Commission to send individual comments on sustainable‑landscaping draft; requests clearer tree‑preservation and "redevelopment" definition

The Planning Commission discussed a council draft ordinance updating the city’s sustainable‑landscaping requirements and agreed to submit individual written comments to the chair for consolidation and transmittal rather than issuing a single commission recommendation.

Commissioners focused on ambiguity in section 102‑3(c), which provides an exception from a landscape‑plan requirement for projects that are not "redevelopment." Members noted the draft’s phrasing could be read to require tree preservation standards for changes of use but not for redevelopment — the opposite of typical practice. Commissioners recommended aligning the ordinance’s definition of "redevelopment" with the stormwater management code (which uses a 5,000‑square‑foot land disturbance threshold and a 40% imperviousness test for certain existing sites) to avoid inconsistent application.

Several commissioners also asked that the ordinance explicitly reference tree‑preservation provisions in sections 102‑6 (existing tree protection), 102‑7 (planting standards), and 102‑8 (street trees) so applicants and staff consistently apply preservation and street‑tree requirements. Because members could not agree on final wording during the meeting, the chair asked commissioners to email concise, drafted comments; he will consolidate and forward those comments to mayor and council.