Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.05.2024 MinutesCITY OF OSHKOSH SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD Minutes September 5th, 2024 SAB PRESENT: Margy Davey, Jacob Klaameyer, Alyssa Reinke, Vic Oliver, Brad Spanbauer, Joe Stephenson, Jaden Zurn EXCUSED: Lisa Marone ABSENT: STAFF AND OTHERS: Emma Dziengeleski (Planning Staff), Mark Lyons (Planning Services Manager), Staff (Oshkosh Media) I. Call to Order Chair Margy Davey called the meeting to order at 6:00pm and a quorum was declared present. II. Public Comment Ms. Davey asked if there were public comments. No public comments occurred. III. Approval of Minutes, August 5th, 2024 Ms. Reinke motioned to approve the minutes. Ms. Oliver seconded the motion. The board approved the July 1st minutes 7-0 (Reinke/Oliver). IV. Introduction for New Board Members Mr. Zurn introduced himself to the board. He shared that he is a UW Oshkosh Environmental Studies graduate, and is passionate about making a change in his community. Ms. Davey also shared with the group that Planning Services Manager Mark Lyons will be joining the board for the meeting tonight as well. V. Native Landscaping Areas - Discussion Mr. Lyons stated the ordinance was created to address two underlying issues, 1) to allow residents to utilize native plantings within landscaping of their home, and 2) to allow for native plantings to be used as an alternative to turf grass for one’s primary ground cover. Mr. Lyons explained that the ordinance allows individuals who are looking at using an alternative to apply for a designated native landscaping area through the City Forester to be protected from long grass and/or noxious weeds enforcement. Mr. Stephenson thanked Mr. Lyons for the clarification. He asked is including native planting into one’s landscaping beds is allowed. Mr. Lyons said yes, that they would not be subject to the long grasses/noxious weed type ordinances. Ms. Oliver asked how the board can get that information added in the ordinance because it is currently confusing. Mr. Lyons agreed and stated that internally staff can work on making clarifications either within the native landscaping areas ordinance or the noxious weeds ordinance. Mr. Klaameyer followed up with possibly clarifying or editing the setback requirements. He asked what the limitations are to someone utilizing their whole back yard as a landscaping area. Mr. Lyons stated that technically if you are going to do a landscape feature you can go right up to the property line, whereas a native landscaping area needs a five-foot buffer. He expanded on the negative perception that adjacent property owners may have when it comes to an untraditional lawn, and having this approval from the city will help neighbors understand what is being done as well as protect property owners from enforcement. Mr. Spanbauer followed up with some questions regarding the application that was created. Mr. Lyons agreed that there are opportunities to look at adjustments for clarity. Ms. Davey asked if the city requires turf grass and why. Mr. Lyons answered that is not specifically called out as turf grass but rather a more generic term of ground cover, which is required at some measure for erosion and runoff. Ms. Davey said that that could potentially be done with rock, or something different. Mr. Lyons said that is a potential option, but then you would be having conversations about storm water management and what the impervious measures are, what’s under the rocks, etc. Ms. Oliver asked what would require applying for the application. Mr. Lyons shared if you would like your backyard to be native prairie grasses instead of turf grass, you would need to fill out an application and get approval. He explained that you would also need the five-foot buffer. In the situation of having turf grass with some landscaped beds mixed in, an application would not be needed as that is more of a landscape feature than replacing your yard with native plantings. He said that when researching, many other communities had similar requirements to the five-foot buffer to deter rodents, the negative perception, etc. The closer you allow plantings to the adjoining property line, the impact increases, but with the buffer, you have lessened that impact to a degree. There was discussion amongst the board on decreasing the buffer requirements, front yard versus side yard requirements, perceptions, and more. Ms. Davey asked why there was a difference in having the entirety of your backyard be prairie grasses versus prairie grasses along the outside of your property with turf grass in the middle. She asked if that would need approval or not. Mr. Lyons responded with an approval would be needed because the majority of a yard would be native grasses. Mr. Spanbauer asked if you wanted to do the vast majority of your backyard, or three sides, but there is a border (rock, plastic edge) around it, would you need approval. Mr. Lyons explained that yes, an approval would still be needed for that majority area. He went on to clarify that if a backyard was primarily turf and just had landscaping beds around the outside, there wouldn’t be a requirement for approval. If the majority of your backyard was native prairie, landscaped outside of that, or the five-foot buffer area, then approval would be needed. He specified that the main reason for the native landscaping area is to make sure that you are no longer subject to the requirements of cutting it, noxious weeds, and/or grass over 8 inches. Ms. Oliver asked if it would be better to state that if your landscaping contains 51% of natives, then it would take out all the objectivity. Ms. Davey said that another factor to consider is that if you have a very small backyard, and if five feet is required on three sides, then you would have nothing left to dedicate to native plantings. Mr. Lyons said that based off of individuals in the past, it has been an all or nothing type of situation. He stated that all interested parties have wanted either all of their backyard or side yard dedicated to native plantings. He further specified that ordinances are intended to be written to apply to the common questions or concerns staff is getting. Mr. Spanbauer asked if it is permissible to include visual examples of this, drawing out some examples of yards and indicating which would require an application versus which would not. Mr. Lyons responded with yes, that is definitely something staff can do. Mr. Spanbauer asked that if someone wanted to convert their regular turf grass to clover or some other kind of hearty ground cover, would that apply to this situation. Mr. Lyons said that if that ground cover in question will get