Little bit of echo.
All right,
we are on. All right, good evening. I
would like to call the October 23rd
Planning Policy Commission meeting to
order at 6:32 p.m. Today's meeting is a
hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy
Commission is in person, but staff or
members of the public may be attending
virtually or in person.
Staff, do we have a quorum tonight?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Excellent.
Now, we will move on to the minutes.
Our first item of business is to take
action to approve the minutes for the
September 25th PPC meeting. Are there
any corrections to the draft minutes
provided in the agenda packet?
All right.
[snorts]
Excellent. Hearing none, the minutes are
approved.
And our next item of business will be
public comment for this meeting. We're
holding general public comment at this
time for all general topics being
discussed by the commission. Uh staff,
has anyone signed up to make public
comment?
>> No, chair, they have not.
>> All right. And seeing no one in the
room, we will move on to regular
business.
Uh regular business tonight. Uh our
first item is to review and discuss the
proposed amendments to title 18 chapter
18606
landscaping standards in right of way.
Uh John Mortonson, our transportation
engineering manager, will be presenting
tonight. And John, I will turn it over
to you if you're ready.
>> I am. Thank you very much. I'm John
Mortonson. I am the city of Esquaz's
transportation engineering manager and
I'm here tonight to talk to you about
landscaping standards for the streets.
Did it share
Oh,
that's interesting.
There you are.
The purpose of tonight's item is that
the administration is seeking feedback
from the planning policy commission
about changes to Isqua municipal code
18.606 606 and the street standards to
align the landscaping requirements for
streets with the comprehensive plan
critical areas code and the city's
strategic plan.
The direction that the administration is
requesting tonight are three questions.
The first one is does the commission
support the proposed deviation process
in the street standards to reduce or
eliminate the landscape planter strip to
preserve trees, protect critical areas,
provide driveway access to properties
that are not being developed as part of
the project that's developing the
street, and minimize or avoid impacts to
section 4F properties, which are
recreational properties. And I'll go
over that a little bit more later.
The next question is, does the
commission support the proposed
exemption to the landscaping standards
for rehabilitation projects and interim
bicycle and pedestrian connection
projects? And then the third question
for the commissioners for you to
consider are there any other changes to
consider which haven't been mentioned in
the documents?
Little bit of background on this. The
street standards are the standards that
are used to design street improvements.
Whether it's a private development
that's developing maybe some town homes
and they would build their frontage
improvements along the street or if the
city has a project
like the we had a project on 12th Avenue
Northwest near PCC where we added some
turn lanes and some protected bike lanes
and sidewalks. So the street standards
apply to both those situations. And the
street standards talk about a
requirement to have a landscape planter
strip that's 5 ft wide with street
trees. And also the same requirement
with more details is in
title 18 in 18.606.
>> [clears throat]
>> And so, as I mentioned, a landscape
planner strip is required between the
travel lanes and the sidewalk or in some
situations, we'll have the protected
bike lane next to the sidewalk, but
there's still a landscape planner strip
that's required to be installed. And
in
18606, it has a deviation, but there's
only one possible deviation, and that is
for a safety risk. There are no other
deviations that are currently allowed
and that the administration has reviewed
this and we've worked with the mobility
and infrastructure committee and the
transportation advisory board found this
to be inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan which talks a lot
about the need to preserve trees and the
critical areas code which talks about
avoiding and minimizing impacts to
critical areas. And so in our
conversations with the mobility and
infrastructure committee and the
transportation advisory board, they
provided us with guard rails to write
deviations and exemptions that are
proposed tonight before this body.
As I mentioned before, a landscape
planner strip is required. This is just
a typical street section just showing
what a landscape planner strip is. um
could have grass, it could have shrubs,
it could have ground cover, but it also
has street trees. And for a pedestrian,
it is a great feature to have. It also
widens the roadway section out, which is
why we're talking about possible the
adding more deviations to reduce that
area.
The administration was working on a
project to come up with a proposed
concept for sidewalk on Squawk Mountain
on 12th Avenue Northwest and Mount
Olympus. And so this is a picture of
Mount Olympus. And this is really where
it first came about where we talk
started talking about this conflict
because
one of the things that I believe people
like living on Squawk Mountain for are
these big beautiful trees. And as we're
coming up with a preferred concept, we
realize that by code, a 5-ft planter
strip would have to be installed. So if
we were to put a planter strip and
sidewalk along this corridor, and it's a
corridor that the neighborhoods really
want sidewalk, a lot of these trees
would have to be cut down. And
we just thought that that wouldn't well
one that wouldn't be right and two I
could just see the community's reaction
if they saw all these trees marked to be
cut down so we could put in landscaping.
