 Okay, so Called the order and prayer first activity. We should approve the agenda Everyone okay with the agenda Just by consent So the only comments I have are to say that Since we last met there was a city council meeting where we all had to Get through an application process to have our terms Seats kind of kind of redone Some of us are now on two year and some of us around three year terms at this point and I think it everyone knows I'm heavy one and two. It was one and two. Okay, so By recall, I think Leslie and I and someone else had a two that I think John did you have a two? Yeah, you weren't informed That's right, that's that's the right. That's how it went. Yeah, thanks Stephanie. So so yeah, John They're all you have One year terms actually and then the next year you go to a two-year term Mm-hmm. It's just it's just staggering everyone will always get a two-year term But we need to stagger the first one, right But also in that process Kim was very forward about having you know personal situation where he was going to miss a lot of meetings and Leslie had Stated that she was happy to have every one stay in exactly the same way So she endorsed Kim's to stay but a little bit to our surprise the city decided city council decided to go ahead and You know a point Aaron here Aaron Kosicki our new member in Kim's seat Because Kim had other things going on. So with that I would say welcome Aaron to the Montpelier Planning Commission I know Aaron's an attorney in town same as me and Leslie a little known fact We all were in the same exact law school class together So if we get one more person from that 2011 BLS class, we've officially taken over Montpelier planning I'm all a favor of I'm all a favor of more planners I think yeah, we don't want too many redundant skills that's But but he is replacing a lawyer so the balance stays And so with that Aaron if there's anything you'd like to Tell us by yourself. Yeah, no, I just I'm happy to be here Yeah, and we've all been there with silly questions and from Mike's perspective, right I Mean I think our planners probably see a lot of the yeah non planners having silly questions and just depending on what your background is Um Exactly, exactly. Yeah, so that's the only comments I have and so Leslie will be here at the next meeting I expect So I'm filling in obviously as vice-chair here So moving on to general business We have one person from the public in the audience. Ma'am. Did you have anything to say to the Planning Commission? Okay, great. Okay, so with Yeah Start making setting daycare This is what happens when you appoint a young board I didn't have this problem before when everybody was in their 60s Planning Commission babies. It was all grandkids Okay, well with all those wonderful announcements You can move on to the draft Landscaping and screening standards that Mike has yes And I apologize. I didn't get these out sooner. I was working on them right up to the Last minute today. So if we want we can put these off till Next month if you guys want an opportunity to review them and bring back comments. Otherwise I can I Was gonna print out a strikeout copy except it was all red. So it's all pretty much new So for Aaron's benefit and for anyone in the public The landscaping and screening was the biggest set of issues that we have with the zoning that was adopted in January and Just some of the basics were just that the standards were very objective and Strict and there weren't very many ways to work around it. And so what ends up happening is We would have requirements where somebody would need eight trees and 40 shrubs and the property currently has 10 trees in 30 shrubs, so do they have to cut down two trees to plant more shrubs? You know and these are the questions. It said you had to have this and this and so We were you know, we just wanted to build more flexibility into the rules give the applicants more Direction into what they should be actually doing and give the DRB some flexibility to make some more I guess rational reasonable standards. The other issue was just the standards were so They were pretty pretty high so they were more set up for a suburban setting rather than an urban setting So when you try to go and require so many trees and shrubs per square foot of linear foot of your building Which is what the old requirements were We're pretty densely packed in and so you end up trying to fit 10 trees onto a quarter acre lot You're just like with the building. I just can't fit 10 big trees With a parking lot and the driveway and all the other limitations And then there were no rate waiver requirements. There really weren't very many non conforming requirements How do we handle it grandfathered? uses so we pretty much said As staff we will go back and try to rewrite these most of what you have through here go through all the changes that we've found since We started using this in January So once we started using the actual new regulations in January We started finding some little things some big things And what we've been going through as a planning commissioner are just checking our way through What we agreed to make changes on here and there? Landscape was big and slopes were big, but we're not gonna address slopes tonight at the request of Leslie and Barb Which we've actually made decisions on but Barb wants to revisit them. So we'll take that up in next month, but So if you want I can go through some of what I started to do with landscaping and screening Some of the thoughts I put into it and then I could be either we can review it right now Or we can leave it for next month if you want to take some time to read through the details I'm fine with working on it now, but I don't I don't think it was like a controversial in any way We discussed it previously. So I think It's not like we need to wait for Barb and Leslie on this one. Yeah So Yeah, the purpose is the purpose point a these are the same as we're in the Current draft that we have and we kind of reviewed these really quick at the last meeting Because I tried to use this as the basis of coming up with a new set of rules So the goal of landscaping and screening this landscaping and screening is a requirement that's in site plan so site plan Single and two family do not have to go through site plan Everything else has to go and get a site plan approved when they come in for a zoning permit Landscaping and screening is just one of those requirements that goes in with site plan Sorry, we haven't gotten there yet John Snell is From the tree board So The purposes of the landscaping and screening they're intended to protect the quality of life and community character by enhancing the appearance of The built environment as viewed from the public vantage points to create Shade alongside walks and walkways and within parking lots three provide a landscape buffer between residential Nonresidential uses and for screen land uses and development that create visual clutter and distraction. So these I will Bring back up as we go through so the applicability. This is Kind of a legally term for what needs to meet the landscaping requirement And in this case all development required site plan approved all development requiring site plan approval shall meet the provisions of this section except Changes of use where the sites have previously been developed in accordance with an approved site plan and where the proposed development Will not change or be required to change any landscaping or screening the reason for this being added in is We had questions that came up because we would get a project where you know, let's say the building across the street there Somebody was going to change from an office to a barber shop Everything's gonna be internal. We're not changing any parking. We're not changing any buildings but legally They have to go through and meet these landscaping requirements even though they're not changing anything on the outside of the building Unless we provide an out for them, which is really what this is doing This is saying if you already have a developed lot and you're doing a change of use The change of use should require you to go through and do landscaping plan But in this case, you're not as long as everything is inside the building We're not gonna make you go through and add trees To any if you haven't approved site plan So if you've previously gone through site plan approval got a previously approved site plan, we're not gonna make you go back through These requirements Other other exceptions we should include there Where where it's the same thing where someone's making a change that requires a review process But they're not actually changing anything outside. We went through The Meredith who's does owning administrator and I went through a number of those and we had some in here that we took out And in some cases what we have are four Standards below this so we're gonna talk about So we get them all in the right order street trees parking lots General screening and then total site landscaping so within each one of those subgroups. There's some exceptions So in some cases you can you know, you might have to meet landscaping and screening But you might not have to meet street trees because there'll be an applicability statement specifically for street trees specifically for parking lots For example parking lots. You only have to add trees to a parking lot if the parking lot has more than 10 parking spaces So there's an exception in there for that specific piece and hopefully they'll make a little bit more sense because we talked a little bit about did we want to have more Exceptions up top or do we want to have more waivers down below or non conforming? Because that's a lot of our issues is we're not dealing with people building something new and in green field We're talking about mostly people redeveloping existing sites or adding something to an existing site You may end up having to have as a requirement you may be a have a conditional use And as a part of the conditional use they require screening Which may send you into this section through the conditional use section so The proposed development will not change or be required to change the required to change is going to be probably through somewhere a Different mechanism that requires screening Yeah So some of the