over 8 inches tall frequently, then staff would recommend that they should get approval. If the ground cover will stay under 8 inches, then this is something you would never have to worry about. Ms. Davey asked for further clarification as to why landscaping beds are allowed right on the property line, where native landscaping has to remain five feet off. Mr. Lyons said that it really comes back to trying to mitigate concerns of adjoining property owners and trying to head off potential issues with between property owners. Landscaping adjoining properties has become the norm; however, there is a perception for environmentally friendly practices and issues may occur. There was discussion about proposing to remove the buffer all together, or to at least reduce it. Ms. Oliver asked how the board can propose the change to reducing the five-foot buffer. Mr. Lyons said that the discussion has been enough for staff to take back feedback and start drafting. He explained that clarity of the ordinance would be number one, and then staff can look into the specifics such as the buffer. Mr. Spanbauer said that he would like to see some examples included in the application, and also asked if the city offers any guidance or education about alternative ground cover options that would not exceed 8-inches. Mr. Klaameyer agreed that including a number of examples in the application would be beneficial. He said that including a list of species that residents could reference would help answer questions/confusion and not burden staff time. Mr. Lyons said that these proposed changes will be something staff will lean on SAB and the City Forester for. He went on to say that any research the board can provide that the city will be beneficial for staff. Ms. Davey asked about the native landscaping brochure and if staff is currently getting it out to the public. Mr. Lyons said yes, but it is intended to be informational regarding native landscaping and not necessarily turf grass replacement. Mr. Spanbauer suggested adding a section about turf grass replacement to that brochure. Mr. Stephenson asked that from a process standpoint, if the board is giving direction to clean up and clarify some of the ordinance is it okay for staff to start working on that, or do they have to bring it to Council. Mr. Lyons said that the way the City Ordinance works is that the board’s direction is taken to the department head, who then evaluates the capacity that staff has to work on it. If it is determined that staff has the capacity to work on it, then we will let the board know and start working on it. If it is determined that we do not have the capacity to work on it, then it goes to the City Manager for final determination. Mr. Lyons shared that he thinks this makes sense for staff to work on as long as it can fit into staff’s workloads. There shouldn’t be an issue, but the normal analysis will be completed to make sure staff will have the ability to work on the proposed changes. Ms. Oliver asked if there is anything the board can do to help. Mr. Lyons responded that the first thing needing done is to research the possible alternatives, so staff can then do the creation of the documents to promote those species. Mr. Klaameyer asked if they could invite Wild Ones to the October SAB meeting to speak on the topic of turf grass replacements. Ms. Davey said she has a contact that she could reach out to and see who would be available. VI. Energy Innovation Grant (EIGP) Update Ms. Dziengeleski let the board know that the contract is still in the works. Staff had been notified that they had it done, but their attorneys found some issues with it, so it has gotten pushed back an additional two to three weeks. She specified that it was not just for the City of Oshkosh, and is an issue for all awardees. Ms. Davey asked if this was the plan that we don’t have a deadline on. Ms. Dziengeleski shared that the money will need to be spent and the plan will need to be completed by June 2025. VII. NexTrex Recycling Ms. Davey shared that the Oshkosh Herald had an article about NexTrex Recycling. She shared that it is when organizations and/or municipalities collect soft plastic, because there is no other way to recycle that. They then take those donations and turn it into benches. She shared that there are several places in our community that do collect these types of plastics, but she wanted to raise knowledge that this occurs, and also if the board wants to consider having something similar at one of the municipal locations. Mr. Spanbauer shared that the University takes part in the NexTrex program and they have for several years. He shared that their postal services staff would take the bags to Festival Foods as they are one of the main collection points locally, but have since kind of stopped and pulled all the public facing bins. He included that they still have bins located in some of the academic buildings. The university did this due to staffing changes/capacity and they were also getting contamination. Once the plastic becomes contaminated, it would have to be landfilled. He said he thinks it’s a great idea when you get collection bins in places where more people go, but unfortunately there are going to be situations where people do things mindlessly. Ms. Klaameyer shared that there are some steps to note before trashing your plastic bags. He said to consider refusing them and find alternatives, as well as reducing the amount you use, and repurposing and utilizing the bags until they rip. He also said he’s seen people that repair the bags by ironing them together and then sewing them together to make a more durable plastic. Lastly, consider to recycle them when you can. Mr. Spanbauer agreed with many of Mr. Klaameyer’s points, and there are also many other things in our world that we consume that are wrapped in plastic, but there are alternatives or ways to avoid that. VIII. Summer Farmers Market Ms. Davey mentioned that Kelly Reyer, Winnebago County Solid Waste, joined the board at their most recent Farmer’s Market. Ms. Oliver said it went great and when residents had recycling questions, they could point them in the direction of Kelly. She also shared that there was a lot of engagement, questions, and that the county is actually doing a recycling program that they were able to get information out about. Ms. Davey shared that the next Farmer Market date will be Saturday, September 28th. XI. Agenda Items for Future Meetings Wild Ones, Native Landscaping Areas, Tree Protection Zones XII. Next Meeting is Monday, October 7th, 2024 XIII. Adjourn The board voted 7-0 to adjourn (Spanbauer/Reinke) Recorded by: Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner