The Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee voted 7-0 on Oct. 21 to approve changes to an existing landscape ordinance that ease some landscaping requirements for certain industrial and commercial redevelopment projects.

The committee approved an amendment that (1) makes the look-back period for assessing whether a project meets the improvement threshold two years instead of one; (2) raises the minimum contribution toward meeting landscaping requirements for qualified projects from 5% to 10%; and (3) clarifies the scope of industrial and commercial developments covered by the change. The underlying ordinance was recorded on the agenda as item 20250448 and passed on second reading in the committee.

Committee members and staff said the measure is aimed at helping older industrial or commercial properties that sit “on the shelf” become reusable without requiring full, immediate compliance with newer landscape standards.

Krissy Kinney, a resident who presented public comment, opposed the landscaping portion of the bill. “The argument that the relaxation is required for small business growth is weak and a false cause,” Kinney said, urging the committee to consider environmental trade-offs and the lack of direct evidence that relaxing landscaping rules would materially increase small-business investment decisions.

Councilmember Randy White (District 12), the bill sponsor, told the committee the change responded to concerns that rising building-material costs and the ordinance’s improvement threshold had created barriers to redeveloping older properties. “I was approached about a year ago with some of these issues,” White said, and described reaching a compromise after meetings with the planning department, public works, NAIOP and other stakeholders.

Chris Hagan, who identified himself as representing NAIOP, said developers are seeing older projects that will not move forward under the prior threshold and that the change could help bring derelict or underused industrial buildings back into use while maintaining some landscaping requirement.

Councilmember Matt Carlucci (At-Large, Group 4) and others raised concerns that adding commercial redevelopment to the relief (not just industrial) could roll back years of landscaping gains for retail and other commercial corridors. Carlucci proposed an amendment to limit the change to industrial properties and add a three-year sunset; that amendment failed on a committee vote. Carlucci later offered a narrower amendment to strike commercial from the relief; that amendment also failed.

City staff described how the ordinance applies. Edward Linsky of the Council Auditor’s Office and Aaron Abney, chief of current planning, explained that the change affects redevelopment projects that meet the qualifying threshold (60% of assessed value or square footage over a two-year window, per the adopted amendment). Abney said qualifying projects would be required to devote up to 10% of overall project cost toward bringing landscaping into compliance; projects that already have partial landscaping would need only enough to reach full compliance, which could be less than 10%.

Committee discussion noted the bill does not touch multifamily, single-family or recreational development thresholds; those categories remain subject to the prior 50%/three-year threshold and the 20% contribution requirement. That distinction was clarified on the record by Linsky and by another staff member addressing the committee’s questions.

After debate and the two failed Carlucci amendment attempts, the committee approved the neighborhoods amendment (which made the two-year/10%/definition changes) and then voted 7-0 to pass the bill as amended. Council members who spoke in favor said they hoped the change would spur reinvestment in older properties without eliminating landscaping altogether; those opposed or cautious urged the city to monitor outcomes.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 20250448 (landscape ordinance amendment; neighborhoods amendment adopted): Passed 7-0 in committee; qualifying projects: 60% threshold over 2 years; required landscape contribution for qualified projects: 10% (increased from 5% in earlier draft); multifamily/single-family/recreational thresholds unchanged (50% over 3 years and 20% contribution). (Recorded in committee as passed.)

- Ordinance 20250731 (street renaming, amendment adopted): Passed 7-0 in committee.

- Ordinance 20250735 (closure item): Passed 7-0 in committee.

- Ordinance 20250736 (closure item): Passed 7-0 in committee.

- Ordinance 20250737 (closure item): Passed 7-0 in committee.

- Item 20250738 (conduit bond permission for a 301 Villages project, developer bond issuance): Passed 7-0 in committee; committee members were told the city is acting as a jurisdictional conduit only and is not issuing or pledging city revenues.

Committee next steps and context

Committee members said they expect the measure to return to full council as part of the legislative process. Several members asked staff to track the practical effects on redevelopment projects and on commercial corridors. Councilmember Matt Carlucci asked that staff monitor whether the change leads to reduced tree canopy or other adverse visual impacts; Councilmember Randy White and others said the change was negotiated to preserve some landscaping while making marginal projects economically viable.

A city official told the committee that the larger package of action items on the agenda — five closures and several second-read items — had proceeded through multiple prior public hearings and committee reviews before arriving at this meeting.

(Reported from the Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee meeting of Oct. 21, 2025.)