Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Think we're about at the bottom of the hour, at least according to my watch. Um, like to call to order the December 15th um, Peach Tree City Planning Commission meeting for this evening. Um, if all in attendance would please rise and join me in pledging allegiance to the flag of our country. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, great. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go right along. Um, any announcements for this evening? No, sir. Not at this time. Okay. Any presentations? No sir. Okay. Um I know we do have a change to the agenda. Um we do see the difference in the agenda as to what was posted online. Um the agenda that was posted online has an item five which is public comment. Um that has not yet been finalized um between staff and and council and and the various commissions. Um so that has been removed from the actual agenda for this evening. Yes. Um, is there anything else we need to do with that? No sir, just acknowledge.

Just acknowledge it. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so that's agenda changes. Any other changes to the agenda? Um, further down you'll see that applicant has asked to have an item postponed. Okay. Yes, sir. So, we don't have an exact date on that yet. No, sir. We will be meeting with the applicant sometime this week to determine what date would be best to bring back to you. Okay. Perfect. That's the Bradshaw states. It's not on tonight.

No, that is correct. It's been postponed. Um, okay. Uh, minutes. So, the minutes from the November 10th, 2025 Petri City Planning Commission. Hopefully everyone's having an opportunity to take a look at those. It's seems like it's been a little while since we met last. Um, any comments, questions, additions, deletions to those? No. Um, that being said, do we have a motion to accept the minutes as submitted? I'd like to make a motion that we accept the previous meeting's minutes as provided to us in writing. Okay. Second.

So, we have a second. So, we have a motion to accept as submitted uh or approve as submitted. And we have a second. Any other discussion? No. Okay. All those in favor of approving the minutes from the November 10th, 2025 planning commission signify by saying I. I. I. Minutes approved as submitted. Okay. Old agenda items. Um discuss text amendment to the land development ordinance, specifically artle article 11, vegetation protection and landscape requirements. And we have Kenneth Hammer. But I'm going to turn that over to staff to start. and then we'll go from there.

Yes, sir. This item originally came to you all a few months back. Um it was a discussion that was had to ask for it to be um drafted by Mr. Hemner and so we have since met with him as far as with staff and city manager to um give direction and where the city wants to see this um move forward. As you may recall, this was initiated by both city council and the planning commission. And so Mr. Herman has done an amazing job with providing information to you and I'll pass it over to him to present it.

All right. Thank you very much. Here, let me move this real quick. Awesome. So, I'm going to go through this presentation. I'm going to go ahead and say there's questions, comments, or anything like that throughout this. Feel free to chime in on it. Uh so, this can be an open discussion on this. Also gave you guys and also city staff as well uh a cheat sheet as to everything that I'm about to talk about right now. I have this lovely one sheet summary which is five pages I think and the ordinance is four pages. So it's a little bit longer but covers a lot of the material that I'm going to talk about right now. And of course you can reference the ordinance. There's going to be screenshots throughout this whole thing as well. So you're going to be able to see a lot of this but uh it's there in paper form for you as well. All right.

I don't think I have the clicker. Those are the same. This is the ordinance. This is the summary [clears throat] in terms of uh changing slides. What's that? You just say next slide. All right. Sure. All right. So, yeah, we can go ahead and get started. For you. That's cool. It's all good. Thank you.

Appreciate it. All right. So, just to give a very high level overview in terms of what I'm about to talk about, I'm going to give an executive summary of the current version of the ordinance as it's written right now. Uh then we're going to review the current version of the draft memo and the proposed ordinance. Uh and then address cons and then also there's been some comments and concerns raised uh throughout this process uh about you know certain elements of what's uh has been written within it. So I'm going to bring those up. Uh that includes things uh from city staff in terms of what they said and then also possible approaches uh to addressing some of the concerns as well. So that way we're not just presenting a concern, we're presenting a solution to that concern as well. Can I just ask you one quick question? Please go ahead.

What prompted this since I'm brand new on the commission?

Yeah. So, um, city, uh, city council and some members of the community have talked about native plants and, uh, uh, bringing that, uh, formalizing, uh, an approach for us to say to talk about how we can get rid of, uh, uh, invasive species and also promote the use of native plants uh, within the greater uh, community, which is actually a great segue for the executive summary. So, I'll reference this as well is that this is uh a text amendment uh that we're discussing right now to article 11, which is the vegetation protection and landscape requirements on this. And again, it's to encourage requiring native plants uh to reduce long-term uh to do everything from reducing long-term maintenance costs associated with water, chemicals, replacement plants, etc., and then also improving just our ecological resilience as well on this. And this would apply to commercial, industrial, and institutional uh developments and also city projects like parks, streetscapes, etc. Want to be really clear on this is that this is exempt from this is individual uh is residential uh like yards and also golf course playing surfaces, things like that. The things that we're going to talk about right now, the key standards of this is it's recommending the way that this is written right now is saying 100% native for buffers, uh certain zones and city projects, 75% native for general commercial institutional landscapes, uh excluding approved themed gardens, which we're going to talk about quite a bit in just a moment as well. And then also uh prohibiting uh and having a strict ban on anything invasive uh for pears, uh bamboo, etc. on that. And but at the same time, this is going to have some flexibility measurements in it. Again, theme gardens up to 10% of the site uh as it's currently written right now could be non-native for specific design themes like oriental gardens. And then also functional ex uh exceptions. Uh so for example, staff could approve

specific non-natives for narrow screening where natives aren't feasible. That's the overview of this. We're going to go in a lot more details. Any questions on any of this so far? Perfect. All right. So within the ordinances are written as it's written right now. I'm going to have a screenshot on the right hand side of each uh slide uh of this and again it's in the materials as well that you guys have right now. I'm going to have a section summary and then also a rationale. I'm going to go through this semiquick uh on this because again I think you can read this. I'm not going to read it to everybody on this. So really what section 1134 which is the first part of the ordinance as it's written right now talks about the purpose of this and again it's about promoting ecological balance water conservation and also allows us to be more fiscally responsible uh uh moving forward and the rationale behind this is like you know it's explicitly links uh it's it's saying that this ordinance is going to explicitly link environmental goals with economic outcomes on this and also this is really important this clarifying policy uh to reduce long-term maintenance costs associated with irrigation and chemical use while ensuring new standards reinforce rather than conflict with existing city codes. The next section of the ordinances is written right now is about the applicability of it. So this section says that you know this is going to apply to all development and redevelopment projects that require landscape plans for city review. That means commercial, office, industrial and institutional developments as well as sub uh as well as subdivision common areas and parking lots. It excludes public pro it also explicitly includes public projects as parks uh roadways, stormwater basins etc. On that the rationale is again for this section is just to say that you know it's targeting the high impact regulated landscapes where professional planning and city review are already occurring. Uh and it also obviously includes public projects as well.

Question. Yeah, go ahead. On the um the exemptions uh you know being only residential that's exempted I guess. Is that right? That's the way it's written right now. Correct. Does that include apartment complexes, condominium complexes, townhouse developments? It applies anything as uh commercial industrial. So if those are listed, if those are zoned that way, then they would apply to it. Are condominiums, apartment buildings zoned commercial? I'm sorry, we were chatting about the ordinance. I apologize. What was the question?

I was I was asking that the these regulations don't apply to u residential. [clears throat] No. Okay. Does that include apartment complexes, condominium developments, townhouse developments? So, typically those are identified as commercial. They are. Okay. Um, so I would identify that to be the same, but that could spell out in the ordinance since we're the actual authors of the file. We can identify if we would like for it to be the same. So, it it depends on you all how you would like to see it. Again, you know, it just wasn't it wasn't clear to me, but understood. So, being that he drafted, I think he'll probably the best to answer that question. Yeah. Right now, this does not cover any residential. So, if it's zoned residential, then this doesn't apply.

Okay. Yep.

All right. So, this is a really important part right here. So, this is saying about the standards and uh saying exactly where this is going to apply uh on this. It goes into more detail on it. So, this section says that 100% native planning are required for buffers, storm water facilities, and city-owned projects. Uh, for general, commercial, and institutional landscapes, at least 75% native planning is required. However, there is text that explicitly states that approved special purpose gardens are excluded from this percentage calculation uh on this and uh that uh it also says that the special purpose gardens are allowed to be uh have primary non-native are can be primary non-native provided that they are capped at 10% of the total site on that. Uh

so can I speak to this point? Please go ahead. So my concern with this point is that for general commercial use at least 75% of native plants are required. The way I read this over the weekend is that for special purpose gardens they're at a 90% restriction rate. They can only have 10% of their property have that Japanese oral garden that we've talked about so many times.

So let's go ahead and jump to that concern real quick. So for theme gardens, the way that this is written right now, obviously one commissioner, hello, uh expressed concern that specific design concepts such as ornamental or theme gardens might be effectively prohibited under a strict native plant requirement. So the way that this is written under 136B4, it does allow for special purpose gardens up to 10% of the total area of the site. uh on that that as well. The way that it's written says that the the 75% that is would be non uh the extra 25% that could be non-native does not factor into the 10%. So 10% of the total area could be like a specialty garden uh on that and then that then takes that proper like that percentage out of the total property and then the other part the rest of it can be 70 uh up to 25% non-native

because I'm not following neither. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's complex. So let's say that there's let's say there's a number 100 in terms of associated with the total property on this. Okay. So 10% of it can be of that total property uh can be a specialty purpose garden

everything that you know you've you've highlighted in the past on that. So that leaves the remaining 90%. 75% of that 90% can then be non uh has to be native and then the additional 25% of that 90 can then be non-native on that. So it's almost like you're carving out again 10% of the total property to do anything like a memorial garden, a specialty garden, etc. on that.

That's so I I understand now what you're saying, but it's not clear to me from the way that this is written that that's the case. If I was reading it as is, I would say the way it's written makes me think that I can do 10% for a special purpose garden and 25% for something else, which means if I'm doing a special purpose garden, that I can do 10% plus 25% which equals 35% of non-native. But you're saying it's 10% plus 75% of the 90%. I I worry about applicants coming to us and having trouble also understanding.

Yeah. No. So on section 136A2, that's where it kind of spells it out right there. So let me read that. At least 75% non-native planning. Okay. Approved special gardens per se per subsection B shall be excluded from the percentage calculation. I don't love that piece. I think it's just going to be difficult to to to piece together, not only from an applicant standpoint, but also from a uh staff standpoint to really kind of count every tree and every everything in the in you know, we're have to do that anyway,

but it just seems to me overly restrictive. That that would be my opinion and I I'm looking forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow commissioners, but I I I don't want to stop your presentation. No, no, this is a discussion, so you go. Yeah. Yeah. I think this is the only area where we aren't in 100% agreement. Sure. Because if it's a city-owned property, roadway, community space, we all agree that non-native and use Georgia invasive plants are not allowed and we should be using native plants in that area. It's these specialty areas and I thought don't even know why when I was writing this and reading your proposal, which again is really well written for the most part, the math always escapes me.

Yep. Um, I was thinking about what if somebody wanted to put in a Margaritavville, Jimmy Buffett based restaurant and 75% of it has to be pine trees and tomato slants and then you can have one palm tree out front to designate it's a Miami based themed restaurant. M so I go back to my original concern one why do I don't see a reason other than preference why any such space 100% of it their the property that they bought that they own that's not next to the roadway or next to a water area

can't be what they want it to be one and then two as I've read further through this placing the responsibility on staff to use their judgment as to whether that's a worthwhile uh endeavor because we talk a lot about replacing you. If you want this plant, we instead of encouraging you, we're going to insist that you replace it with a Georgia native plant [clears throat]

unless you have a special requirement. And now we're asking staff to just determine whether that special requirement is worthy or not and make an arbitrary decision. So, I think this issue largely, again, you've got great information here. I honestly think it's just an opinion-based. Should we have 100% native plants within the confines of the city or is there room for for a business to come in with a Japanese garden themed landscape or a Margaritavville themed landscape without us putting restrictions on it? Sure. Especially excessive restrictions.

Sure. I think you're touching on something that's really important. you said a moment ago, you know, this is like a bit of an opinion uh on it. Absolutely. This is, you know, again, obviously you could you could argue either way in terms of being like, hey, they bought the property, they can do with it what they want versus, hey, you know, as a, you know, as a community, we care about the ecological and obviously the financial aspect associated with these as well. So, I mean, this conversation is really about like, you know, where where do we where do we want to settle on? Let me back you up one. Yeah, go ahead. Because I have a question about this. It's not hypothetical. It's educate me. If somebody has that said restaurant,

where is it? We talk about fiscal responsibility, where is that our responsibility? Long-term maintenance costs are not our responsibility. It's the restaurant's responsibility. [clears throat]

Explain that piece to me. That point is more about like the I would argue uh about more about the public land on that because obviously there's taxpayer money that's going into those plants. Now if it's on a private property you know again like a commercial property plant dies you know of course they're going to be paying for it but there's things beyond just the financial responsibility of it as well. I mean, obviously there's the chemicals, there's the uh wildlife that that you know, obviously relies on a lot of the native plants uh that would that go in our community. It's also as well about like, you know, how do we want to present our community in general? like do how you know do we want it to have you know like for lack of a better way to describe it this is more generalizing do we want it to have like a uniform uh view in uh presentation that is native or do we want to have a Jimmy Buffett restaurant with palm trees and then a Japanese restaurant with

you know yeah I mean like again we this this argu this this discussion is important because again it says like how do we want to define our community on I [clears throat] think you pose a good point in terms of being like it's their property. You know, they can do with it what they want, but at the same time, you know, obviously there's there's cons that come with that as well. And if we're talking about this ordinance in terms of being like, you know, hey, we're a community that really cares about native plants and the ecological benefits that come from it, then this ordinance really strengthens that. So again, it's a matter of do we want to have autonomy for, you know, somebody who owns a property that is in a certain zoning of it or [snorts] do we want to have the ecological benefits and financial benefits as well that also come with all this.

Yeah. So that's at the root of all this uh the way that this is written because again, you know, obviously I we've talked a lot about this up on here within at home at home. Yeah. On this. So, you know, the the way that this is written right now is again to lack of a better word, it's a compromise on it. It's still trying to find a way to be like, how can we give the opportunity to do, you know, a special purpose garden on this without undermining the the overall ordinance and the benefit that it brings to our community. Uh, so again, you know, it's it's either, you know, we could either go all my way or all your way or somewhere in between. I would argue I want I want the somewhere in between. I just don't feel that.

So I guess my question to you is like what would be what do you see as a somewhere in between on this? I have a question. Yeah. Go ahead. In in terms of I mean these commercial uh developments could be a oneacre development could be a half an acre development could be a 20acre development. So from a scale I mean do we apply this to a minute level of development or do we apply it mainly to to larger larger developments and how and then it goes to enforcability. How do we enforce

correct me if I'm wrong here Kim but it looks like it's the way that you've drafted it is it's applicable writ large to any correct it's by the zone. Yeah. It it seems to me a little bit overburdensome when you're talking about small postage stamp type commercial devel properties. Uh that's just my opinion. Sure. Um and then how do you enforce something like this? Um I guess through the plan review process. Well, the landscape plan would have to be submitted and approved, right? A going forward enforcement kind of thing. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean [clears throat] I'll I'll add to to the ring my opinion here that um you know we had this hotel that came through that had a really fantastic design quite honestly with their landscape planning and I would I think this would stop them from doing what what they were going to be doing there and and I think that's not exactly the direction that I that I gleamed from that conversation that we want to go to as a as a commission. Um that being said, I think there's a lot of benefits here, right? Um I I I do believe strongly that, you know, there are significant um community benefits to encouraging native plants and I I think we should still do that. Uh but one of the things that I I had mentioned uh in that previous discussion was possibly uh incorporating incentives um towards higher percentages of native plants instead of maybe um mandating a certain percentage. Right? So you know from my perspective I think this this 75% 10% thing is is is is great because I understand the the the goals of it. Uh but from my standpoint, I would much rather see a lower required percent overall with a just let's get rid of the special purpose garden things to get rid of the confusion that might be had when an applicant brings something either for the applicant or for staff. So, so my this is just an idea and once again I'm very interested in the rest of the opinions from from the commission but I'd love to see uh instead of 75% we say 60%. And then we eliminate the section about the special purpose gardens and then you know it's it's really just someone hey if someone wants to use 40% of their property for something really cool and different they have the ability

to do that. That that would be my my suggestion. And then on top of that, in order to incentivize a greater usage of nater plants, maybe we could say if you have a at equal to or greater than 80%, maybe there's a reduction in the contribution to the tree fund if someone doesn't meet the canopy uh requirements for that particular property. We've seen a lot of folks come in lately uh at least in the last year or so with uh tree fund contributions uh because the the the the way that the land that they're developing is situated, it doesn't allow for the kind of canopy inches that we're requiring for that acreage. So for me, you know, to to address the concerns of like, hey, this is not exactly fair for the smaller properties versus the larger properties, I think an incentive would be great. Um, and then maybe just simplifying it to a a smaller percentage. Um, that would be my idea, but I'm interested in the thoughts of of my fellow commissioners.

Sorry to stop you. No, you're fine. [laughter] This is the point of this. You're good. Yeah. Pull the thread on something you said. I kind of like the idea of the incentives piece. And I'm curious if if Joe Millionaire comes in and wants 100% of his land to be is there a way to okay, you do that, but there's going to be a disincentive.

You know, it's going to cost you X more to do that rather than just planning a a native plant. My two concerns, one is the burden lying on staff to make arbitrary decisions. I think that I spent 20 years in management in the federal government working on systemic problems and trying to create uh nationwide decisions where somebody in California couldn't make a different decision than New England. And so that's my biggest concern is arbitrary decision-m. The second piece is I I look at the ownership rights of the business. All that said, if there was a way to incorporate that type of monetary disincentive, I would like it. Otherwise, I fall uh if we had to vote right now, I'd go with your version, Andrew. I like the the larger percentage being allotted. And again, Ken comes with a myriad of great reasons for this to happen. My two concerns are ownership's rights. It's not not ecological. It's just these also to be considered.

Well, I I think it goes in you're mentioning ownership. I mean, that goes back to any of the ordinances we have. Um, and that's why we have ordinances because we have certain ways that we want to see things, but we do give latitude as to and and that's one of the reasons why we're doing the UDO and that's one of the reasons why we worked on, you know, the the 54 West um really was to open up in some ways creative juices um you know for for developers to come in and say, "Well, before we had it had to be 700 00 daer fabric um for for canopies and and that's what they had to use and they had to use this type of of lighting which is no longer produced.

Um we we didn't want to do that. We wanted to say hey it it should be this type of of lumens. Um we would like to see LED. That's what we really really pushed for. Um but come back to us with some some different designs as long as they fell within these bounds. We're not going to tell you exactly this light to use. Um, and and I don't see that any different than kind of what what we're looking at here. I mean, I I think the invasive that that's a done deal. I I I mean, we look at it and say, "Hey, we're we're good with that." Yeah. Um, agreed. I I would like to see, you know, some type of of bounds

for for we don't have a a wild west sort of thing. Um but we still give that allowance for people to come in and give us some interesting designs. Um you know and and I think you know I was looking at you know 10% and my question um just to that is is is that you know 10% of of plantable area or is that 10% of the total site area because not all the total site area is plantable. Right.

So that was one of my things in my head. It's like, okay, if it's, yeah, if it's 10% of plantable area, well, that's different than, you know, we're looking at 10 acres or 3 acres and we only have maybe x amount of, you know, square feet of of plantable area. But I'm definitely for native. Absolutely. And and I think I'm the same way. I'm trying to figure out how we can put some bounds about it, but still allow some some unique designs to happen. Um, you know, again, you know, the hotel was a perfect example. I I think they provided a very unique landscaping design that quite frankly we haven't seen here before. Um, and it's like, well, how do we still do things like that but not allow it to go too far.

Um, I don't know if if 75% is is good or bad, if if 10% is is good and bad. I think there's a number in there somewhere. Um, and and I do like the idea more of probably incentivizing than having somebody probably come in, you know, from a major corporation and say, "Well, hey, you know what? You need $500,000 for me to put whatever plants I want in. Well, here's $500,000 and I get to do what I want to do." I would like to see, you know, maybe something more from an incentivization type that, hey, if you do go more of native, um, you know, tree fund, um, you know, would be great. Although I I hate taking money out of the tree fund

um because that's very important to us also. Um but maybe that's a better way to take a look at at something like that. I thought Andrew's option without we didn't pull the threads on it too hard, but I thought that was an excellent compromise. Took the responsibility off of staff to make the decisions. the numbers are out there and it gave somebody the option to pay a little more to do what they wanted to do with their property. And and that's not taking away from staff at all. I mean, Laura Laura is is tremendous in in her landscape. [laughter] I So, I don't know who in staff is making those decisions. So, it wasn't a shock anyway. [laughter] Laura,

I assumed it was the uh the forest manager, but no. and and that and that you know that's one of the reasons again even we're looking at doing a UDO is to try to help staff out to try to help developers out to try to help everyday Peach Tree City citizens to better understand what what needs to be done what can be done what can't be done um and and I think making this as simple and easy as as possible while still putting those bounds about it may be may be the best course to What are your thoughts, Ken?

I want to make sure that we're not undermining the the benefits of what an ordinance like this can do. Um, I will say this, you know, 75% is in line with other or other areas uh that have similar ordinances to what we're talking about right now.

Um, I get skittish about weakening some of these things and I understand the incentivized component to this as well. And again, you know, I I understand property rights associated with this and all that, but like Scott was saying a moment ago is that these ordinances are to, you know, help define what Peach Tree City is. You know, if we look at things like the comprehensive plan and the surveys that happen uh with that, you know, green spaces is one of the top things that everybody says that they really love about Petri City. Yeah. And this really strengthens that

immensely. uh on and obviously has all the benefits that I've been talking about for months uh at this point. Um I obviously, you know, differ in opinion uh from from you guys on this. Obviously, I'm willing to, you know, compromise and and all that, but I think that we I I I again, I don't want to undermine the the full benefits that an ordinance like this can ultimately accomplish for us.

Yeah. And and I guess from the standpoint too, I mean, we look at we look at the ordinances um just as as we look at at other ordinances, you know, and we've had to go back with from recommendations and things over over the years

and either tweak it here or or tweak it there a bit. Um you know, and there's always that opportunity to do so. um you know, do we look at making something a little not as strict and and see what we we get or do we make it a little stricter and then back it off from there if if that is the case. Um because both are possible. Um you know, it's going to be a little bit of additional work to do, but both are possible. Um, you know, once once this ordinance is passed, it it's not that it can't be changed. Um, that's something to think about also is it does give us a little bit of latitude to see how things come through. Is it is 75% and and 25 10% too much? Um, again, you know, the the kind of Asian themed, you know, garden that was put in as far as my time on on the commission. Um, that's the first one I've seen like that.

Yeah, we're talking about things that are rare requests overall.

So, so are we really are we really going to be faced with some really unique things? Maybe, maybe not. Um, I think as we go forward with with redevelopment more than new development, which is the bulk of what we're going to be seeing going forward, you know, are there going to be opportunities for things such as that, or is it more of, well, yeah, you know, native plants fit in perfect here? You know, we may want a a specimen tree or a specimen plant or a small area. Um, but overall, we're able to go ahead and do native species. So yeah, I I I think I think what you've got here, the the most important pieces of it accomplish your goals, right?

I agree. Yeah. I think getting rid of invasive plants. I think making the city use native plants is I think that's going to be the bread and butter here. And I think the the little things I think the smaller specialty pieces I think are what we disagree about potentially. The other thing that I'm concerned about is we talked a little bit about this in one of the recent meetings. You know what, you know, unlikely, but what if Peach Tree City is gifted a bunch of trees from some other sister city in some other country? Uh the way that it's written right now, does does this would that allow I will say this, we don't have any sister cities. So that scenario doesn't exist. But yeah, but yeah, I mean I'm soliciting.

Yeah. [laughter] But uh but yeah, I mean I get it. You know, there could be a situation that we don't know uh on this, but we're also talking hypotheticals and trying to prepare for hypotheticals on this. Yeah. So, well, can I make a motion? Sure. Well, before you do, absolutely. You know,

would you prefer Ken? The numbers complicate things in my opinion. Okay. I think this thing accomplishes everything you want to accomplish or that we want to accomplish which is primarily to uh disincentivize using invasive plantings. And so, you know, if we keep it simple and we encourage uh non-invasive plantings in all developments and then if someone wants to come in with something else, um I don't know if you call them special purpose or whatever,

they would require approval. So, not not invasive but non-native. Non-native. Non-native. Right. Okay. Yeah. I want to be really clear on that. This is this is two parts. Obviously, we all agree on the invasives. Just keep it simple and and uh not get so hung up on 10% or 60% or 75%. I will say this, this originally began with let's just go with native plants. The numbers are coming in because we're talking about like how can we add some flexibility to this? And obviously that's complicating the conversation around this because again we're taking into account

special purpose gardens which I'm not to do not to dog on it too much because again I I I see the benefit of it absolutely but how can we incorporate the rare special garden request with again the underlying benefits that having native species in Peach Tree City will allow us to you know that that we'll we'll get from it. Yeah. Again, this is a community that really cares about green spaces and nature and this will absolutely serve those things that are incredibly popular around here.

Um, so again, you know, I want to make sure again, this is obviously I'm a proponent of trying to serve what the community wants when it comes to those things. And the way that this ordinance is mostly written right now is obviously supporting those things. And I want to make sure that we're not, and sorry, I'm going to keep arguing for this. I want to make sure that we are going to pass an ordinance that ultimately reflects what the community values uh on this. So I think everybody's in agreement about that. Yeah. Yeah. We need something. It's just I think we I think what percentage we need is going to be different uh as as we continue to talk about it because that's my opinion. Sure. Yeah.

All right. So we're only like halfway through this. [laughter] But no, this is absolutely the biggest part. Yeah, let me go back to this real quick. Yeah,

which is that again it's saying that how do we actually set the standards for an ordinance like this? So, this is by far the most important part right here. I think that um obviously we still have some disagreements in terms of what these numbers are. I think we should have and I don't know how we'll do this. I think we need to have greater conversations around this. I think that we have some good ideas around this. Uh but I don't know what it concretely would look like on this. Obviously, I'm one person on this uh in the alternate on this thing, but uh you know uh so you know, we'll ultimately need to come to some sort of consensus as a group as to what this is. I don't think we're there yet. I think we need to keep talking about it. Uh

so you don't want me to make my motion? No, but I mean you you can do what you you can you can motion if you want, but of course uh if you want more time to draft, like to take back our comments and draft again, I think that's fair, too. Yeah. Again, you know, obviously, you know, I'll I'll do what the majority wants uh on this, but I I don't even know what that would look like. Well, I I I think right off the bat, I I I don't Does anyone have any issues with 100% of the native plannings required in buffer storm water facilities and city-owned projects? No, city. The city does. I'm going to talk about that in just a second. Well, [laughter] I I I I think we were all in agreement at the time, so I have a small issue with it, too, but but I already made that note, but let's keep going.

Yeah. Okay. So, the guys, this is a great conversation. I'm liking it. Okay. So, this is the way how it's written right now. So, that's the standards right there. Approval of native species. Again the the idea behind this is that the city will maintain an approved native plant list uh organized by canopy size etc on that and the idea rationale behind that is again by having a living list it helps administratively on this uh so that way again you know it's not being you know it's a list it says here's what a native plant exactly is for beach city

and then obviously the prohibitive invasive species is a robust list of trees of shrubs of grass passes etc on this which again I think a lot of us agree uh on this city has reviewed this I'll come back to that in just a moment and the way again that this would work with other ordinances that's what section 1139 says on here uh so that way making sure that uh again you know works with things that are already on the books for us enforcement uh there's uh there are some things already in article uh 11 as I understand it uh that can be that can set some of the parameters for enforcement on this. Uh and then again saying that if you know the rule is broken on this that uh the city may require removal and replacement with approved species. All right. And budget impact there's not any uh theme gardens. Obviously we already talked about this. So this section is about address uh addressing concerns on this uh the current draft on this. Obviously the theme gardens is something that we've talked about quite a bit. We can we will continue to do that. Uh the city use of native plants. Okay. So this is what the city came back with is they said that public's works and the city manager preferred not to be included uh under the native plant requirement citing a need for operational flexibility uh and long-term maintenance on this. So my response to that was again this is just my opinion. Uh leading by example is obviously very important. uh you know you know if we determine that native plants are necessary for ecological balance and fiscal responsibility the city should also adhere to those standards uh on that you know it doesn't make sense to ask a private developer to do one thing and for the city to do something else. However, um you know there could be blanket uh we could have blanket exemption uh exemptions uh uh well we could have exemptions uh to this as well uh like if a specific city project has a unique constraint

associated with it staff could substitute in those things uh using this similar things as uh and similar mechanisms as available to private developers uh on this but at the same time as well there may be things and sorry I think I mentioned this later in this uh present presentation there may be things which are just always going to be you know necessary uh in terms of saying like a native plan is not going to be aable applicable in this certain situation. I don't think it makes sense for the city to have to go back to staff and be like for every single time you be like hey you know we need to change out this plan so we could have uh some things in here written in a way that is saying that substitution substitution in these scenarios is always available.

Yeah. Yeah, agree. Yeah. Oh, this is exactly what I was talking about just a moment ago. Uh so again, you know, the uh screening uh of certain areas is what the city uh was public works in particular was really talking about and uh we could do this uh what I was talking about just a second ago on the other slide and then section 1137 uh on this and uh add in what I have at the very bottom of this the exempt uh example wording on this. The nonbold part is what's in there right now. And then we could add in that bold part right there in order to again give the city uh leeway. Uh and uh so that way they can do the screening materials appropriately with uh non-native. Yeah, I agree.

I I like that bolded section. Yeah. Yep.

Sweet gum classification. We had sweet gums as a uh invasive species. uh it actually is not invasive. So, it was removed from the list. Uh on that it can be annoying, but that doesn't mean it's invasive. Uh we could also for bamboo and problem species, uh they noted that certain bamboo species are persistent problems and need explicit regulation on that. So, again, we could add that in as a into the prohibited list. Um there are certain storm water and erosion manuals as well that the city called out that say that there's specific requirements uh that might technically conflict with the ordinance. Uh so the possible approach to this is that we could amend section 1139 uh to establish clear native uh preference hierarchy uh in order to basically be like you know if there's this manual that says you need to do this for storm water and erosion it would supersede this ordinance in those in those uh in those situations. Mhm.

Uh city staff also brought up that uh zoning uh district references sometime like it's very broad the way that it's written right now uh like general commercial uh limited use commercial etc. Uh so the possible uh they were arguing that the specific specific codes are just not written in a way they're really uh encapsul you know what I'm trying to say include capital yeah thank you thank you

talking a lot so [laughter] okay so uh you know if there's uh uh we could re we would rewrite the way how some of these uh zoning areas are are being referenced in to make sure uh that uh the buffer requirements and etc are being applied appropriately on this and also city staff asked for just better uh clarity and definitions uh on some things on this so we could provide those things as needed and that was it. So that's the current version of this. Uh obviously there's it's still work in progress on it. There's still obviously a lot of conversations that need to continue to happen around this, but that's what I got for you tonight.

Very good work. You put a lot of work into this. I really appreciate your work in this. Thank you, thank you for doing it. Yeah, I think that we just need to maybe agree upon the the right level that we are going to be requiring here. I I I've stated my preference. I think 60% and getting rid of that 10% garden situation is what I would prefer, but I you know, that's that's just my opinion. Well, then that's what I put in my proposed motion. Uh if we had if we continued this conversation, I don't know where it would lead. Uh we've got a couple of folks that are in the middle and you and I are on either end.

