[0:00] Lomsdale, chairman of the Young Planning
Commission. I call the meeting to order.
[0:04] Today is Tuesday, August 18th, 2026. The
time is 400 p.m. Staff, please take roll
[0:10] call.
>> Commissioner Richard Lumdale
[0:12] » here.
>> Commissioner Robert Bailey
[0:14] » here.
>> Commissioner John Greyber
[0:16] » here.
>> Commissioner Dana Allen
[0:18] » here.
>> Commissioner Anne Wman
[0:20] » here. Commissioner Ashley Brooks
>> here. And Commissioner Riley Helen here.
[0:24] » Please stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
[0:31] I pledge of allegiance to the flag of
the United States of America and to the
[0:36] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:42] justice for all.
[0:47] » Thank you.
[0:50] » Hey, since the uh minutes from the June
16th, 2026 meeting was postponed,
[0:55] there's two sets of meetings for review.
These will be approved separately.
[1:00] Has everyone had the opportunity to read
uh read the attached minutes from the
[1:04] June 16th, 2026?
[1:11] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[1:13] » Is there a motion to approve the
minutes?
[1:16] » I motion to approve.
>> I'll second.
[1:19] » Okay. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:21] » I.
>> Okay. The minutes from the previous
[1:24] meeting have been approved. Has everyone
had the opportunity to read the attached
[1:29] minutes from July 21st, 2026?
>> Yes.
[1:36] » Is there a motion to approve the
minutes?
[1:39] » Motion to approve the minutes from July
21st.
[1:42] » Second.
>> I'll second that.
[1:44] » All in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:46] » I.
>> Minutes have been approved.
[1:51] Has everyone had the opportunity to read
the agenda?
[1:57] » I wish to motion to make an amendment to
the agenda.
[2:02] » Okay.
>> And that amendment would be to include
[2:06] » We'll second that.
>> Oh, thank you. [laughter]
[2:10] The um the amendment would be to include
an update on the heritage zone, the zone
[2:17] 8 discussion as um in our minutes that
were just approved. Uh Gary planned to
[2:23] meet in person with the nine property
owners to review the draft code before
[2:27] presenting it formally to the commission
next month with which is this month. And
[2:32] um so I would just like an update on
that please.
[2:38] That's that's my amendment.
>> So
[2:44] the motion the motion is for uh an
update on the uh heritage zoning that
[2:50] Gary Cooper had mentioned during the
last meeting um for the the property
[2:54] owners and to get an update on the
status of that.
[2:58] » Is that correct?
>> Well, for us first, right?
[3:00] » Yes. Thank you. be before before it's
pre presented to uh the city counc
[3:07] » well I'm yeah but to get an update for
us on the update
[3:12] » at this meeting yes
>> yes okay
[3:15] so
>> should it go under unfinished business
[3:21] » yes
>> yeah
[3:24] city staff communications as well
>> oh I could go there Yeah.
[3:32] » You want you want that under uh staff
>> communication. I would recommend putting
[3:36] it under staff communications.
>> Okay. Because that that was something he
[3:40] said he was going to do and it wasn't
actually something that we were dealing
[3:45] uh business that we were dealing with.
That was just something. Okay. So then
[3:48] what else made more sense?
>> We are dealing with it. It was under new
[3:52] business. So it should go under
unfinished business is and I'll make
[3:56] that part of my motion if and second to
that.
[4:01] was seconding it, but I have a question
first for staff
[4:07] or do you have an update that you can
provide us with Gary not being here?
[4:13] » I Yeah, I mean I can just dive into
that. So
[4:17] » not yet. We have to
>> Okay. Yeah,
[4:21] » very briefly.
>> Okay. So you are prepared.
[4:25] » I'm always prepared.
>> Okay. So, so, so if you, so if you're
[4:28] prepared to answer it, then do you want
to withdraw the motion if he's ready to
[4:32] answer?
>> Okay. Okay. So, all right.
[4:38] All right. So,
uh, all in favor of the motion,
[4:43] » I
>> I
[4:45] ns. Okay. So, motion passes. Um,
so it's going to be added to um
[4:57] the agenda for for next
>> No.
[5:01] » Okay. Okay. To for today's agenda,
excuse me.
[5:04] » Okay.
>> All right.
[5:08] So, we'll add that under unofficial uh
city staff.
[5:14] Oh, that's really good.
[5:28] Okay.
[5:31] So, are there
[5:36] are there any conflicts of interest
between any commissioner and an agenda?
[5:40] Did you have something? So, you wanted
Okay. Between any commissioner and an
[5:44] agenda item.
Okay. Any staff communications?
[5:51] » Um, I'll save mine just for the any
staff communications. There's really
[5:56] nothing. Um, but I'll elaborate on the
heritage zone.
[6:07] » Okay.
Is there anyone in the audience who
[6:10] would like to address the commission?
Okay. Comments are limited to three
[6:17] minutes.
Um, comments on matters listed on the
[6:23] agenda are welcome. Anyone wish wishes
to comment, please come to the podium,
[6:27] state your name and address for the
record.
[6:31] » I'm Rachel Learon Anderson. I live at
16215
[6:34] Avenue um over off Bansel Road. