During the director's report at the May 8, 2025 Hot Springs Planning Commission meeting, staff and commissioners discussed outstanding issues in the draft landscape ordinance and a schedule to finalize revisions before the commission's June meeting.

Director Selman said the commission needed to identify specific items for the consultant (Camaros) to revise and said staff would send the draft to the consultant and circulate the consultant's revisions back to commissioners. Commissioners agreed staff would request a revised draft from Camaros quickly and that each commissioner would submit individual comments to staff rather than exchanging them among themselves. Chair and staff emphasized the administrative practice that commissioners should not directly coordinate comments with one another; staff said they will compile comments to avoid improper deliberation outside public meetings (the transcript records the exchange: "You cannot do that... We will compile it... Cone of silence.").

Commissioners discussed several substantive points in the draft. They asked Camaros to (1) re-check numeric tables in the draft landscape standards, (2) refine illustrations and diagram language (thoroughfare buffer, three-foot rule reference), and (3) add language clarifying the discretion of the urban forester. On landmark-tree policy, staff explained a landmark tree would be any tree 24 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH, measured 4.5 feet above ground) and that preservation is required where feasible. If preservation is not feasible, the draft requires on-site replacement with a comparable native tree expected to reach the same size at maturity. Staff clarified that on private property the owner would be responsible for landmark-tree compliance.

Commissioners agreed to a schedule: staff will send the package to Camaros and attempt to get a revised draft back to commissioners the following week; commissioners committed to returning comments to staff within a short review window so the commission could consider a recommendation at an upcoming meeting (the commission referenced the June 12 meeting date and discussed internal timing to allow packet preparation). Several commissioners said they would send wording suggestions for definitions directly to staff.

No formal vote was taken; the discussion resulted in direction to staff and the consultant to produce revisions and a plan for commissioners to submit comments individually for compilation and consideration at future meetings.