Yeah. Yeah, that's okay. Uh so what I can do is I can again obviously we talked a lot about the special gardens, things like that. I'm gonna I can rewrite the or adjust the ordinance to include like the bamboo stuff, compatibility with the manuals, etc. Like that's all easy enough right there. For the next time that we talk about this, again, we've talked a lot about different scenarios. I can make a menu of things that basically be like on one end n 100% native, the other end your end or whatever [laughter] my

but basically like trust of the owner. What we can do is we can just at least from tonight's conversation just uh come up with a menu of our options. That's great. On this and then let's talk about like where they kind of fall on this and then we'll come up with some sort of compromise that ultimately we can all I think that's good. I think it's a great idea. Cool. Yeah. Awesome. So, do we need a motion or we just uh move on? So, this is not an action item. This is a discussion. So, there's no motion needed at the time. Perfect. Well, thank you, Ken. All right. Cool. Thank you guys. Thank you, Kenneth. May I add one more thing? chairman. Absolutely.

In order for this to be an action item, you would need to instruct staff as to when you list this as a public hearing because this would have to be a public hearing before there is an actual um vote. So, you would need to tell us as to when you would like to see this go on the agenda as um I guess a public hearing. So, for now, if it goes back on the agenda, not ready for it. We'll keep it as discussion until you tell us when. I I think and would hope that when we hit our next commission meeting in January, which will be the next, we'd be able to go ahead and pretty much finalize everything. It It would be my I would hope so. Yeah, that would that would be my goal to go ahead and Should be our goal to go ahead and do that. So, I would I would say after our next

discussion Yeah. our next uh meeting, we'll have a a final at that time. Absolutely.

Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you all. Okay. Um on to new agenda items. So we do have two and the first one is the landscape plan peach tree professional center 100 gates entry. And I'll hand it over to staff as soon as staff gets the clicker back. Okay. Um, as we continue discussions about plants, um, this property is, uh, just a reminder, located at the south end of town, uh, down here in the Gates, uh, subdivision. There we go. Um it is zoned OI uh- C which is office institutional with conditions when uh when these two well these three properties uh when these two properties were reszoned uh there were conditions such as you know architectural requirements, maximum size of the buildings um uh the combination of the two buildings on those office lots and um the only thing that um applied uh as far as landscape goes was hold on there we go uh was uh some transition yard requirements and I'll show you you can kind of see on here this is the designated transition yard for this lot and there's one over here for this lot that we've already reviewed and approved.

So here is [snorts] the plan and um based on the amount of imperous surface area uh on the project which is 46,69 square ft uh they are required 141 caliber inches of canopy trees and 94 caliber inches of understory trees and the plan proposes to meet both of those requirements. So no alternative uh compliance method is uh is being requested here. Um as part of the ordinance requirements, planting areas shall be located in front and on uh the sides of the commercial buildings wherever practical. And this proposal does include planting on all four sides of the building all the way around here. So, they're definitely meeting that requirement. Uh, another requirement in the um landscape ordinance is the perimeter of all parking lots shall be landscaped with evergreen shrubs for screening of cars and headlights. Um, the applicant is only proposing shrubs to screen the parking lot right here along this along this line. Um, we did receive a narrative uh from the landscape uh designer as to this as to the reason why uh and that was included in your packet. Um, the narrative talks about uh this Whoops, excuse me. this um buffer yard uh that already exists that has um uh quite a bit of trees are being proposed including some evergreens. Uh and there is a slight burm uh in that

buffer area uh that will that will screen most of the parking from those neighboring properties preventing uh the headlights from shining over. Um but they identified this section as needing uh more more screening. Uh which is why they're proposing shrubs only in that portion. Uh to um to wrap it up, um five out of the eight species of the proposed canopy trees are native to um eastern uh the eastern United southeastern United States for a total of 62% native. And then of the total number of trees provided um that percentage goes down to 41% uh native to the eastern North America andor the southeastern United States. Uh I did also want to I left uh on your desks over there. Um we're now having the city engineers office take a quick look at these in case they have any comments to provide. Um, and they did uh just have a few comments that were were related. I know this is very hard to read at this scale. If you don't have your magnifying glass with you, um, they're basically trying to say that um, some of the tree groupings need to be shifted a little bit so they're there's more of a clearance between the underground some underground pipes. Um, and I will pass that on uh to them

for root damage. Exactly. Um and that and that was all the city engineer had. Uh and then with the exception of the perimeter parking planting, um staff feels the proposed landscape plan meets the city ordinances and development requirements. Can you remind me what's on the southwest corner where they're not putting in the shrubs around the parking lot? You're saying over here? What's behind those trees? Um, well, there's Oh, there's residential properties. Okay. Uh, residences that back up to this transition yard. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Is the applicant applicant representative here this evening? You please give your name. Hey, uh, my name is Warren Elwell with All South. Do you have anything to, uh, add to staff's presentation? Yeah, for sure. Um, how's everybody doing tonight? Good. [laughter] Um, so, uh, the residential area that you're talking about here, there's an the existing vegetation on that side. Can you point to that, Laura? On that side has a bunch of, uh, existing pine trees along that hole in that transitional buffer that's already there, as well as some magnolia. Um, there's a lot of plant material currently there on that whole side. uh on

they're very faint in you're talking about these and here and all the way around up to storm drain. Yeah. Yep. All the way up to the storm drain that the drain ement of there. There's So all those little gray spots indicate a pre-existing correct. That's correct. And they were survey located trees.

And then additionally there's the highway buffer on the I guess that's the north side of the property. Yep. up there. There's a that's about a 12 foot tall burm with existing magnolia and I think all of us have driven down 74. There's a large burm there that you can't hardly even see the building of uh of what's what's there. So, those are just working within those perimeters of the existing and adding to that to try to keep headlights from people parking. You know, this time of year it's five o'clock and it's dark. So, that one house was the only one that seemed like it was going to have any kind of visible uh headlights. That's why we were adding shrubs along that edge. That other house sits about 10 ft below that other burm. Yep. Right there. That's why uh we're not proposing any of those shrubs along that parking lot.

So, there's a significant down down slope there. Correct. Just on the one on the back. Well, both of them really, but mostly the one on the back is about 15 ft of elevation change. Oh, got it. Yeah. Okay. Um, going to go ahead and start with Commissioner Gant. No. Any questions? Commissioner Allen, questions? I've already asked my questions. Okay. Commissioner Chris, questions? No, no questions at this time. Commissioner Hner. All right. Yeah. Sorry. I think you know what I'm about to ask. So, the non-natives uh plans, uh, would you be open to working with city staff or proposing any that may have that be may be native to our area?