And likewise I've been mentioning
critical areas. So critical areas
there's a lot of different critical
areas including streams. got a picture
of a stream that is
parallel to 221st.
And so if in order to install sidewalk
along that street, it would have to and
planter strip, it would really get into
the stream buffer. I I don't haven't
measured it to see how close it get to
the stream or wetlands. So the picture
on the right is on Newport Way
or Maple, one of the two. Maybe it's
Maple there. Anyways, it's in that
vicinity, not too far from Target. And
the sidewalk currently doesn't have a
landscape planter strip, but if one were
to be installed, um, then it wouldn't
mean filling into the wetland,
which we're supposed to avoid and
minimize.
This picture is steep driveways. And the
reason why a deviation process for steep
driveways and this was for situations
where like a this is on northwest
Seamish Road. The city has a project to
install a construct a 12 to 14 ft shared
use path for bicyclists and pedestrians.
It's going to connect the South Lake
Seamish neighborhood with the state
park. And
this is one of the driveways along
there. And so the design team really
wants to minimize the width of the
planter strip in this area. That way
this driveway will not be any steeper
than it already is. I think it's about
25%.
And when we met with the property owner
too, he was very adamant about not
wanting a steeper driveway. And he
actually encouraged the design engineers
to and they did this drive down and then
try and drive back up. and it was quite
challenging. And so this would apply
if
I'm a development or a city project were
to be installing sidewalk and this
adjacent property is not getting
redeveloped because if this adjacent
property was getting redeveloped, well
then they could regrade the site and not
have such a steep driveway. But just
trying to get a deviation so that way we
can tie into driveways in a situation
like this and not make it worse for the
resident.
And
a deviation was added for section 4f
properties. This is part of a
transportation funding bill, I think
from 1966
in section 4, but it's been codified
into federal law that transportation
projects are supposed that have federal
funding are supposed to avoid or
minimize impacts to recreational
properties. That could be a playground
at an elementary school. It could be a
city park. It could be the Harvey
Manning Park. It could be a wildlife
refuge, a number of things. And so a
deviation was added in order to be
consistent with the federal regulations.
And I think it would also depend on the
context of the section 4F property
because if it's a city park, well then
it probably makes sense to put in a
landscape planner strip because that's a
place where people are going to be
walking to and we'd like it to be an
ideal
walking environment for the pedestrians.
But if it's like the Harvey Manning Park
along Newport Way, well, it really
doesn't make sense to widen the road.
And actually, this might not be the best
example because we're not even planning
on putting sidewalk in this section of
Newport, but it was the one I had. Um,
but the whole idea is to preserve the
hillside and the the park to be a
forested hillside, not concrete and
landscaping.
And then
the administration worked with the
mobility and infrastructure committee
and the transportation advisory board to
come up with an exemption for
rehabilitation projects. This is where
the use of the street would not be
changing, but the city would do
something to take care of the existing
infrastructure. And I've got two
examples in the photos here. The one on
the left is the Black Nugget retaining
wall. and that um it would be really
expensive to put in a landscape planter
strip. The retaining mall, something
needs to be done. We can't just leave it
in the current condition. There's a
design currently underway that'll build
a retaining wall in front of the
existing retaining wall in order to help
um have a
infrastructure that can last longer. And
then the picture on the right, that's
from if you're at Cougar Mountain Zoo
and you start driving up Cougar
Mountain,
190th and 191st, and the road is really
deteriorating. And so want to make sure
that we have an exemption so that way
we can take care of this um the
pavement. And technically you'd
require a permit but um which would
trigger the landscaping requirements but
we don't want to do that cuz there's no
pedestrian generators. Lots of reasons
to not put in landscaping
along that corridor.
And then the next one is coming up with
an exemption for
interim bicycle and pedestrian
connections. These are
projects that would inst
So um interim non-motorized gaps and so
the
um picture on the left that is
a situation where I think it's on second
and I could be wrong but I think it's
second and it's a location that we
frequently get asked can you put
sidewalk in here and there's a park just
south of here and Gilman Village is just
north of there and there's sidewalk and
then there's three lots without sidewalk
and through the city clic system
multiple times people have said hey can
you please put in sidewalk and we have
to respond back and say we would love to
but in order to do that we'd have to
underground the overhead power we'd have
to install a landscape planter strip
take care of the plants for 3 years
either temporary or permanent
irrigation,
which means the expense of a water
meter, and it just gets really
expensive. And so what looks like the
easiest project just to go from point A
to point B and put in a little bit of
sidewalk
just becomes cost prohibitive. So it's a
way to try and fill in those kind of
gaps. Oh yeah, and on the right that is
a picture. So Confluence Park is just
south of there. Gilman Village is just
north of there. and that is Second
Avenue Northwest. And as you can see,
there's existing sidewalk on either side
of this gap.
So the proposal that's been developed
based on the feedback from the
transportation advisory board and the
mobility and infrastructure committee
are to create a deviation criteria for
tree preservation protection of critical
areas, driveway access and recreational
properties and wanting to create the
guard rails that we've been requested
to. So the Washington State Department
of Transportation has
standards in their design manual for
pedestrian level of traffic stress and
we utilize that to say the city standard
would be two or better. And in most
cases that is done
it can be done with a landscape planner
strip. It can be done with a wide
sidewalk. It can be done if you have
less traffic volume or [clears throat]
fewer lanes. But if you're on a street
like East Lake Samish Parkway and you're
north of 56 where the speed limit, I
believe 40 m an hour, you really would
need to have a landscape planner strip
in order to have a pedestrian level of
traffic stress of two. And I guess I
should tell you the pedestrian level
traffic stress. That's how it feels as a
pedestrian, how stressed different users
are. And so [clears throat]
uh one would be everyone including young
children, people with disabilities, they
would feel comfortable. Two, it would be
most people, not everyone. And then
three and four, it gets more and more
stressful for more and more people. And
in order to qualify for the deviation
though, an applicant would need to have
an arborist, a certified arborist put
together a tree health and condition
assessment because there's no point of
not installing the planter strip in
order to preserve a tree if after the
project's constructed, the tree is just
going to die. And so need to have an
expert to weigh in on whether the tree
would become either a hazard or nuisance
tree after the project was complete. And
the deviation criteria utilized as many
existing definitions
for
landmark trees and significant trees
that are currently in Title 18 rather
than trying to reinvent new definitions.
And the critical areas report would be
very important for considering a
deviation to
not install a landscape planter strip in
order to
avoid or minimize impacts to a critical
area or its buffer. and
looking really at the driveway grade,
wanting to make sure that people have
safe access to their property and
also considering recreational use on
projects that have federal funds that
are next to recreational property.
I went a little bit into the pedestrian
level of traffic stress. Um,
but the deviation criteria would need to
look at the existing land use context.
Is it location with lots of pedestrians?
If that's the case, then makes a better
case for keeping the landscape planner
strip because it's a corridor that would
get really used a lot. Uh, what are the
needs of the multimodal users? the
roadway characteristics, equity and
costs. And one of the criteria also is
one of the criterion is
um need a 20 ft for a full width of a
planter strip. And so in situations
where there's trees, I'll come back to
the previous slide, but I want to show
this picture. So the bottom shows a
sidewalk where there's four trees that
are being preserved and the planter
strip moves closer to the road in order
to preserve those trees. The top one
though shows a picture where
the project could install 20 ft of a
landscape planter strip that would be 5
ft wide. And 20 ft was chosen because
city code says a planting bed needs to
be 100 square ft. If it's 5 ft wide,
just doing the math, you get to a 20
foot length. And so anytime with smooth
transitions, which is defined as having
a radius of
15 ft, anytime we can a project can have
20 ft, that there should be a landscape
planner strip that the goal is to put
those in when we're not oops avoiding
those areas. And I talked a little bit
about the exemptions where
rehabilitation projects where the
existing use would not be changing to
maintain existing infrastructure or
interim bicycle and pedestrian
connections to help with the city's
strategic plan goal of creating
mobility connections to help people get
around town.
The the direction needed from the
commission tonight is these three
questions. Does the commission support
the proposed deviation process in the
street standards to reduce or eliminate
the landscape planter strip to preserve
trees, protect critical areas, provide
driveway access to properties that are
not being developed, and minimize or
avoid impacts to section 4F properties?
Does the commission support the proposed
exemption to the landscaping standards
for rehabilitation projects and interim
bicycle and pedestrian connection
projects? And are there other things
that should be considered that are not
mentioned in the documents?
The timing and next step at your next
meeting, they're scheduled to be a
public hearing on November 13th. And
then this item will return to the
mobility and infrastructure committee
just before Thanksgiving on November
24th. And tenatively, this item would go
to the city council for adoption on
January 5th of next year.
And with that, are there any questions?
>> Excellent. Thank you, John. Uh,
commissioners, we're going to open up to
questions. Uh, we'll try and have one
person at a time, but we'll do round rob
and make sure everyone gets a chance
before we move on. So, uh, let's go
ahead and start with Commissioner Crest
and then we'll just let me know if
Does that work? Yeah, there you go.
Okay, well we well I'll share this one.
I'll bring batteries next time. Um, so
thanks for that. Um, I I like the idea
for the deviations and the exemptions. I
think a lot of it is based on common
sense. So I think weaving that into the
examples that you gave are good ones. So
I have I have two questions. The first
one is um because I think it's important
because you can't have something that'll
work for everything. The process
and kind of the decision matrix of how
things can get a deviation or exemption
um and how that works in in in
practicality. And then the second
question was a little bit related to
that is the five- foot is um something
that may not work everywhere whether
it's a narrower street or something like
that. Is it better to have a 4ft or
slight for example versus no planning?
I'm not sure if that would also be
something that would be part of a
deviation or exemption, but just the pro
start with the how the process would
work. Um especially if if a developer or
someone wants to build something or um
or want to get something like the the
example on second is a good one. It's
like that would be a good one like use
common sense and just put a simple
sidewalk there and then fix it later.
How does that how does that work?
>> Oh, great questions.
I'm going to start with the second one
because that's the easiest one to
answer. And so it's it can either
eliminate or
re um reduce the landscape planter
strip. So the standard is 5 ft and that
is because that is the width needed for
a tree in order to avoid having the
roots cause a lot of problems with the
sidewalk. And so, for example, um
if possible, I I think it'd be better
for a project to reduce rather than
eliminate depending on where the tree
is. And which kind of gets into your
next question, which is about the
process. And so, they would put together
a deviation that would really be
all-encompassing. It would include the
arborist report andor critical areas
report. It would
really
>> so either the city or the developer
whoever would they would they would
propose a deviation. It's almost like
when you ask like for a permit you would
ask for a deviation of that.
>> Yes. Yeah. Thank you for the
clarification. Um yeah it would be
during the permitting process. And so
I'll walk through both the situations.
So let's say the city's got a project on
Swak Mountain. we're going to put in
sidewalk and when it comes time to apply
for a permit included in the permit
submittal would be the deviation and
then likewise for a private development
I'm guessing they would probably want to
do it during the land use phase in order
to set things up but it would be and
then who decides and how does that work
that's really the crux of the question
of the you know transparency of how it
all works and when comes into the
process and just How how does it work?
Um is it just you or is it like a panel
or how's it
>> Yeah, it it would be the
the reviewers on the permit. And so I
envision that it would be one of the
current planners. It would be someone
from engineering and
that they would come together and review
it and make a determination. And then
would there be a back sorry would there
be a back and forth then of because they
may not have all the facts when you fill
out something in a form you may not get
it like the steep driveway was a great
example unless you go out there and see
it and you're like okay well if unless
you do that you're launching somebody
into a busy road and that would that
would not work. Um, so is there is is
part of that process they review it,
they say yes or no and that's it or is
there the ability for the requesttor to
have that conversation, have people come
out, etc.
>> Yeah. Yeah. There's a back and forth and
so it could be in the first round there
might be
some comments or questions. It might be,
hey, address this aspect or
um something else. It or include a
profile of the driveway. Um but yeah, it
would be back and forth. It wouldn't be
a someone submits it, he gets approved
or denied, and that's it. It would go
through the regular permit review
process.
Gonna give you back your dead mic crest.
[laughter] I'm just kidding.
Uh, Commissioner Mulberu.
>> Um, I very much like your proposal. I
like the fact that it's taking into
account what exists rather than simply
trying to lay over um a uh the same
thing everywhere in the city. When my
father developed Sycamore in the 1960s,
he went through he went round and round
with the city of Isiqua to get them to
approve gutter and swale and to not have
street lights because he said it is a
country place. It is not we are it is
not a normal city even though it's
within the city of Isiqua. And I think
most people would say Sycamore is a nice
neighborhood because it worked with the
environment and I think what you have
proposed here is excellent at working
with the environment and creating
different textures and different
neighborhoods in the city.
So that's my opinion. I also think doing
doing a little something like the
sidewalk that doesn't require a huge
project just to at least improve it. I
think that's an excellent idea. So, I
support that as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Excellent. Anyone else? Commissioner
Zach.
>> Thank you. Well, I'm definitely on the
same page with both Commissioner Cross
and Commissioner Maul. Um, yes, this is
a wonderful idea, but my question is,
uh, how how long do you expect the
timeline of permitting process to be?
