which I believe we added to the list after we got that. Okay. And I believe we did remove the sweet gum from the Yeah. ban list also. So we took that into consideration, right? Yep. Okay. So this is a revision after that those comments what was in the packet I believe. So okay. Gotcha. [clears throat]

Gotcha. Um then just some things that I noticed. I guess we we have concerns in general about not having um a professional, say somebody like is going to be helping us with the UDO to really thoroughly review perhaps a draft and make sure that it is cohesive with other sections in the ordinance. So, we think other sections of of this particular chapter need to be reviewed to make sure there's not conflicts. Um, I I pulled, you know, I I noticed a few myself. Um, for instance, we have this list of invasive or prohibitive invasive species. Yet, we have a section in the ordinance for tree protection on public property and it has a list of recommended plants. actually includes a few of the things that are that are in this um list. So that section would need to be updated. Maybe that list is removed altogether or at least updated to not include you know so there's some there's some conflicts here and there that we would want to make sure um you know that somebody a little more you know that's professionally does this kind of thing can check for us. Um so that you know that that was a big concern. Um and then also um just making sure that uh some of the statements that are made you know whether that is actually a city practice or not. Um, for instance, I think some of uh, let's see, one of the comments that I pulled out was, let's see, um, well, one thought we had too was, do we need to add anything to the definition section of this chapter? For instance, define native plant, define invasive plant, and and maybe there are some other terms that we might want to uh,

define. Um let's see. Wherever we site zoning ordinances uh applying to uh certain zoning sections, we should include all of them. Uh for instance, one section said GCGI and LI. We probably should go on to list um all of them. We have found uh ordinances lately that actually don't list uh I think it was it the sign something in the fencing ordinance that actually didn't apply to a limited use residential district, but we were trying to but we were applying it until it was pointed out that you know what, this section doesn't actually apply to that. So then we had to allow some things that we hadn't intended to allow uh until we fixed it. Uh so um there's that. Um [clears throat] let's see. Oh, back to what I was talking about before. Um Section 135, for example, in the proposed ordinance um says something about how it would apply to um things that we require landscape plan reviews for uh having to do with subdivisions, common areas. We actually don't require um landscape plans for um residential subdivisions unless it's a condition of a reasonzoning. So, there's a little nuance to that. Um I I thought

Yeah, I thought this was only going to be applicable to commercial and industrial. Those were some of my red marks. I asked that question last time. Yeah. Okay. These are all good points though. Yeah. Um just, you know, just things we want to bring up. So before you actually vote on something, you know, a draft is great. Sure. I think it's a good baseline, but you know, we would want it to be reviewed more thoroughly, [clears throat]

right? And so one of the things that Laura and I chatted about earlier today about this project or this particular um item um I want to be clear that when it comes to enforcement um it has to be enforceable, right? It can't be just a adopted code. It has to make sense and make sure that it's something that when we're here before the judge for citations or we're, you know, explaining it to an applicant or a property owner that it makes um clear sense to them and it's not having conflicts. So, one of the things that we're doing when drafting a section of a code, that's a new section, we're technically reviewing the entire zoning code, because you have to read several chapters to see where the other conflicts are lying. And so, um, that's pretty much what Laura is referencing, how she's gone in and found several other sections where there's some conflicts. Um so I just want to just say that you know whatever is to be planned to be proposed to council just ensure that it's something that in fact I believe it was mentioned by um our commissioner here that it needs to be something that can be enforced

and and I think that's very good points and and you know there there's still some work to be done and as Kenneth said you know this is a discussion on what we have now and kind of there will be some revisions to it in another draft before we look to even go forward to to recommend anything at that point in time. But those are some good good points. Um, you know, I guess we run, you know, if you're looking at any conflicts within the other ordinances, I mean, that's something we run into with anything. Um, and it's something that you're right absolutely needs to be done with any changes to any of the ordinances that that any of us look to do. Um, whether they come from council or whether they come from from the commission up. So, that's a key key part that will have to be done, no doubt. Um, and I'm sure as you said, there are some references elsewhere that it may either contradict or maybe overlap with uh with what's in place already. So, that will need to be looked at. Um, and yeah, enforcability. Um, I think that's a that's a key part also. um you know, we want to make sure that code enforcement um as they're going out there is going to be able to go ahead and and actually enforce this. You know, are they going to be going out there with, you know, a list of, you know, native plants and and does this match up with with what it is because it's not on there. Um you know, we want to make their job as easy as well as staff's job as easy as possible. Um just because of everything that they have to take a look at. So, um I think that's a very good point. you know, how do we give them the tools um to go ahead and enforce something like this?

And I think in general that might be difficult for like I have a landscape architecture background, so I am familiar with a lot of the plants, not so much these grasses and things like that, but a lot of shrubs and most trees I can identify just by looking at them. But I the code enforcement team doesn't have that kind of background. So, um you know, when I I I don't know if y'all aware, I do landscape inspections after they've installed what you all have approved. And so there's that level and I'm comfortable with that. But the next person, the next senior planner might not be a landscape architect. In which case, we might you might have to hire change Bob's job, change the [laughter] city arborist's job to include landscape inspections or something to that nature. But yeah, code enforcement in general might have a tough time. I mean, they obviously they know what bamboo is, kudzu, things like that. So they definitely could easily identify some of the most common things. But

can I let me ask a question to staff that we've been talking about this like Ken Zipper over a year and we got to a point where we thought we were good to go and you've put up some hurdles. What is the next step in your eyes?

So I don't know if those are hurdles or identifying where we have seen where you know we've given some some thought to it. It's it's not just these two staff members here that's seen these things. Okay. So there's an engineer, there's I understand there's an engineer, there's a um arborist that she's mentioning as such. So when we are taking looks at these things and we're trying to ensure that we are able to do that. U we bring these things forth. Uh we knew that this was not ready for adoption tonight. So the proposed or the the the suggestions were brought to you tonight because we knew we weren't there. So I I think this is the first time we've been to a file that has gotten to this step. So, I know he mentioned a year, but we haven't been here for a year. So, again, I don't see the timing being off.

Okay. Yeah. I I think these are all very valid concerns. You know, I used to write legislation for the state of Illinois, so I understand what it's like to make sure there's no conflicts in the laws. Um, you know, I Laura, I think if you can provide some of these things that you've noticed and that the staff has noticed generally to Ken so he can address at least some of them, I think that gives us a head start on on making sure that we don't have enforcibility problems. Uh, you know, I think I think the the second line defense for that might be the UDO, right? So we we have the same thought.

Yeah. So, we put this in place. We address as much as we can with the proposal that we all kind of agree on and we say to the UDO folks, see if you can find any other conflicts and we move forward from there. I I think that's at least then we get to a point where we have something that we all would like to see for the city instead of arguing with folks that come to us and say it's not really a requirement. I agree with that. Can we Is it possible? because it as much of a good a job as we all try and do to make sure there's no conflict at all, there will be something that we missed, right? Probably. So,

is there some language we can add to this specific issue that says if there is a conflict that we hope doesn't exist that the final default to Yeah. default to the planning reviewer for final approval. So whatever the f you know whatever you guys say regardless if there's a conflict or not is what goes I don't think I understand the question.

In other words if you're reviewing it to the best of your ability by what you believe that the ordinance says right and someone says oh no there's this other minute clause in the back and you could say well the spirit of the code means this and this is what you're reviewing it on. So, as the translator of the code, I will tell you that in in that review, if there comes any complications where I'm not certain as to what it's saying, I do default over to the city attorney for his review of his concept. Um, I will say I try not to do that. That's why I work very hard to ensure that the code is is very clear um to avoid that. Um, so yeah, I will say that if there's ever a moment of of conflicting language, I I go back to him and he helps me with that language. It's like a It's like a supremacy clause of some sort, right? Yeah. I I I've seen it work in some contexts, but I would defer to the city attorney. You could always insert a a sentence or or some clause that says any con any any conflict should defer to the this particular section. Uh this should control in areas of X, Y, or Z. But I would defer to the city attorney to give us that language.

Yes, of course. Yeah. Well, I guess you know we have we have some additional thoughts and comments here. Um, but I guess from from my side, Kenneth, you know, or and and the other commissioners, you know, are we are we moving towards, you know, one of the options more than the others and and I think that's where where we can start and then go from there and start saying, okay, you know, what do we need to add, subtract, Sure. um sort of thing because I think that at least gives us a good baseline to say, okay, we've we've moved away from the others and this is where we want to focus on going forward,

right? Yeah. I mean, we can talk agree on the direction real quick, but ultimately again, you know, the this exercise and a lot of discussions right now is really just to figure out the direction that we're going to head on this. Obviously, there's a lot of realities and a lot of details to figure out on it, which we want to address as best as possible. feel like we'll be able to get there, especially if we have the UDO as a backup uh as well to to help iron out some other things on it. But the fact that we, you know, I think we're potentially going to agree on a direction tonight is huge in itself. No, option six. [laughter] Option one. And we're back to Everybody Everybody picks one,

right? I mean, I hear a lot of agreement on option two. I I think as long as everyone doesn't have any objection, no individual has any objection. I think that's the direction that I'm hearing us go towards. I agree with you. I agree. Well, I tend to want a little bit higher percentage, but I'm not dead fast to settle.