new things that we tried to do Meredith and I went through and kind of started to talk about how we would better structure the sections because we write a lot of reports and We write a lot of decisions and what we wanted to be able to do is to start to group some things into rules, which are things that aren't really about requirements but Application rules talk about They shall include any part of a site Shall be included as a part of any site plan and shall meet the following be on one or more sheets With the locations of all landscaping and screening elements with a key to identify species of plant materials Applications for major site plan shall include a landscaping and screening plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect So that's actually in the current zoning that we have right now is the requirement for major site plans to have a professionally prepared plan But those aren't really things for a decision that we have to go through and write into a decision or that's just just more administrative Application rules and then in the next section is administrative rules Where we try to go through and outline a few other pieces The following rules apply when applying landscaping and screening Planting shall be defined by their mature or maintained height as identified on figure three dash twenty So previously we would talk about large trees, but we never actually defined what a large tree is So it existed in this table, but we never called it out We've now officially called it out to go and say a large tree is a tree that is going to grow to be more than 50 feet tall when mature and That's appears in figure three twenty in Making calculations regarding minimum plantings one plant may be counted towards meeting two or more different requirements Again, this really isn't this is just an administrative rule Because we had this come up as a question You know if somebody plants a tree that's Next to the sidewalk and next to the parking lot can I count that tree towards meeting both requirements? And it's just clearly saying you can The planting specifications many of these existed in different places We kind of consolidated them all into one place so planting specifications again There's just something that later on we can reference to go and say if you're going to plant a tree You got to meet the planting specifications Plant materials shall meet the minimum caliper As shown on three twenty so on that figure So it's just gonna be a DRB call as to whether a particular tree for instance would have a mature height of over 50 feet These are all You you can generally know that By by looking at it, and if not you can always ask the tree board They will tell you whether a tree will be a large tree a medium tree or a small tree for the most part you can Check So we're not concerned that there'll be debate over whether I Wouldn't be concerned about it from an administrative standpoint That's that's these are the things that we we have to deal with so really in a certain sense We can put it back on the property or on the applicant to go through and say You know I have no idea what you know how big this box elder is gonna get You know can you get us some information on the mature height of this tree and you could probably check Number of different sources to kind of get that information But if it's 50 feet or more, it's a large tree and if it's 30 to 50 feet to medium trees less than 30 feet to small trees So so there will be like some in your office decision-making Yeah, and a certain in at a certain point we would have to go and determine whether something would be a larger or medium tree There's a call to be made. We would just have to make it You know if the If the tree guide says it'll grow between 45 and 55 feet We would have to make a cause whether or not that's going to be considered a smaller or a medium or a large tree The keyboard standards the policies I It's it's actually a national standard. I googled it to just look up antsy a 300 standards and it's So we kind of like building code for trees we have our own that is essentially they 300 maybe with a few So Yeah, I don't I think the issue we had was there it's not an adopted standard And so the way this is worded John for your benefit is planting should be in accordance with the standards and policies of the Montpelier Tree Board which generally follows the antsy three a 300 standards. I Can So the question But so the question is if there's a controversy that comes up will you have any kind of formal policy to fall back on? Like is it is that what is that what you're getting at John? We're like if you if you haven't formally adopted this or anything like we're just wondering how yeah, I just It's gonna be reading this We're imagining if someone if someone follows this, but it's not quite what the tree board has in mind How will that be resolved? Yeah Yeah, I could strike the word generally if you want or Then do we need if it's the the policy of the tree board to follow the a 300 standard should we just say that? Okay, it's just specifically referencing the standard itself rather than okay Yeah, there's just yeah, it's just there are a lot of ones that a lot of places that that have it. It is a single standard So you have to pay to read the standard. It's actually the same it's true for the building code, too We have adopted building codes, but you know, I don't have a copy downstairs If we adopt this I have a general rule of trying to keep copies You know, so Available in the planning office Yeah, sure Just having a requirement that we can't give to anybody we have to tell someone then to go Fire So if the if the tree board policies and standards This is generally With the standards But there'd be enough It seems like there's two possibilities one is your office has a copy of a three Makes it available The other would be we would adopt a document that mirrored that In which case we'd have to buy it anyway To to to see it to have access to it The beauty of having a standard is that's when it's updated you're notified I mean we certainly could go and change the wording to be more direct and say planting shall follow antsy through a 300 standards and then then it's a requirement and we just keep it in there I was just being a little bit cautious in the fact that it hadn't been adopted as as an official standard now We could basically adopt it on their behalf by just putting it in here as a shall then anyone who's Getting a zoning permit Would have to do their tree plantings in accordance with that standard so John's concern though is that People will have to pay something to have their own I don't like to do it either but at the same time We already do that with a number of requirements It's a building code but everything that everything that Chris lumber does is all How burdensome would it be for more pillar to have its own adopted standards, which basically copy? The 300 it's a question for John as much as for Mike How much of how difficult would that be that? To do a reference to more pillars own standards and then just and then you would and then that'd be something with a tree board can adopt and then You could we can handle copies of our own standards obviously Is it worthwhile like is it worth it like is it likely to be I would probably be okay adopting the standard and just having a copy Downstairs I don't think because usually what we're gonna end up doing in the same way that people who have questions about building codes You don't ever actually look up your building codes You actually just ask the building inspector How high is my railing going to be and not try to figure out the 17 pages talking about railing heights? And how far the drops are and whether it's a historic building or not a historic building You just go and ask the building inspector and he'll tell you I want to see this height and you say okay In this case, they would call John and they would go and say I'm looking to plant a tree And I got to meet this anti-a300 standard What do you want me to do then John will say I want you to go and keep it wrapped in burlap or not wrapped in burlap or dig a hole this big or I want to see the This much material of this type put in the hole I want to see it staked in this way Want to see it wrapped on the bottom not wrapped on the bottom You know whatever the expected standard is John will let them know and that's what we would be just looking for is that The tree board has taken a look at the plantings and has agreed that this is sufficient to meet the a300 standard This is this one is new for the a300 Some of the other pieces are not the invasives So the new pieces are two three and seven the others are Either identical or just tweaked If if they have a requirement to Plant a tree then the tree will have to be planted in accordance with this So it could be that tree could be coming as a result of Needing to meet the street tree requirement or The parking lot tree requirement. They have to plant a tree We would just go and say you've got to meet the planting specifications and at that point They would start to coordinate with the tree board. I mean you'd help me in the standard Yes Yep Yeah, in the same way that we would reference the public works on stormwater standard We don't understand stormwater stuff But we would rely on Or erosion control we would rely on public works to go and give us advice on whether or not a proposal Is going to sufficiently meet the erosion control of the state standard We are our concern is that we continue to see trees poorly planted Two years later they were gone That's the end of it Yeah, I mean I guess one one example you were mentioning to me was just recently The co-op I guess has to go down and replant all their or a number of trees Because they weren't 25 years now they weren't properly planted At the start and now we've got to go back and fix them So we're just They're concerned from the tree board is that we we have an opportunity to try to make sure if we're gonna get We're gonna try to reforest and green up My failure that we're planting things correctly I want to step back real quick and just cover a technical thing Should we just make all of our Changes or suggestions? kind of as we go kind of informally and then At the end of this both Oh, yeah vote on the entire thing with changes that sounds good to everybody So that we're not gonna have to stop them vote on every little decision I would probably look to have it be more outside of the rules trying to think We had a little bit of this discussion when we were doing stuff with the conservation commission How much of stuff that we can in the office go and tell people You should go and talk to the conservation commission and how much of it is they have to go talk to the conservation commission um if somebody comes in and Has hired a landscape architect and a horticulturalist who's familiar with the a 300 standards Do I have to make them go if it's in the rules? I officially have to go and check with john to make sure that they've Checked in with the tree board I would I would rather just go and leave it up to them the applicant to Determine compliance I can I can try to work up some language I can I can chew on on a way of putting that as a as as an option about the mob to your tree board I can put I can put a sentence in on that we're good with three good job Do you think that last bit covers your concern from before? Stephanie's reference to Getting help from my office in the tree board. Yeah It's it's a policy decision. There's no Different ways of attacking Issues and that's we can adopt our own rules which can be more flexible We can adopt an industry standard That's generally helpful for people Who are coming in from Away somebody from burlington can come in and know the NC standard not have to worry about learning into Learning a new standard that that's the advantage of standards, but the disadvantage is you you give away your flexibility you give away your Imagine tree planting something that changes very often Seems like it stays What I mean is like what best practices are probably don't change because trees and the ground don't change That's all. Yeah So backing up one just real quick because we were talking about what was new I thought I would just touch on what's new about number two Um, so that requirement just talks about plantings being in the center of Centered in an area meeting the minimum planting area specified in 320. So again What the table on 320 which existed before we just added a little bit to it Talked about in the second to the last column the minimum planting area So if you're going to plant a large tree you have to set aside 100 square feet for it Uh before we we had these minimum planting areas, but they really never applied The the way the rules were set up you'd have in this table a requirement for minimum planting area But no requirement in the rules that said you actually had to meet it So this starts to go through and say if you're going to plant a large tree You have to set aside 100 square feet a medium tree is 49 square feet Um, and I I took a look at these minimum planting areas are actually quite low compared to some other communities But they're they're higher than what we had before so The disadvantage is the more area you add The harder it is to actually fit in large trees because if you start requiring 220 square feet per large tree That's great probably better for the tree But if you don't have 220 square feet, then I can't require you to plant a tree and so It actually ended up becoming a barrier to adding more trees But john and I reviewed the the the numbers there and and he's comfortable with them And I'm comfortable with them. I did see numbers in in those ranges, but I've also seen numbers, you know, Seattle, Oregon Um other places where they had standards in the 200s For a large tree Um, so we just required in there We just specified again. These are just planting specifications that we we don't care about the shape you want to make on your plan a square you want to make them a circle whatever we don't care as long as it's roughly centered in the middle Uh, but it can't be narrower than the minimum planting area So you couldn't have 100 square feet decide to plant a large tree in a two foot by 50 foot planting area and No, you you actually have to meet The planting area can't be narrower than five feet. So it can be five by 20. That's fine And planting areas shall be suitable for rooting of trees and shrubs as applicable and maintained in pervious conditions So that requirement really just gets back to the fact that we don't want people To after they plant the tree then go through and build the sidewalk over it You know, you have to keep it in a pervious condition going forward So three we talked about four five six didn't change five and six are just encouraged Um And then seven we added which was retention of existing plants on sites to meet landscaping and screening climate Actually, that one was moved. So that one existed but only for total landscaping So, um, it didn't count for some of the other tree requirements. So we just moved it up So it was all the planting specs that were in one place it's I'm just gonna start there for John to see if he Thinks it's worthwhile to think about is it is it worth it to create some sort of bonus or incentive for native plants? For what for native plants like something where if they're native and No, why is that? Oftentimes in in a developed situation native plants won't do well at all So I think some healthy trees are better than than unhealthy native trees There are certain trees that I think are made in no gold list, right? Yeah, yeah So if we move on to f So what we've done as we've reorganized these things is we've had a number of these rules and just specifications and things up top Starting in f we start talking about the actual standards. So as our zoning administrator Starts reviewing applications and writing recommendations writing decisions. We Her job is going to start at point f Where we talk about all landscaping and screening shall meet the following general standards Which are here in point f as well as specific standards for street trees parking lot landscaping screening and total site landscaping as applicable So the general standards just go through and reference back up all plantings shall meet the planting specifications above in e Development shall not reduce the planting area or minimum planting area Planting area dimensions of any existing plantings. So as we're reviewing this we're now going Okay, you want to build a sidewalk Before all we will look at is the sidewalk now. We're actually going to look at is that sidewalk going to be going over any required planting areas Where existing plants are retained to meet landscaping and screening requirements development shall protect the plants As well as planting areas during the construction process and this was another this was another request of john that gets missed a lot of times is In in trying to protect the existing vegetation They protect it before they protect it after they don't protect it during construction So we really want to make sure that during construction these trees have a plan Check them So then the next four sections look at each one individually. So again, so point g we start looking at street trees And this is really the first sentence really is kind of an applicability applications requiring major site plan approval within any district Except urban one and rural are required to meet the following. So For everyone trying to pick that apart each word is important This is only going to be required from major site plan approval earlier we We didn't talk about it, but In the start of site plan we have a Discussion of what's a major site plan? What's a minor site plan major site plans are construction of Primary structures, so that would be development on an undeveloped lot Development of accessory structures that are bigger than 2000 square feet Building a parking lot of more than 10 parking spaces So you're talking about major, you know, big landscape changes. We're not talking about Adding a porch to an existing or adding a deck to Buddies, you know, those are not major site plans. Those are minor site plans Going through and making some changes probably going to be minor So only major site plans are going to be required to meet the street tree requirements and not urban center One because it has a zero setback and there's no place to put a tree Those street trees are literally street trees, which john is responsible for not zoning I can't make somebody build and put a tree onto city property Because that's our property. That's not their property And then rural is Was exempt before so we just would maintain that exemption So the administrative rules for street trees We define street trees this was we did not have this definition before so we didn't know what counted as a street tree so now a street tree is Trees located within the road right away. So if you do have a street tree that is a john street tree You can count that towards your requirement Um As well as all trees where the center of the tree is located within 10 feet of the frontage line So now we've measured to the center of the tree And if it's within 10 feet you can count towards the street tree requirement These provisions shall not be used to require applicants to plant street trees in the street right away We're an application where an applicant chooses to plant one or more street trees in the street We're at right away. They must receive approval of the planting through the Montpelier tree board Prior to applying for site plan approval. That's just an option We talk really quickly about utility standards. These are the same as are in the current zoning except I reverse them Just how they're worded I reworded them Minimum planting street trees shall be planted to meet the following large trees shall be planted at a Minimum ratio of one for every 50 feet of frontage Or medium or small trees shall be planted at a minimum ratio of one for every 30 feet of frontage The street trees should be evenly spaced but may be shifted to accommodate site features or to maintain site distance Preservation of existing trees to meet this requirement is strongly encouraged So those are the minimum planting requirements I have just a awesome thing about the administration of this My own maybe dumb question, but People who do plantings but outside the major site plan I know this doesn't apply, but are they policed in any way? Like i'm seeing how we don't want people planting