It's any kind of consideration about the
time cuz to me speeding up permitting
process is the thing [laughter]
the timing of the permit process. I
don't envision this taking longer and it
really it's also a deviation. So it's
the applicant wanting to do something
that's different from our standard. And
so if time is really of the essence,
they could do what they could do today,
which is just go with the standard that
if they want to preserve the trees,
which I think is a great idea. Um, but
it would also be reviewed concurrently
with the land use or the construction
permit that it would not add to the
timeline.
>> Excellent. Thank you so much.
No, I was just going to concur that it
happens at the same time and sometimes
it doesn't come in at the same time as
the application and we say this isn't
going to work and then they request it,
but we all have timelines that we're
required to meet too. So, it it all
works out because we do other deviations
as well.
>> And then John, may I have you go back
one slide to your questions just to make
sure or I guess one more slide. There we
go. Just so we can do that. And then
just a reminder, uh, so we'll do our
formal recommendation at the next, uh,
at the next meeting. Um, so I think for
tonight, we just want to continue to ask
any questions, clarifying questions or
anything we have on it and then try and
give John some feedback on these
specific questions if we can. Cool.
>> Uh, do you have one, Commissioner Miller
Win?
>> I do. Um, my question is in regards to
critical areas. So, what I'd like to
know is if there is a demonstrated need
for uh public safety to have a sidewalk
area next to a critical area, how would
the deviation look like for that type of
request?
>> Yeah. So,
okay, let me make sure I heard the
question right. It's there's a
demonstrated safety need and there's a
critical area and so now we're in a
conflict. Great question and that's why
we would look at it the the permit
review process would look at it
holistically and the
level of service that the city is
putting in the standards for pedestrian
facilities is level of traffic stress of
two or better. And so then that
means when you go to the washd design
manual for all streets where the speed
limits less than 40 m an hour you can
achieve that without a landscape planner
strip. And so really the only situations
where we'd be looking at that are on
streets like Southeast 43rd I believe
East Lake Samish Parkway Isqua Fall City
Road. I might be missing one, but oh um
yes, 17th or S or 900, but those are
really the only situations where this
conflict would
happen. And in this situation, we talked
a lot with the transportation advisory
board. And that's where we came up with
this looking at the
um land use, the pedestrians, the
context, the equity, the cost because it
might depending on the need. If there's
a lot of pedestrians, well, one, maybe
we shouldn't have the speed limit be 40,
but let's just say that the council's
not going to change it and there's a lot
of pedestrians. And that might push it
into the situation where the city would
either accept a pedestrian level of
traffic stress of three or things to um
need to mitigate for the critical areas
impacts. Um, I think it'd really be
context
sensitive. Although, like I said, if we
have that many pedestrians on a 40 mph
street, I think at that point the
conversation needs to be the speed
limit's no longer appropriate.
>> Thank you.
>> And Commissioner Matthews, did you have
a question?
>> I actually did have a question that
carries on to the question that was just
asked um about the critical areas. I'm
not sure why that would be a deviation
and not just a subject on its own
because if you think about on 17th and
900 you had brought that up as an
example they actually have elevated
boardwalks. So in that case why would
you put a sidewalk when you could put in
elevated boardwalk instead so that
you're not impacting and building into
the critical area. It seems like it
could be a subject on its own and not
part of a deviation process.
That is actually Thank you for
refreshing my memory. That is in the new
standards is to consider things like a
boardwalk.
>> So yes, thank you. I I failed to mention
that.
>> Okay. Oh, good. I must have read that.
That's probably why it popped into my
head. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. And Commissioner,
>> I think it just has to like sync. It
kind of My god. Thank you.
>> Um, thanks Jesse. um have I guess it's
it's more of a a naive or a legal
question, but so the planter strips are
typically within the city's right of
way, correct?
>> Yes.
>> So, uh developer wants to build on
property. Um they're expected to plant
that planting strip and maintain it for
period of was that it three years. Um h
how does that work from a legal
standpoint? Um you know a private
developer is putting plantings on public
property is that is that an it's not an
unusual situation, but
>> it's not unusual and I've actually had a
few conversations with the city attorney
about it. Just wanting to
make sure that I understand it correctly
and it's very common. A lot of cities
have that. And it it even could be that
the city could put in the landscaping
and then the adjacent property owner
after the initial plant establishment
period is responsible for long-term
maintenance of it.
>> Okay. Um a follow- on question if I
will. Um,
so these planter strips are
if if a private developer,
let's say it's a renovation project and
it's homeowner and they're adding a
second story to their home, that
wouldn't necessarily trigger their
responsibility to put a planting strip
in front of their house.