Here's an option. So, the only question I've got I like the option, too. I'll start there. But the 40% non-native allowance is that and this is a nuance but 40% non-native allowance of the minimum requirement. In other words, if they were to provide 200% landscape, could you limit the 40% to just of the smaller amount that's required? Required caliber inches is what you're talking. No, no, no. So, so if you've got a piece of property and you've got a certain amount of landscape percentage coverage you have to provide, is that right?

It's not so much coverage as like he said, it is a it's a caliber in based on the impervious area that they've added to the site. Basically, it's only a requirement that that we've seen, right, Laura? Is there any other requirement for amounts besides caliber per inches unless it was part of a zoning condition or you know for an a limited use commercial district or something like that that said you know

I I can't think of one but you know that said they had to have so much percentage of coverage or they have to create this buffer here. uh usually it's not spec well occasionally it's specific you must have three types of evergreen trees you know to create this what buffer okay but it you know standard is but those would be more special situations that would come forward right not not typical I don't want to over complicate it we'll just state the number two as stated we'll develop those [laughter] taking them outside

but some sometimes they want to provide Well, you know, usually it's a struggle to get them to provide what they're required to provide, but occasionally they might want to provide more. So, I see what you're saying about the 40% is of the required, not of what's provided. Yeah. Yes. So, like you said, maybe that's just a nuance in the language. Yeah, it's a good point. All right. Yes. One more question. Absolutely.

You know, leaning a little bit more and more toward the number two, but could we have something in there that in a way to incent them to go higher? Well, we pushed away from that because that that that was part of the plan originally. Okay. Or or part of the discussion, but we pushed away from that because once you go into any of these uh cost between three and five, then the has to get more involved and you've got to decide what is the cost, where is the money going to go, who's going to make that decision, who administers it. Yeah. Two is the easiest Yeah. decision maker for everyone down the line.

Understood. Yeah. And and there still is the the tree fund for if they come under. And I just thought of that as far as your percentages go. What if they're only able to fit on the site 50% of what's required? Then how do we work those calculations of right now? It's just really nice and simple. 60% of whatever they're proposing needs to be native, right? That's just that's how I read. That's the way how I read it as well. So it's not 60% of what's required. It's 60% of what's on the landscape plan.

Nice and easy. That makes more sense. Yeah. Okay. So, we're good with moving forward with number Yeah, I think we're in agreement for for number two. All right. Fantastic. Yeah. Thank you guys. Thank you guys for participating in this. Absolutely. Appreciate it. Thank you for your points, ladies.

Yeah. Thank you. So, I will say this, you know, I'll I'm going to put my best foot forward in writing this uh for city staff. I may well, I will [laughter] loop loop you into this as well for for feedback and uh opinions. And again, any information that you've already pulled together, which you've already covered tonight, uh please send my way so that way I can start incorporating this uh on it. And again, I'll just uh do what I can for it as best as possible and uh we'll keep debating it. the actual details.

So, from from the proposed ordinance standpoint, I I do we want to go ahead and discuss anything in there? Um because I know as we as staff brought up, you know, with the applicability of section 1135. Um I I do have a couple points I'd like to kind of talk about. Okay. Go ahead. So, and and I think this I think most of this is fine. I think it needs to be maybe rewritten or rewarded just a bit because it does contain um residential oh items in here and yeah so I looking at the subdivision common areas I I think we need to go ahead and remove that requirement. Sure.

Um and then the other thing when it comes into the the other item is the parking lot landscapes and required tree islands. I think we need to go ahead and make that the same. So we may have a sub high maybe a sub item under that commercial office industrial developments and then say you know parking lot landscapes and and you know the tree islands because in my neighborhood we have a a building we have a you know clubhouse and there's a parking lot. Um so if we went forward with this it would actually apply to parking lot landscapes for our our clubhouse area. Um and I don't think that that's really something we need to be looking at. Yeah. It's not. So, I would I would agree with that.

And by the way, we treat those as commercial projects, the amenity areas when they have a full-blown clubhouse and pool and all that kind of stuff. We look at the we do site plan like development plan reviews on that and they they'll be um believe they're required to do a landscape plan for that. Okay. Well, that is that is good to know. If you could confirm that. Confirm that

because I know the HOA is in the process. there's a lot of old trees and shrubs and everything that need to be removed and new plantings made. Um, so if that is a requirement, I'd like to let them know before they go any further. Quite honestly, [clears throat] I think really those were the only the only items because it says, you know, this ordinance does not apply to individual residential yards. And again, that's what I was looking at for, you know, neighborhood entrances and things. It would be nice, you know, to to see some native and and it's always, you know, you could put recommended. Um, but to hold them fast and strong, too, that I think would be something we probably don't want to do.