under utility lines, but Is there any way that we check on that outside of major site plan review? uh I would probably say if somebody were planting and it was a minor site plan the way this is worded They would not they could plant a large tree under a utility line because they are Example these rules I could try to work on an applicability statement that could capture that You know another one like we had previously which kind of would kind of talk about nobody's required to plant street trees But if you do plant a street tree you do have to meet these requirements, so we could make it Not a requirement except I don't have strong feelings about Trying to please those things I was just wondering how things applied. Yeah, I mean in this case what's required um, so we work The the analogy I've used with all the zoning administrators. I've trained It's everything's kind of like a bucket Everything falls into one bucket and if falls into that bucket you can fall into the next bucket in the next bucket And so you kind of get these You know so in order to hit that requirement you'd have to get through that initial applicability statement if you can't get here by Definition development site plan major site plan all the way down through You wouldn't have to meet that requirement, but we could change the rules to make it apply. That's just That's just a matter of policy Although they may That the utility standards I could potentially move the utility standards up the planting standards Because that tree May not be required to meet a street tree requirement, but it could it would probably need to have some Landscaping the general landscaping requirement in which case if it was under plantings I might It's a general planting So when I get to the total landscaping requirement and I look at all the landscaping that's being proposed on the site I could consider moving that one up I think that makes some sense and to not allow it may not catch every all Not allow people to do something that we're all going to regret later. Basically. Yeah Yeah, I mean certainly For example a single or two family you have a single family house Your exempt from site plan at the top. So no matter what we change you could go and plant all the trees you want under those Power line right a ways. It's still a bad idea. I just can't tell you you can't do it But if I move it up, it's more likely for us to catch maybe some of those other ones If somebody we're trying to go through and plant To meet a total plant total landscaping requirement And you'll get when we get to that it might it'll make a little bit more sense Move up two plantings Um So the the minimum plantings Are still there so Um non conformities and waivers We did I believe had These before so non conformities non conformities are grandfathered things. These are things that Don't meet the zoning today But we're built before zoning or at least before these zoning rules came into effect. So You have a house. You don't you're non conforming. You're going to do a major site plan um You're expected to bring non conformities up to compliance Where a previous site in this case we we have special provisions for a non conformity Where a previously previously developed site is non conforming with respect to street trees The site shall be brought into compliance with the street tree requirements unless the applicant can demonstrate that the site lacks suitable area to meet the planting specifications Got some wording issues in there for additional street trees So you can't if you can't meet the planting specifications Because You're non conforming for a number of reasons. Maybe the maybe the building is non conforming and is right up at the sidewalk And therefore you have no place to plant it. Maybe it's only back a few feet There's just not enough planting area that's left To to get a tree. So the drb Where the drb finds that the Public vantage points on the non conforming site are negatively impacted by the built environment And that an applicant could create suitable planting area through the removal of impervious cover The drb may require the applicant to remove impervious cover and add additional street trees up to the amount That would make the property conform So that's a reworking of the Some of the written rules in there and it is just really to give some flexibility to the drb that goes and says, you know You can't plant a street tree because you only have 85 square feet And you need 100 square feet to put that street tree in But you've got impervious cover over here that you could easily remove to get your 100 square feet We think as the drb we're going to require you to remove that To plant the tree that is appropriate for this So that's just giving them a little bit of flexibility. It's not really meant to be a big club to get people tearing up Um Large amounts, but it just gives a little bit of flexibility for the drb to have some some amount of Ability to to get some non conforming properties conforming Or was already in there and I'm still trying to figure and and I hadn't quite I saw the aura as I was reading a through d and kind of don't want to have an aura sitting in the middle of a four of them Um, I haven't quite figured that out So what happens if somebody has 80 feet? I think where Stephanie's going somebody has 80 feet of frontage Does that mean you put one large tree in one medium? Or one medium or small tree or what if I put two small trees? Can you extend like What are you Yep, and I have that that actually comes in for for the other plantings But doesn't come in for this one, which was really just looking at the amount of frontage Um, you know a large tree every 50 feet or a medium or small tree every 30 feet And of course you're like, okay. Well, what do we do with an 80 foot of frontage? Is that a large tree? I think medium tree with some careful Writing um a and b could be combined together to make them interchangeable I I take that as I take that as I take that as the 80 foot would allow a large and a medium And I think we can rephrase it to make it very clear Yeah, you could do Yep, two small trees could get would be 60 feet one large tree would be 50 feet Um, yeah, I think the way that's worked out Yeah, that's probably how we would enforce it if we did it would would be to go through and say You can use large trees. You can use small and remember these are minimums So if somebody wanted to put in two large trees, they can But I had a minimum They could put in simply two smaller medium trees, you know, it's I'm finding this quite challenging. It makes planting the trees look easy by comparison You know, there's reality. So I don't know how to I don't know how to deal with this In general, if there's room we are encouraging people to plant large trees Because of the difference they make in the streets, you know, but if if you're jamming it in it doesn't work Then it doesn't work What's the trees? And you know when we I did some Google driving and You know found that they we've surprisingly don't have as much as many street trees as I would have thought So you start driving around specifically looking for street trees. And so I think any amount of trees whether they're small apple trees You know medium sized trees or large trees. I think Just getting more trees. I think it's whether you know And if it if it means two small trees rather than one big tree It's probably going to be in the eye of the holder. What's the project that's there I always just look at a space that can't accommodate a large tree if we don't plant one there It's a waste of that space So so you're thinking putting a and b together And Yeah, I mean we could certainly word it to go and have that you're required to plant a large tree And where the site doesn't support a large tree you may Plant a medium or small tree at a ratio of one to every 30 feet. It's it's so subjective of the And and also like and in having something that's kind of iron clad seems Like it also comes with like pitfalls where like we require if you have 50 feet must be one large tree then Well in the situations in which it makes no sense and also we're requiring something that's not the best outcome maybe without having to like To police this too much just having the flexibility of Either medium or large and then saying for every large that would accommodate 50 feet worth of frontage It would be possible to say large if The space that can accommodate a large tree is encouraged I mean we we have preservation we have the preservation of existing trees meet this requirement strongly encouraged I can I can always add a Let you know move that one down or add an e that just goes and says that Where it's based for large trees, but large trees are encouraged Are or large trees are preferred? Yeah Yeah, I would add well, this is three Three little add a little e under those to this when large trees are preferred Oh, that's true I'm thinking like A larger ratio Yes, yeah, it would be correct. This is actually the wording that would be you could use it to argue I wonder if we just strike ratio a minimum Even if it's just such a minimum planted at a minimum of one for every 50 feet of frontage I mean, you don't even have to say ratio. So yeah That's sure No, no, that's good catch. That's we try to get away with Being as brief as we can keep it simple I'll try to combine those two so that you would actually end up being indeed, but that's okay We will make the letters work Um So we went through the non conformity. So non conformities are those grandfather things waivers now are are not anybody can apply for waiver so these are Even if you're not non conforming the development review board may waive the street tree standards where an applicant demonstrates waiver created waiver requested creates the minimum variance from the standard And either a Compliance with the street tree requirement would diminish the appearance of the built environment from a public disadvantage point or b Existing natural features such as streams ledges wetlands could make compliance with the standard undesirable or impossible So there are waivers give give a little bit of room for flexibility in case there's an environmental reason somebody can't plant a street tree or for whatever reason There's a significant historic building that we really You know, we we want that to be seen we don't want to Go through and and hide hide the building behind some street trees And if anyone else has other Waiver standards, they would like to have more flexibility And those were just the only two that we came up with there currently aren't any waiver standards So this was just our first kind of roll in to try to come up with Yeah, we try to we try to look at what's come in for a couple of the applications So now the second so we just quickly went through street trees now we're back to parking lot standards. So this was the second one Applications again requiring major site plane approval. So there's the bucket where there Is existing or proposed parking of more than 10 parking spaces Shelby landscape with shade trees to meet the follow And we have a definition of shade trees So the one exception is portions of sites used for vehicle sales are not considered parking lots And that was in the existing zoning Just called out differently here, but that existed before we don't have to keep it but I kept it in here for for discussion purposes So one thing that helps a lot As your crafting rules is is if you can define a term make up your own term of art in this case We're just going to define what a shade tree is and say that's a shade tree Our medium and large trees that are located within six feet of the edge of pavement when measuring to the center of the tree trunk So that's that's a shade tree A shade tree That's in the planting area So when you're required to meet the planting requirements, then you have to meet the planting area Which is why we put it all in the planting If you want to count it as a shade tree So it's the same one step back the purpose of parking lot landscaping Is to provide shade Is there an aesthetic side to it? I'm looking I'm looking at the purpose. It's primarily it's for shade Okay, and I'm I'm thinking about whether or not we should include car dealerships and whether So maybe shade's not as important for car dealerships, but aesthetic it would be the same as a parking lot That's yeah, that's a policy decision as to whether or not um I'm sure your vehicle dealers would not be happy with the shade trees and leaves and everything else They wouldn't be required to put them in the front so like to the view would they if they were uh, there's well I mean they they actually Aren't exempt from the street tree requirement. They are just exempt from the Shade for the display area as it goes back. So within 10 feet of the road you have to have the street trees This is looking at all the rest of the parking lot which tree being Providing a certain amount of shade medium trees certain amount of shade you have to shade 40 percent of your parking lot. So You calculate which I think is what the picture is on 319 the parking lot shading illustration, which just shows 48,000 square foot parking lot and all the street tree all the shade trees that would be required And those three trees that are up by the road probably could also count as a Street tree I'm fine with leading me to something there, but I thought I'd just bring it up in case In case Anyone have feelings about it um So the minimum planting requirement um shade trees shall be provided to um the Shall be provided equivalent to shade 40 percent of the parking area including aisles and driveways So we didn't have a definition before it just said you had to Shade the parking lot Is that include driveways that include the aisles is it just the parking spaces? so we've now Defined what This it is to include aisles and driveways In accordance with the following parking areas located to the rear of the principal building will be screened from view At the street by the principal building That will be screened From view by the principal building or other screening may reduce the percentage of landscaping under this section from 40 percent to 25 For this area That's in the existing rules right now So there is a certain aesthetic component that if you're putting your parking lot behind your building you don't have to shade it as much Okay, that's a policy that's already that's that's what's in there right now Each large tree shall be considered to provide 1200 square feet each medium tree 600 square feet So you pretty much can go through and just add up the parking spaces add up the number of trees multiply it out From an administrative standpoint The trees may be all along the north side and not providing any shade at all but We're just counting trees. We're not counting where the shade is actually being cast But we figure again progress Incorporating parking lot landscaping into the site stormwater management system is strongly encouraged Uh non conformities where an existing parking area is non conforming with respect to minimal plantings Required but lack sufficient planting area to plant additional trees to develop and review board may waive some are all the parking And landscape requirements provided The applicant demonstrates the development meets other landscaping screening requirements to minimize the visual impacts of the parking from the street or budding properties So we have a non conforming One this one does not have a waiver. I didn't add in a waiver. So you pretty much always have to plant parking lot trees if you're going to be expanding Again, that's policy We were just trying to fit things in make it work and then we can start talking about it people want to add waivers or remove waivers Um, we just want to try to make sure we hit each one of these and at least have a conscious discussion about Pre-existing things that don't meet the rules. What do we do with them? Do we make them come up the code? Do we not make them come up to the code? Is there a certain situation if you do this we'll make you come up to the code if you don't do this And that's what the non conforming. So the waivers are just You're building something new Is there any flexibility in the rules this pretty much says no So the third section was screening the following screening standards applied to non residential applications Where the project of butts residential properties So again, if you go back to the purpose statement the purpose said screening One of the reasons for screening is for screening residential to non-residential Um, another place for screening screening is where parking areas utility services or building mounted equipment are proposed or modified And where the development review board has required screening as a condition of approval for another provision So the three ways that this is applicable And you know so as administrators somebody comes in with an application We're just going to see if any of those boxes are checked one of those boxes are checked and they have to go through it So it's not automatic None of these are automatic. So as somebody comes in with an application They may be doing a project They may require landscaping because they Because they're doing something a major site plan, but then once they get into it they may actually not trip any of the The requirements at least through screening um So the this one didn't really have any Rules that went along with it So the performance standard that kind of we jumped right into was screening shall be applied to minimize the visibility and impacts Of incompatible disruptive or visually Unappealing aspects of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood. This actually was the existing Language This is not to be interpreted to mean all the views or areas Or element to be screened shall be fully blocked rather screening should be used to soften and break up views And to create visual interest elsewhere on the site so that the area or elements to be screened no longer dominate the view So it's a it's a performance standard. It's not really objective It's kind of there and then we've kind of got to use these guidelines To determine whether somebody meets that standard So that screening can be done through a couple of different ways landscape buffers fences walls berms Yeah, those are the materials the three materials Don't think so So The rest of these kind of come into the specific things parking lot shall be screened from view From the street and abutting properties utilities all utility boxes pump station substation shall be screened Service areas off-street loading Refuse outdoor screening mechanical equipment similar utilitarian site features shall be screened So again, every time it says shall be screened. We're back to that performance standard of we're not saying you can't see it This thing's got to be softened Building mounted equipment the same thing and then we've gotten on conformity So again, we're only talking in this case not about waivers. You're putting in a new Air conditioning unit on the outside of a building. You're going to have to screen it. There's no waiver for that If there's an existing AC unit that isn't screened and you're doing a project Where an existing site is non conforming with screening The applicant shall be required to come into compliance unless the cost of compliance will exceed 5% of the project cost In that instance, the applicant shall not be required to add screening Or shall only be required to add screening not to exceed 5% of the total project cost So if you're non conforming But you're doing a major project we can you know doing a hundred thousand dollar project We can require up to five thousand dollars worth of screening For the non conforming pieces So sometimes doing a major renovation they may be Um We would be able to get some of that up, but what comes up with a lot of times for us Downstairs is um, we get a lot of small projects five thousand dollars ten thousand dollars. I'm putting a deck on buddies That's an example actual one that we had we're putting a deck on the buddies You know do we require them to screen the dumpster because they put a deck on I mean the screening might cost more than the deck Um, you know So we end up with a number of these things that we have to start to decide whether we're requiring them To do all these things in which case they might not Put the deck on because it likes cost too much or So we we we simply put a cap on this that said five percent of the cost We don't think that will deter people If you're non conforming and you're doing a small project, we're going to make you Make some small changes that help to make things better over time Sound good Yeah, that crosses it to usually five and more is considered a commercial As opposed to a residential so So lining it up with that Right now basically anything that's not The state law exempts single and two family from site plane reviews So we couldn't even if we wanted to require a site plane for a single family home or a duplex But we could We we can be more generous than the state. So we could go through as john suggests You know, maybe our three in our four unit buildings also should be exempt from site plan Now site plan is the is the umbrella. So If you exempted them from site plan, you would also be exempting them from bike and pedestrian access and circulation The landscaping is greening, which we're talking about now outdoor lighting solar access and shading and design and compatibility, which is the architectural standards unless they're Design review in which case they got to go through design review anyways. Yeah Yep Yeah, so what john's looking at it's really going back to the back as we talked about those buckets You kind of get in this is this is one of the upper buckets we can certainly go through and say Landscaping does not apply to Three and four families in which case They would still have to go through site plan and they would still have to meet bike and pedestrian and these other ones But they would be exempt from just that section. That makes sense. You can you can plug that exemption in wherever you want to see it Um in order to support your community Goals and objectives This is that If you're turning a two-unit into a three-unit if you got through the entire site plan process Like is that something that we want? For most of the existing ones it probably won't have to go through them But if somebody were to come in to put in a new one, you have to get like going from two to three Well, even going from two to three you have to be talking about constructing More than 2,000 square feet you'd have to be having an addition of one of the 2,000 square feet you probably Would be renovating existing space Or putting in a small addition Because then you're not tripping into major site plan Minor site plans you'd be going through The minor site plans are administrative. That's the big thing for us is Um a minor site plan is just administratively issued. So it's the same as a permitted use We're going to look at it, but you're not going to a drb here. We're not notifying a butters. We're just You know, we're usually printing out an aerial photo Putting it down in front of you And you grab Your sharpies and you go at it to go through and say these are the changes we're making we're going to put a dumpster in over here Put this amount of screening John's going to help us plant a tree if if such a tree is required To be a major site plan to go to public hearing some of these Um, well again, if depending on what level we're talking about we're talking about exempting at the site plan level we would be exempting requirements for Bicycle racks and sideways and sidewalks and The landscaping and screening which most of them would be exempt But not all outdoor lighting Outdoor seating display or storage which probably wouldn't apply here because most outdoor seating storage It's going to be for more commercial That's so a three family and a four family is not going to be a not going to be applicable for outdoor seating display or storage That's looking at tractor supply. Can I put stuff outside or not and design a compatibility? I can i'm certainly willing to put that into 3201 if that's Sometimes it's matter of value Is there an example of a three or four unit? Presidential building was built from new instantly uh maple plane over by downberry street Ribbley built a new building The old creamery parking lot i'm trying to think if that was four units or six Yeah They had to do site planning. Yeah, but they would anyways because it's multifamily I'm trying to think of three or four that's new Had a four go to a six. We had that six we've had A lot of one-offs threes twos to threes one to twos But I can't think of starting from scratch Most of them have been either multifamily or single family It's like it comes up that much Yeah I don't I feel like that's like that that three to four Before applying these standards feel like they're designed for commercial development before unit you can get a six Well, we can certainly go through and see If we finish them up we can certainly see about either exempting You know taking a look through the rules and seeing How how that would affect All Could you Mike could you could you take a look at like A little bit more about the impact would be and it could be maybe something we look at Next time and vote on because it's it's bigger than what we're looking at doing right now anyway Yeah, yeah, I think it's I think it's bigger than the landscaping standards that we're looking at I mean, I think what john's looking at is exempting the parent of this one which would affect this one And I think we can have that vote because that vote happens. This can be moving on on its own Can we put that on the agenda next time and maybe you give us a summary not asking you do any work Are you just at the time maybe then barb and leslie or back give a summary of three to four units? Regarding site plan exempting them from Major site plan but still making it so that minor site plan applies so Yeah, I mean you do that or Keep saying minor site plan applies if you go from two to three anyway, even if you don't really change much Well, if we had the exemption at three or four though Then that would just mean if somebody decided to take a duplex and add in a third unit into a carriage house We would simply say you don't have to go through site plan To be any of those requirements because it's not the applicability They would just yeah, they still need the zoning permit. They would still need to meet the parking requirement they would still need to meet you know all the other pieces of of erosion control and storm water Everything if it if it is applicable, but it wouldn't have to meet any of the other site plan requirements I don't think there's too many is it still conditionally used in a bunch I thought we cleaned up most of those but Still conditional I think in the residential six at Yeah, it's just and they changed so much. I can't off the top of my head. It seems strange that yeah Three and four units are conditionally used in a lot of places. I don't think they actually it is Got it right here. So I think we I I think it actually made it all the way to city council and I think Ashley actually made it in the person who pushed to make most of them three or four is permitted You see one two three riverfront. It's conditional in the eastern and western gateways. It's permitted back in Mix use res 1.5 res 3 res 6 It's conditional and res 9 so res 9 And res 24 and rural it's conditional for three and four units so those would be residential nine is Yeah, that's a quarter acre. I'm just trying to think about an area in town No, town hills residential 24 but Berlin street Farther out Berlin street gets to res 9 so if you're out near stonewall meadows Terrace street if you're getting farther out terrace street, I believe this gets out to res 9 So usually what happens in a lot of those places is usually you don't end up doing the three and four units You'll subdivide into smaller locks, but That's certainly one we could look at as well if we want those as conditional If we could take a quick look next time. Yeah, yeah, I'll see I'll see what the give the other folks that heads up about it um So the final piece of the landscaping Was total total site landscaping used to be kind of in the middle We pulled it to the bottom And so we kind of changed the order of those four requirements And the reason why is because total site landscaping actually counts Any trees you plant to the street trees count towards your total site landscaping anything that was a parking lot Counts towards total site anything towards screening counts as well But at the same time each one of those has exceptions So at the end we can kind of go through and say all right You may have been exempt from all three of these but you still have to have some site landscaping And so this is going to start to Come up with a factor and this is where a lot of this kind of is new Um, so urban center one does not have to meet a total site landscaping requirement. It's got 100 impervious cover So, um, you can't really require landscaping if we also have 100 cover that we allow Um, administrative rules naturally forested areas may be counted towards landscaping requirements on a two to one basis Retaining two square feet of natural forest cover will count towards one square foot of landscaped area It's just We had this question come up from time to time This is new that's new Because we had it come up from a specific question of of a project Some some sites kind of cut up into a hill And could they count some of that? So minimum planting area This this this will take a little bit of time But i'll try my best to explain it as simply as possible We needed to come up with a way of calculating How much landscaping So it's not just how much is green and open but how much landscaping would be required and we Thought of a number of different ways of doing it and what we eventually came up with Was a system where we could look at Really depends how much impervious cover you have In the district in which you're located um and it's really kind of a factor of If you have allowed to have 80 coverage and you build 80 percent coverage that means you have 20 percent That's open space. How much of that 20 percent should be landscaped Is really the ultimate question, you know and same with a 70 30 or a 60 40 You know you always have this percentage that's left over how much of that leftover needs to be landscaped And so we kind of went through and said well if you did half you'd have to do half We came up with some factors And what's down here is actually spending too much time working with math These things actually cancel each other out So the parcel size doesn't actually matter in the end all that really matters is the amount of impervious cover So you give me the amount of impervious cover you multiply times this number. They'll tell you how much landscaping you need to have It doesn't even matter how big the parcel is so if you've got If you're gonna have um, if you're in riverfront district and you're gonna build 3000 Well, let me use one of the easy ones if you're in district, which has 60 requirement for coverage And you're gonna build 3 000 square feet of impervious cover. You would have to have 300 square feet of landscaping Because it's point one is the factor you just multiply one times the other gives you 300 now We have our table which has those things you could plant three large trees Three large trees each tree is worth 100 square feet 300 square feet three trees four medium trees or You know six medium trees whatever it is just start adding it up Using those formulas and give us the final numbers This isn't all that different what we've replaced what we threw out was that other one Which said building perimeter for every one foot of building perimeter you have to plant one Tree in three shrubs or whatever it was that's under the old rules So it didn't really matter how big your parcel was It didn't matter all of your other things You just end up With this weird thing depending on how big your building is dependent on you know a small building with a big parking lot Would have less landscaping so we just tried to come up with some Rules that we thought would work And this is kind of what we came up with it looked funny and the idea is We could eventually if this gets adopted move this into those tables up front and part in chapter two So chapter two goes and says for this zoning district. These are the requirements you have to meet Well, you would just have a line in here that would go through and say Coverage landscaping and landscaping would have a factor in it that you would add in They'll just go through and say That's how many square feet Yeah Wait, wait, it was my understanding there would be no math. Yeah, where's the math? So It's very hard to visualize But I mean these these are the the you know, ridiculous things that I've had to be going through to just go through and Visualize it and to make things work and the issue that comes up You also notice with the minimum parking minimum plantings is it's two sections And what we did when we started to go through an actual showing how much landscaping because even with a regular meeting your setbacks Riverfront 80 coverage if you had the minimum lot size of 3000 and just met the setbacks You're already 40% open space just meet the setbacks You have no non conforming you're 40% open how much of that has to be landscaped with trees and shrubs and flowers You know how much of that 40% You know, well in this case it would be 120 so you could plant one tree and you'd be done So we kind of ran through a bunch of these things to see which ones work what ended up being an issue was These numbers work great at small what Was wrong with the version we had before was it only worked for big You know, you want to build shaws those rules work great, but they don't work great when we were working in an urban downtown Um, so these new rules work great when it's small and then at a certain point they just get to be too big you know the amount of landscaping that Timberhomes would have to build with 200 trees They'd have to plant and we're just like that's just ridiculous for them to be planting 200 trees So we bought a second factor in this it once you reach over an acre of land It's capped that's it stops. So you get you you have a requirement that goes up and up and up and up Once your parcel hits one acre it stops Where's that? That's the second So you've got a number two which has minimum planting area for parcels up to and including one acre Size and then if you get a three there's minimum planting area for parcels greater than one acre in size And those are fixed numbers because Once you've hit that number It doesn't increase So if you have a 10 acre site Your minimum landscaping is four thousand three hundred you've got a Two acre site is four thousand three hundred fifty six Depending in the district. You're I mean I was just using that rural as an example there because rural's those ones And again, so four thousand three hundred fifty six square feet in a rural district Would mean you'd have to plant 43 trees If that's where it was at if you have some Forest already there then if you already have some forest it would count two to one and you can factor it down You know in some cases you have like eighty six hundred square feet of forest or goat Mm-hmm Which isn't that much And we can always change those factors We were just trying to come up with something that actually worked Because the issue that we have today is that the landscaping rules as they exist Don't work Yep Yeah, it's it's hard the the philosophy of it though is really starting to look at this Of how much impervious cover You know if if you have to put a certain amount in That's impervious then how much of the open space has to be landscaped and that was really kind of what we were looking at But yes I will try to come up with some ways because it's gonna be hard to explain this but I'm always open to anyone who comes up with other ways of coming up with a requirement We could just not have it The issue with it not being objective in some way is we want to have these also apply in Minor site plans, which means our zoning administrator has to enforce it Which means they have to have a certain amount of objective rules. They can't just go and say Character of the area that's not their job. Their job is to go and say I'm using a street tree every 50 feet. I can do that. I can enforce that You know having a requirement that says you shall Landscape such that it has doesn't affect the Visual impact on a budding neighbors. That's not something a zoning administrator can enforce. That's why we have a drb Drb is your board of reasonable persons their job is to look at subjective standards and make a determination But we want to have as many as we can be administrative site plans First of all not to over burden our drb But secondly also just to be able to Have Reasonable projects be able to go through without having a big deal as we said just simple things a deck on buddies burgers You know that shouldn't need to go through a big hearing Just to put a deck on But if we have standards we can certainly go through and make sure that they meet certain performance standards that we can Look at as a zoning administrator and say yep, you meet these you're good to go So really quickly what what is in there in the rest of that is talked about placement again We're back to non conformities and we're talking about waivers. So you can have non conformities again We're back to the five percent requirement if you're non conforming Um, and we've had a lot of these issues come up People who have projects that already exist. They don't have the landscaping requirements that are that are in there, but they're just Putting a deck on okay Well, we can require you up to five percent of the project cost to put into the landscape So with the nine-point vote is this was the previous that's of j well Is the goal of The provision to be you need to cover the cost of Coming into compliance for five percent whichever is the lower Yes, so so I think the problem with the way it's worded out the last sentence indicates that the developer can just It's not your seed five percent. You could just say well, I'll commit 20 bucks to putting a plan in that complied with the non-conformity But if you're rewarded to say something Steps that exist in non-conforming sites Um, shall you know the need to come into compliance shall zoom across the lesser of the cost compliance or five This is they shall be required. It will be their choice to put in the planter. It would be which I'll be required to add But it's not to the seed five percent Yeah, I didn't word this right one I really I read it to mean it's not up to the developer for the you know the the property owner. It's up to the city to decide Five Yeah, so if you're trying to say it's either five percent up to five percent Or the cost of compliance less than five percent It's the not to exceed five percent I get the sense that you're trying to say five percent Which I was well I think in this case I I would agree with you except in this case I think it works because it's following the first sentence So the first sentence says applicants shall be required to come into compliance unless the cost of coming into compliance Will exceed five percent of the total project cost So at that point we already know It's twenty thousand dollars to come into compliance And five percent five thousand dollars So in this instance the applicant shall only be required to add landscaping in an amount not to exceed five percent In amount Add landscaping Is one thousand five hundred two dollars and fifty three cents I think it works as it is if it's not it's not perfect, but yeah, no, I just The way I read is like Right, it could be more succinct if we wanted to go that way if I concern with it there's really about The property owner being able to they can control the project cost and what they're asking for and so in that way we're kind of letting That you could get to for instance, you could I think you could probably go Look, if you have a large project you could cut it into two different projects so that you never come in At a project cost it's going to cause you to do much landscaping If you really wanted to play games yeah That's true, and I think But what this does is if we were to change the worry is Put them on notice that they've got five percent of their budget of risk for landscaping Yeah, I think you'd be driving anyone's Oh, you know No, no these these are the things these are the things that that catch us later on I mean the the reason why we're doing a fix For the zoning is the fact that We spent seven years writing the zoning and we just When it finally rubber hits the road you end up with these things we try to catch as many as we can Yeah, this is my first reading with wording But I get the sense that there is an intent to put a five percent cap And I'm trying to figure out how we would I think we could we could put We could just say that they're required to spend You know an amount not to see five percent and leave out to come in the compliance part That's the that's the unnecessary part If we we want to make it worse The other option would be to go and give the put put this take this as you said out of the applicant's hands and go and put it in that instance the drb Put it in rather the applicant should only be required to add the drb Yeah Well, I think gives the d r at least puts in drb's hands to go and say okay Why don't you spend up the five percent on the total cost and if somebody comes in and says well, here's You know $4,700 worth of landscaping that I can do Then the drb has the option Do we do we want to push them? To get the extra 300 of landscaping or since we're talking about non conformities and the reason why I think it might it's actually kind of helpful To say it the way it is because talking about coming into compliance unless the cost exceeds a certain amount because It kind of reminds us that you're in on conformity and you have this special status And that's why we're not making you come into compliance I think trying to do something that's more succinct may we may lose part of the purpose there Okay, I mean as I said we we came up with this and It's still as we said we like to have people read it We like to have people chew on them because that's where we get To find to find this but our key was for us was the fact that we did not have any rules for Non conformities in the current zoning and that's a big issue for us because we have some projects that just exist and for a minor change we're stuck Figuring out how to make them You know add 20,000 landscaping to a 10,000 project And we don't have a way of saying You either have to do it all or nothing So we have a couple other things in the agenda come can we spend like two or three minutes to get through the rest? Okay. Yeah, and we're almost done. I mean this Six is the waivers which matches the waivers above Would not diminish the impact Existing natural features And then k is conditions of approval which existed under the old zoning We just moved it into its own special spot that just goes and says Landscaping required under the section whereas a condition of approval shall be maintained in a healthy condition and shall be replaced within one growing season With a comparable plant based on maturity you know blah blah blah, so That is that's Full rewrite of that section most of these Fear benefit are and we aren't rewriting the whole thing. We're doing a lot of little tweaks Throughout this table. This was just one They happened to be A big one that we really needed to just completely Rewrite so I think we're we're good. Uh, it seems like there's a consensus on a few smaller tweaks Right So that would be something to pick up next time would be um a more detailed walkthrough of the Total site landscaping minimum planting area For the parcels of one acre and the parcels greater than an acre and How that looks So let's plan for next time to talk about that But leave the rest of it. Okay as we've discussed so far and I'm not gonna plan to make too many other changes to this So by all means go home if you want to reread this Pick it apart, you know, we're we are you know Plenty of lawyers Read it with the eyes of a lawyer too. These are all legal documents. Um, and you know keep it Think of it from an applicant standpoint think of it from an administrator standpoint Uh, it has to work for Both sides, you know, is it gonna accomplish what we want it to do? Is it something that we can administer? Um, you know, if somebody gave you a site plan would you be able to determine whether it's compliant or not? Yep The issue I have is that the strikeout version of this has been remarkably growing internally and it's like 30 megabytes And it doesn't have all that many changes Um, so I could send a PDF Or do you want something you can actually note? It's in track changes Okay, that's what's reflected in this document, right? Yeah, I'll try I'll try to see if I can get it to to Take the track changes So, okay, so next time we'll revisit, um, I think Stephanie mentioned and we'll revisit john's idea Uh, tonight we're not going to be able to move to the punch list because we only have 12 minutes left But this was these were a bunch of the punch list. So this is this is the punch list Drafted into Actual changes. Yeah, and this is was it all punch list we've gone over previously or Some of it we had started to go through the punch list at the last meeting and we kind of came up with a list that said Develop new landscaping rules and present. So that's that one that went right up through Well, if we indirectly knocked out a bunch of punch lists, I'll feel a lot better about We did um, okay 3203 This one this one No guidance for non conforming So, yeah Probably 10 we went through about 10 items in the list Okay, awesome. So those are a couple things next time. So for tonight's agenda Uh, we're supposed to consider the minutes from september 24 everyone like to copy Give a second, okay All in favor of proving the minutes legally you could All right, so it means you had to vote Kirby so you vote to approve sure And With that out of the way set schedule for the remainder of the year Uh, so city halls closed november 12. Do we feel compelled to meet? two times in november Mike Do you put it put us far behind if we ended up missing one day in november and one day in december for christmas? I mean if we could get through And make a final determination on the 26th for the landscaping and The slopes Get that city council Okay, that would be that is achievable. That would be good Um, the issue the issue we have is we've got to go through all of these and this could take us another couple more months And the issues we continue to struggle administratively downstairs and the drb has been begging us to fix The the slopes and the site plan standard to eat not so if we only let's only do one meeting in november But can we can you set this up? Maybe it is that I've been away that like unless we We have to proactively go and flag something for discussion. Otherwise There's a lot of these things you have recommendations. Oh for on the punch list. Yeah. Yeah, we've we've tried. I mean it's I've tried to end up discussing a lot of things that It's great that we have a lot of attorneys on the planning division Really thorough but sometimes There's not a whole lot of value add and we have a lot of other things Yeah, we've been wanting to get to the City plan. I think I think we should make room For the city plan. It's the first on meeting before the end of the year Yeah, I Was done We do and I think what john was was asking is that On on this list for your benefit air and there's yellow ones and they're green ones The yellow ones are ones we in my opinion. I think Need to have a discussion. It could be a 30 second discussion. It could be a five minute discussion The green ones are the ones that I don't even think we need to talk about unless people have a question So we we have been going through them line by line But I think but john has been thinking that maybe we can just go and skip all the green ones unless somebody Highlights one and says I think that's what I want to make 64 A yellow one in which case I'll make 64 yellow one and we'll talk about it That's been a first so far But you're saying go ahead And yeah, we actually end up going through each one line, but we keep saying we're not going to go much Is it grown since last time? I only added one you only added one it's another green one on the end So that means that the those green ones have been hanging out for a while and we've said previously that people Should let us know and no one has right I I haven't gotten any maybe we could bring it up to Leslie the next time we're just at the beginning To say we're only going to review the yellow ones That's why I'm thinking if anyone does have a green issue it might be barbarum. So to give her a chance to be here Yep, in which case we'll just you know, we'll just go from 57 to 62 We don't even talk about the numbers in between because they're all green Yep, and if people go through if people have some time to go through look at the yellow ones I'm not always the clearest when I'm writing these things you sometimes need to have them over here I'm trying to write down the issues You usually have to look at the what the rules say look at what this says and going If you don't it's okay. I'll go through them real quick But yes, I would like to get through this. I would rather get back to the master plan Our city plan Okay, so we'll plan to do that I'll tell Leslie about the three things we talked about approaching the future Maybe knock out the green ones since we since that those have been out there for people looking out for a while Mm-hmm But what does that mean for december do we want to try to So we'll meet november 26th Definitely then and make sure the landscaping and slopes are done. Okay. I'm fine meeting veterans day. Maybe but How difficult will that be I got the the issues I got the day off and it's locked Sometimes what we used to do in the past was to schedule things on tuesday So if we're monday the 12th is veterans day, they'd sometimes meet the 13th instead Well, I think we're likely to we're less likely to have conflicts on veteran's day than christmas Right, I mean so we're gonna try to make one of these two days Yeah, christmas eve. I well the tuesday would be christmas day itself. So Oh That's also close for studio So Yeah, I don't think the 26th is an issue. I don't think the 10th is an issue I might actually have a conflict with regional planning commission Yeah, you probably would but There's not much going on. You can see what the schedule looks like. I can skip this one Go to that one. Maybe you'll Get formed. All right. I will email everyone about tuesday the 13th because we'll also have to coordinate with orca And I'll have to make sure the room is available So I will email so So following up on these three issues at least Um and slopes For the 13th. So then we have 26 of the 10th to Finish the punch list and make and get ourselves back on city plan get city plan back on track Wait a second. Okay We're adjourned