>> Correct. They they would be exempt. And
I would also say if they were to do um
the middle housing, that is also exempt.
And if it's a vacant lot and you put in
a single family home, that's also exempt
from the standard. And that's not a
change from how it's been. Well, the
middle housing exemption's been in place
since May. And then the single family
housing's been in since at least 2010
and probably longer. Thanks for the
clarification.
>> Excellent. And we've completed our round
robin. So if anyone has additional
questions, uh, Commissioner Crest,
>> I can actually help you with that cuz I
went through this exact thing. So um, I
we had some trees die in the parkway
that the builder put in, brand new house
from 10 years ago. It was me as a
homeowner responsible work and I got
working with the city of what should go
there to to put the trees in, but it was
my expense and I maintain it even though
I don't own the property. Very weird,
but it just it is. But I have a vested
interest to make it look good. So it all
work.
>> I didn't put grass. I do ground cover.
But the um
>> I wanted to answer that. I do think it's
really interesting this whole thing
about conflict of you have two different
objectives and they could they can
conflict. I'll use I'll just pick two as
an example. One is the idea of putting
um parkways and sidewalks from a safety
pedestrian standpoint and tree
preservation.
So when you do have that conflict and
say I'm not sure if it's a public or
private if that matters in this
discussion, you have different people
who should probably weigh in within the
city because you something's going to
give. You can't do both, right? You
can't if you have a big tree there but
you need to put a sidewalk there. How is
how does that just work in practicality?
Because you're right, when you start
cutting trees down, everyone goes, "Oh
my god, what's going on?" So, the more
clear the city is with how those
decisions are made and how that works
makes people probably feel better about
when those red tags go on trees and then
they they get chopped down. So, how does
that work in practicality when there's a
conflict of of objectives?
Well, I guess the first answer is um I I
can say how I envision it going, but I
think the true test will be once it's
adopted to observe how it happens and
then see if the standards need to
change. But the way I envision it is if
an applicant, whether it's the city
developing its own capital project for a
transportation facility or a developer,
if they have trees that meet the
definitions that are in the standards,
whether it's a significant tree or a
landmark tree, and that an arborist says
that that tree, it's not going to become
a nuisance or hazard tree after the
improvement's been built. that then they
could apply for and get their deviation.
Now, if the arborist says
no, this tree isn't going to survive the
improvements,
then yeah, it would have the deviation
would not be approved. So, it's I guess
I'd say it's airing on the side of
approving it in order to preserve the
trees as long as the trees meet the
criteria of being a significant tree or
a landmark tree. I forget what else we
put in there. And that the arborist
has report also supports that that tree
would do well after the improvements.
>> Sometimes you may have to use the second
avenue example. Let's say there was a
big tree in the middle of that space,
that gap,
you'd have to cut it down. So, so, so
that decision would have to be made. So,
it's not like a is it going to hurt the
tree? It'll hurt the tree because it'll
be cut down, but the um but just how you
how do you get to that? Is it it's not
just the the planner or the the person
who's looking at the permit? I assume
they would have to bring in other folks
within the city to if you start cutting
down larger trees to to do something
like that. I'm just trying to understand
>> before there has to be an arborist
report. So an arborist will come out and
look at the tree and determine
>> no there's going to be let's say the
sidewalk has to go right where the tree
is. So you don't need an arborist for
that. You're like okay no tree will
survive if you have to put a sidewalk
through there. I'm I'm coming up with an
example based on
>> I'm stretching your example.
>> Okay. So I think in that case the
even with the current standards that
tree would be coming down.
>> Yeah. Now, I guess I will say,
um, I just had a thought is there have
been times though when the permit team
has said, "Hey, you, yeah, your typical
section shows that sidewalk going right
through that tree, but you have lots of
rightway.
Put the sidewalk further back." And I've
seen that.
>> And and we do have tree retention that's
required for every permit that is
submitted. And you also have um
uh tree coverage and you all remember
remember that from the tree code. So
those things are also considered when
these come through. If you take this
tree down, what's going to happen to
your tree retention and your tree
coverage?
>> Well, this is different though because
this is essentially on a rightaway where
where you need to have a sidewalk. I'm
just I'm It's not like I'm building a
>> It still factors in.
>> Yeah. And there's still tree
replacement. So, if it's a city project,
it's exempt from needing a tree permit,
but the project still needs to replace
the trees within the same sub area. And
just as someone who my division manages
these projects, we want to keep our
costs down and gets expensive when
you're replacing a bunch of trees. So,
we we like to try and avoid
>> um I uh disagree with the approach that
is being discussed here. So, we're just
trying to do questions right now and
then we can do deliberations and
discussions after that because I think
we're going to provide another
opportunity for public comment.
>> Question.
>> A question is yes.
>> Why is there the need for ex for
uniformity? Why did this does the city
not feel that that in fact perhaps this
would be a way to create different
approaches? I mean, if the tree is in
the middle, why can't the city make the
decision to simply have the path go both
ways around it so that we have things
that are interesting within the city
rather than everything looking
uniform? Why is that not considered
acceptable?
>> Well, I'd say it's acceptable. It's hard
to put it into a standard to say
to I don't know how to quite word that.
But I've also seen it um very
specifically where there is a project
going to cut down a whole bunch of trees
and the planner on the review said
put it here. And the applicant said oh
good idea let me draw this up. So it's
in practicality what you're saying
happens but I don't know how to quite
put it into the standards.
>> Okay. So that would be part of the city
of Isiqua's approach to dealing with
these standards is coming up with
something that might make good practical
sense even though it appears to be a
variance. Correct.
Well, I would say moving the if you have
5T with trees in between the sidewalk
and the road, that wouldn't be a
deviation. Um,
>> okay.
>> So, someone could propose that and that
would just be approved.
>> Okay.
>> It's really when you're wanting to do
less than that that you need the
deviation. I was more thinking if you
had to had to uh put sidewalks on both
sides of the tree so you don't have to
cut down the tree
>> just so it looks interesting.
>> I I
that would when you start factoring in
the width needed to meet ADA standards
then that starts to be a lot of
concrete. I mean, it might be
interesting, but you need five feet.
Sometimes you can go down to four feet,
but usually our sidewalks are between
five and eight feet,
>> but
something to consider.
>> Okay,
>> good. We're probably getting a little
deep into the weeds or the trees, I
suppose, uh, for for right now. But uh
[laughter]
but uh for right now um I think we want
to see we'll we'll be able to deliberate
more next next meeting uh during the
public hearing uh when we make a formal
recommendation. But for the rest of this
evening, are there any additional
questions to clarify any of the
information that John shared with us
this evening?
Going once, going twice.
John, do you have what you need from us
tonight?
>> I do. Thank you very much. It was great
being here tonight with you all.
>> Yeah. Awesome. Um, yeah. So, while we
did pass our general public comment, uh,
we know that traffic and parking was a
little busy tonight. So, we did want to
offer an opportunity for a few folks who
have joined us in the room. Uh, if you
would like to make a public comment on
this topic at this time. No. Okay.
Excellent. Good. I think we're good.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you again, John. I
appreciate the uh the presentation and
personally, I really enjoyed the uh
photos, maps, and diagrams myself. So,
thank you. Uh next up,
we have a proposal to change the
election date of the PPC chair and vice
chair. Uh we will be taking action on
this tonight with a vote. So, Kristen
Leon, our isn't it principal planning
manager now? Okay. That's not my
>> No, just just just planning manager. Oh,
just playing manager. Okay. Will be
presenting tonight. So, Kristen, please
go ahead.
>> Let's see.
I've never seen this on my screen
before. Wait a second.
I just want to share a word. Anyone let
me share a word?
Bye, John. Thank you.
Oh, this maybe this is it.
Bye, John. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Okay, there we go.
>> Okay,
there we go. So, this this is a very
very Yes. Kristen Leon, planning manager
for the city of Isiqua. This is a very
simple discussion but one that needs to
be had. So last year we had probably I
think five new members join us and the
same night that they joined they had to
vote on a chair and vice chair but they
didn't know how meetings worked. They
didn't know who they were voting on and
we've been doing it this way for a very
long time. But I'm thinking it's time to
change. Let's let's give the new members
a chance to kind of figure out what they
really think is going to work best and
you all as well. So our proposal is that
we move the election date of chair and
vice chair from the first meeting in
May, which is the same day that the new
members start to either September or
January, which is just what other
commissions and boards have done. And
you all are different than any other
commission or board in the city in that
you meet twice a month at least as
opposed to once a month. Everybody else
meets about once a month, every other
month. So, you do get a little closer um
and better knowledge of each other and
the way things work in a shorter amount
of time. So, um at any rate, this is now
open for discussion. Um and there was
another proposal in here that the
officers also would hold their positions
for a one-year term or until their
successors are elected. And that's just
in case something comes up and we don't
meet so that they don't automatically
end say the f, you know, the first
meeting in September. What if we don't
meet the first meeting in September? So
you need to have somebody there for the
second. So that's that's the reason for
that wording. So now it's it's time for
you to discuss.
>> Awesome. Thanks, Kristen. Uh,
commissioners, do we have any questions
or comments regarding this matter?
Commissioner Matthews.
>> So, who will run the meetings in the
beginning if we don't have um a head of
for the group? So, right now, his name
just popped right out of my head. He's
not here. Jason Jason
>> is not here, but if if he's not running,
I mean, who would take that spot until
September?
>> Oh, he if we adopted this, it would
happen now.
>> So, he would they would he and uh Jesse
would continue.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> Yeah. So it just shifts it. So instead
of right now it's April to or I guess
May to April
>> May to the end of April.
>> So instead it would shift it to
September to August. And so there would
be people already elected into those
roles when the new folks came on but
then we would do a new election in
September if this Yeah. So the idea
would be that the new folks who joined
the commission like for a while there
was four of us or five or six of us or
were operating for a little bit and then
we welcome kind of a new group so we
expanded. Um but you know like Kristen
was saying the first meeting you you had
to make an election and and choose a
chair and vice chair. So in this
adjustment, it would give you they would
already be in place for the new people
or the new commissioners and then they
would have from May to September to kind
of get to know them a little bit, go
through some meetings, understand maybe
why they would be um you know chosen as
potential electors. Um and so it just
kind of gives some time for that to
breathe before a vote is is chosen.
Uh, anyone else have questions,
comments? Commissioner Crest,
>> do you have an opinion? Which is better,
September or January? Do you have a
preference?
>> No preference.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner,
>> do you see any downside in shifting the
the dates?
>> I don't see any downsides.
>> Yeah.
>> No, either.
Commissioner Ze,
>> I have a question about the second
paragraph like first one is
understandable
>> about the second sentence.
>> Second sentence. Yeah.
>> And we don't see it now. So
>> I'm I'm sharing it right now.
>> Okay.
>> There we go.
Well, it's coming. There it is.
Okay.
It's
to me it's kind of like I don't know
repeats.
>> Well, the way the way that it's written
now, they hold it from April from May
1st through April 30th period. Then
they're done. And then if you don't have
a meeting in May and June comes up,
who's running the meeting? So if you do
this until the next one is elected, then
that gives coverage for that one month.
Then if I may continue, I'm suggesting
September.
>> Yeah. Uh that's definitely open for
discussion if uh we can discuss it
before motion. Yeah. Okay. So yeah,
that's open for discussion is like when
we would have the election. So
Commissioner Mulu
>> given what happened this last year which
is we had very few meetings during the
summer.
>> Does it make sense to do it in January
simply because new members would have
not had uh would have missed maybe six
meetings [clears throat]
>> out of what you would have expected.
>> I am going to bring up that that is a
good point. We just I just had the
question. We we typically don't take
summers off. This is the first summer
that we've had a lot of meetings, but it
was just requested that we do take
August off this year. So,
>> yeah. Uh personally, I I agree with that
point. I think also January is typically
when we kind of like ramp into new
topics like we do our docket approval in
December for the new year. So to your
point, that might be a good alignment in
that it's kind of like, all right,
here's the new, you know, chair, vice
chair. Here's the docket for the year.
Like, we're off and running. Typically,
we're pretty consistent in the that time
of year, I would say. So,
>> that's it. That's it. You [laughter]
got my sales hat on tonight.
All right. Uh, any other comments,
questions, feedback, thoughts?
So, we need a formal motion here. Would
anybody like to make a motion?
Commissioner Matthews, I
>> make a motion that we adopt the January
date
>> and the proposed language as well and
the proposed language as well.
>> May I second it since I'm an alternate,
but
>> yeah,
>> I I second the motion.
>> Excellent. So, motion is on the table.
Should we take a vote?
>> All in favor say I and raise your hand.
Okay. All opposed.
All right. That's unanimous.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Absolutely.
Next on the agenda is reports. Uh, city
council updates. Anything to report on
that, Kristen?
I had to think for a minute. Let's see.
Uh, we have a few agenda bills going to
council on November 10th.
uh one is the comprehensive plan which
will actually be on consent
and
uh another one that will be on consent.
I'm sorry I can't remember what it is at
this moment. We are taking back the
Belleview College development agreement
discussion. I think that many talked
with you all about that. That goes on
the 10th. That'll be an interesting
discussion if you want to tune in.
>> Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.
>> And any other updates from staff?
>> Not at this time. No.
>> All right,
[clears throat] commissioners. Any
further business this evening?
No. All right. Well, there being no
further business before the commission,
we will adjourn this meeting at 7:28
p.m. Thank you very much.