I would agree. Let me point out another requirement in case you want to consider this. um new single [clears throat] family lots um are required to have uh when all is said and done two uh trees two inches in caliber. So, and it's inspected by the senior code enforcement officer when when the project is complete to make sure they've got the two trees. If you could, if you wanted require that those be native, it's just two trees. [clears throat] I think the only thing is that now you're crossing over again into the residential because if it's not and somebody goes and puts new trees in, do we say, "Well, you're putting new trees in, therefore it's a new planting, therefore they need to be It opens up

Yeah. It opens up a lot of a lot of things. It's the slippery slope." Yeah. You know, I think uh for another day. [laughter] Well, I know my neighborhood has a list. If you replace your tree, it has to be one of these. So, yeah. That's true. We might be competing with the HOAs, so we don't want to probably

Well, I think this is a a great place. Um and and and thank you for all the work that you've done on this. I know it started off goodness, it has been a while. It started off as just an an invasive, you know, ban, which which is something we we definitely need. Um and it's it's grown since and it's growing in a good way. Um, so Ken, you know, thank you for all the work you've done and and the commissioners for and staff, you know, for all the input that they've had over over the time we've been working on this. Yeah, thank you guys. You guys have been really good. Ken, can I ask where are your um lists coming from? Are you taking that from Athens Clark?

Okay. So, do we need going to kind of ask do we need anything specific to come from this or recommendation? No. Um, not at this time. Um, we'll be speaking with Kenneth um moving forward about some of the things that Laura has brought up as well as what direction you have mentioned tonight. Um, we'll be also involving the other staff members as well just to make sure that they're on the same page with us. So, we may reach out to have some type of discussion with everyone. Yeah. Kenneth.

Yeah. And like you said, there may be some some notes we need to put in there. you know, if it's in if there's any conflict between, you know, the erosion control manuals. Erosion control manuals are are first and foremost. You default to those. So, I mean, there's probably some some additional language that needs to be and I know you do have some footnotes and things in here. So, what I'll probably do is I'll probably write a brand new version of the ordinance knowing it's not going to be great for a starting point and then work with city staff accordingly from there. Then bring it back and uh we can talk about the way it's set up and if it passes muster from there.

I I I expect we'll be pretty close at that point. I would think hopefully from where we're at. Yeah, I I think we would be. I think we would be okay. Um, if there's nothing else on old agenda, we don't have anything for for new agenda. Uh, we don't have any public hearings this evening. Um, do we have any member or staff topics? Not at this time. I know that we did send out clarification on um the training. I've received two comments back for those who would like to attend, but if anyone else would like to, um, that offer is still open. Okay. I need to go back and take a look at my calendar for that. Any other items for this evening? Commissioners,

do we know what's on the next agenda? Just out of curiosity. Oh gosh. Quite a bit. We're We're full. Oh, really? [laughter] Yeah. That's why we did this this time. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. So, and what are the dates of the next meeting? March 9th is the next meeting. And we do have a UDO meeting uh following that. Um there will be at least three uh items uh land two landscape plans and Brad Shaw estates coming back March 9th. Okay.

Uh there was something else but a uh we've only recently received it some minor building elevation modifications. I think that we'll move in to the 23rd. So three items plus UDO meeting. Great. Thank you Shayla. on the training. Is that ever held locally or is it always in I'm not going to Lawrence. Local as in metro Atlanta like down here like metro Atlanta like northwet county. The the answer is no. [laughter] No, it's a it's a drive.

It it is. I I I guess I was fortunate at the time that uh it was during the pandemic um that it was held online. um which was good in many ways, but it was you know unfortunate in many ways that we weren't able to get with the other people and actually meet them in person. So um it was still really good information. It is really worth the drive. The instructor is amazing. Yeah. Is is it the same instructor who does Marlo? Yeah, she Yeah. Was was very good even online. Yeah. Are they half day sessions or full day sessions? They're full day. Full day. It's very it's very good. It's very good uh program. Yeah, it it is. Like I said, I've only done 101. I'm looking to to do 102. Um but yeah, if for for good starting point, um 101 is excellent.

It really is. It is. Okay. Okay. Anything else, commissioners? Okay. If there's nothing else, um anything from staff? No. Nothing else. Okay. I'll move to adjurnn. We have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion to adjurnn and a second. All those in favor signify by saying