Sure. Um, I would just like to definition of what you're considering to be native because there's like different zones. There's different, you know, there's a lot of uh a lot of interpretation to native. Sure. Again, you know, the city staff said a moment ago, you know, there's certain plants that are not native to the southeast on that. So, uh, you know, I think we could be I know I would be comfortable, uh, possibly with something that's, you know, native to to Georgia, obviously to this area on that, but, you know, if you can work with city staff as well, just to possibly even just do the southeast, that could be good

for sure. And and a question for me is there is there any issues with what the city engineer is proposing to to move the the trees to relocate those away from the the drainage pipes any

um I honestly didn't know that until this moment. So um I don't know the answer to that. It shouldn't be any issues. Um I I we tried to plant everything outside of their easements. Right. Um the only main you know I know that uh the neighborhood was concerned about at the entrance where the goes in there are some trees that need to be put back that were removed during that construction to to create that access. Um but you mostly yeah we can move those can be moved uh on the plan and essentially in the field just well with those plan those uh storm storm drains and sewer drains field located.

It looks like I think two of them are are 10 foot separation away from the pipe. Yeah. And then I think the one that's up the right hand side along Gates entry um I think they're just looking at they're they're preferring five foot separation. So got it's a little tighter up in that area but yeah and five feet and 10 feet is really tough to to just show on that versus out being out in the field but we can certainly note that. Okay. Um trying to think there's anything else. Can I can I make a comment?

Absolutely. [clears throat] With regard to Ken's concerns um about native, I I believe there are several plants um located in this buffer um that are like some of the evergreens that are not native and you know I just want to make sure that they there are suitable substitutes, right? Um, and you know, if if not, if they still feel these are the best solution,

do you want them to prepare some kind of letter or comment response to to keep those as substitutions for native plants? I guess I'm just looking for a more uh specific condition when you make it. [laughter] I I I think as of right now and and you know not having a true ordinance in place, I I think what right now is is what we're doing is we're making a suggestion. Yeah.

Um if you can find something that is is a good substitute from something that has a a possible native replacement, please please work with staff to do that. um if what you have shown is is the best for the application um because of of whatever criteria that that you have to have there then please use that. I I think that's really what we're looking at. But if there are opportunities, we would definitely suggest that you explore those.

Of course. Yeah. I mean, I think the goal there is to have, you know, we want it the owner wants it to look good, the city wants it to look good. We want things that are, you know, going to be viable and survive as well as um, you know, have good ecological [snorts] impacts on the on the town in the area. Great. Thank you. Any any other I would I will echo your comments. I would encourage you to use uh as as many as possible native specimens. Commissioner Allen, anything else? No, sir. No. Mr. Chris, nothing further from Mr. Hammer? No, sir. Okay. Do we have a motion from the dis

move approval if that's the with the with the recommendations or encouragement uh to apply or to add as many native plants as possible to the to the to the plan. Okay. So, we have a motion to approve um with this recommendations or suggestion to go ahead and and use as many native plants as as possible. Um, do we have a second? Second. Okay, so we have a motion to approve with suggestions for native plants and a second. Any other discussion? Yeah. Do we also need a condition to for the trees that are on the the um not necessarily it's a it's a review comment. So, okay. So, that's already

that's more coming from the the city. Okay. From that standpoint from staff review. Okay. Great. No further nothing further. Okay. That being said, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Okay. Approved with suggestions for native plants. Thank you. Okay. And we have our last of the new agenda items, which is the building elevation modifications. Chick-fil-A 1222 Highway 74 South. Turn it back to staff.

Uh, so just a reminder, I think you're all familiar with where this is located. Again, at the south end of town, just up the road from the gates entry subdivision, um is the Chick-fil-A uh zone GC general commercial. It is also um required to follow the Wilshshire Pavilion design guidelines. [clears throat] So this is the uh existing materials and colors of the uh of the building. Um just as a reminder since many of you on the on the board weren't um here for previous approvals um this property recently underwent some renovations for an expansion to the building uh and also to modify the drive-thru and parking area to accommodate a double lane drive-thru with new uh drive-through canopies. These uh modifications were approved back in 2023 and along with the modifications uh the planning commission that was present at the time approved color changes for the upgrades and that was also back in 2023. uh they waited quite a bit to to um to undergo these uh renovations and so they were only recently painted the approved colors which were these and then painted uh repainted without your approval. Um, so what we're bringing you tonight is uh the colors that were used and a a request to to keep those colors. Um, it was at the time that these were approved two three years ago, these were the standard um

Chick-fil-A colors and I guess that has recently changed. Thus, the request for this look and the difference being here's a comparison. Uh these these two colors uh no longer exist. They still have this as an uh trim color. And then this West Highland white is the proposed uh the new color which is described by Sherwood Williams as white with a hint of creaminess. I love look I love looking at their website at how they describe the colors. It's very helpful. Yeah.

Um and then for comparison uh this is the the color swatch uh page from the Wilshshire Pavilion uh materials palette. And it does include a sort of a creamy white off-white uh color two colors here.

Um nothing about the materials was changed just the colors. And interestingly, I came across pictures of what it used to be before the darker colors were approved. So, it actually is now more more aligned with what it originally was painted. Um, and then just for reference, uh, here's the colors on the on the shopping center. So, it's a bit of a darker uh beige or sort of off-white creamy color. And then just as a reminder, um I did not bring pictures of these, but there are in your packet. Um over the last maybe two years, the planning commission has approved uh some other buildings on properties where these design guidelines apply has approved a sort of a whitish creamy whitish color. Um, and that would be across the road from here. Let me go just go back to the map real quick. Um, across the road here at the gas station, uh, convenience, uh, store. And then these two properties here with the, um, medical office and the child, um, daycare facility all have similar um, off-white, creamy white colors that were approved. Um, just to wrap it up, let's see, we'll go, sorry, back to the current current views. Um, the land development development ordinance ordinance establishes general goals for architectural design, including compatibility with surrounding development and architectural innovation. Um, color requirements are also established. Uh and that states

that the predominant color should be neutral or earth tones. Um highintensity colors like metallic, black or fluorescent should not be used. Um staff feels the current paint color for the Chick-fil-A is neutral similar sim and similar to other colors approved in the recent past for nearby properties in this design guideline area. Approval is at your discretion. Thank you, staff. Do we have a representative of the applicant? If you could please uh give your name and who you represent. Andrew Moth. I'm here with Chick-fil-A. Yes, sir.

