Laserfiche WebLink
2.01: Review Proposed Updates to City Landscaping Code for New Commercial and <br />Industrial Projects <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill reviewed the staff report. <br />Councilmember Musgrove thanked the Environmental Policy Board (EPB) for hearing the <br />concerns of the developer and making necessary tweaks to that property and reviewing the Code <br />itself to make more appropriate changes. She asked if it would be possible to provide a link within <br />the different sections of the Code to reach the landscaping section. She also stated that she likes <br />the removal of the stormwater area from the calculation. She asked if there would be grandfathered <br />properties for those completed prior to the amendment of Code. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed that once adopted the Code would become effective <br />and apply to new applications moving forward. He clarified that this is a reduction to the <br />requirements. <br />Councilmember Musgrove referenced the buffering and transitioning standards and asked if that <br />would be part of an additional conversation or whether she would bring those concerns forward <br />now. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill noted those comments could be addressed tonight. <br />Councilmember Musgrove referenced the language within the case related to buffering and density <br />transitioning standards and asked for clarification. <br />City Planner Anderson commented that the buffering standards between commercial/industrial <br />properties and residential districts would be added into the one or two districts where it currently <br />does not exist. He explained that buffering standards act similarly to density transitioning but <br />explained that buffering is between the industrial/commercial districts that abut residential whereas <br />density transitioning is more specific between residential districts of different density. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that the ordinance was included as part of the packet, <br />whereas that information was summarized within the case to provide clarity to the proposed <br />changes. He stated that if acceptable to the Council this would move forward to the ordinance <br />introduction and adoption process. <br />The consensus of the Council was to move forward on the ordinance introduction and adoption <br />process as presented. <br />