Okay, great. Thank you. Do you have anything else to add to staff's presentation?

Um, so um I'm here on behalf of the facilities maintenance. I handle 80 Chick-fil-As from Thomas all the way up to Daltton. So, um, this is our new I I know it's taken a while, but, um, it is our new design spec. Uh, I've painted half a dozen others. We we have a cadence where the the restaurants are remodeled and refreshed. And this um, this is going to be the new color that you'll be seeing at at the Chick-fil-A's other than like a Lion Creek that's all brick, that won't have it. But and any building that has the stuckle like this, that is our design going forward.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to open it up for comments of the applicant or staff. Commissioner Hamner, I would just say overall the building looks good with the change. Um, and this may be echoed in a moment, but obviously, you know, having the approval after it's done is not ideal. That is 100% my I I coming from the Avenue, I used to manage the Avenue and I I should have known better and it did not cross my mind and and I thoroughly apologize. Understood. But yeah, I think overall looks good and and and I should have said any any questions and comments. I I apologize. I'm sure you probably have no questions. No questions. Okay, so doing both now.

Yeah. Okay. So, we're going to hit questions first. So, Commissioner Chris. So, no questions. Okay. the comments. Let's go through and then we'll come back. So, Commissioner Allen, any questions? No questions. Commissioner Gan, any questions? No questions. Okay, back to Commissioner Cruz comments.

Yeah, just a really nice job, Laura, with the presentation. Just it was really really nice to see all the pictures uh of the surrounding buildings and the the Wilshshire uh complex. Uh I actually think that this new uh design looks more in line with the overlay requirements that are there. So, I I think it's great. And I'm, you know, once again, happy to see any reinvestment in the community. Uh, thank you for coming even though it was late, but we we do appreciate that. So, no further comments for me. Commissioner Allen, comments. I made a career off of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. [laughter] So, I'm okay with it. Commissioner Gant Ditto.

I I I I do have to say I I I love the color. Um, I I think it's very very good and and I agree. I I think it goes back to

it matches closer to what the original color scheme was before it went to the darker. Um, and I think it's a very good complement to to the buildings in the Wilshshire Pavilion area. Um, as well as the properties that are that are across 74. My biggest issue with it is, and I'm going to admit I'm I'm a bit disappointed. Uh this is the third property that we've had come through that has been painted without getting approval. Um the the last two they were fairly basic new building owners, property owners. Um and they came back and said, "Well, well, we didn't know any better." Which um that I I had a little bit of a difficulty because they owned other properties in in other jurisdictions. And I asked the question, you know, do you go back and get approval for for doing what you did? And and they said yes. And I said, well, what made you think this was any different? Um, and this is nothing nothing personal, please, against you, but or or Chick-fil-A. Um, but I I do have a bit personally of of of some expectations. Um, especially with how we handle things. Um, again, I don't have an issue with the colors or anything. Um but one of the things we've we've actually discussed after after this has kind of happened um you know we really don't have anything in place for any type of I don't want to say fines sort of thing um because that maybe not the right term for it um but some type of

consequence

consequences for Exactly. Thank you for for this happening. Um, and and I do have a bit higher expectation for for Chick-fil-A. As you said, you've you've done done this to at least a half a dozen other properties, and I would assume they have similar requirements um or or things that have to go through to to do it. Um, and I just think going forward, you know, we really need to look as as part of when we work on the UDO um to put something in in place for situations such as such as this. Um I I think it's really important that well we put a little bit of teeth behind, you know, the requirements and the ordinances that that we have. So um I do appreciate you coming forward and and bringing this. Thank you for for doing that. U it it really does mean a lot that that you've recognized, you know, that that it wasn't in in compliance. Um so so thank you for that. But it's it's something that you know as you go forward please

um you know make sure that that you take a look at what's required before anything like that happens. So sir sure thank you. Okay. Um any other comments, questions? No. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the building modifications? Chick-fil-A 1222 Highway 74 South. I would like to make a motion that we approve the building as already painted to Chick-fil-A 11122 Highway 74,000. [snorts] Absolutely. So, we have a motion to approve. Second. And we have a second. Any other discussion? No. Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Okay.

The building elevation modifications Chick-fil-A 1222 Highway 74 South is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Um any we don't have any public hearings. Um any other member staff topics? No sir. Okay. I just have one question. I think I it's been a while since we've discussed this, but I brought up the golf cart ordinance. Was there something that I had to do to move that forward and where does that stand currently? Got it. So your last meeting you made a motion to take it over to council. Yep.

Um so as you may be aware, we have a new council member. Yeah. And so staff is preparing um a summary of text amendments that we will be bringing to council. Great. And so that we are not overwhelming him with the number of items that we have. It'll be just a summary discussion for one of the first January meetings. So it is on that list um with the other items. For example, the cosmetic tattooing and uh roof signs, things of that nature. I did not move those forward until he ca became on board. And so now that he's on board, we'll take those to to the council so they can move forward with those actions that you've recommended. Great. Thank you. Yes, sir. No problem.

Okay. Um so the next meeting was supposed to be the 22nd. Of course, that's been cancelled. Um so our first meeting of 2026 will be January 12th. So look forward to that. Um before we adjourn, just want to to say a couple things. Um first um want to really appreciate all the hard work that the commissioners um have have done this year. Um we've had a lot of changes as we've gone through 2025. Um we had some new people come on. We've had some some people leave. Um so it's it's really good with all your your hard work and your input um really helps helps the city out. I I want to thank um staff for all the hard work that you do and the hours that you put in. Um everyone um thank you very much for everything that you do.

Thank you.

Um and and want to thank council um for everything that they do for for all of us um and the support that they give us um you know throughout throughout our time on on the planning commission. Um, and I want to thank, you know, just the citizens of of Peach Tree City, um, for being involved in in the process, especially the public hearings. Um, you know, this is your opportunity to have your voices heard. Um, so definitely, you know, appreciate all the input, um, you know, that you provide. Um, we we do take everything that you you bring to us seriously. Um, and, uh, you know, it does help us make make decisions and recommendations um, for the things that we do. back to back to staff and and back to council. So, so thanks everyone out there for for all of that. Um, and in closing, I just want to say uh happy holidays and a very happy new year to everyone. Um, and we'll see everyone in uh 2026. So, do we have a motion to adjurnn?

So, moved. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. A meeting adjourned.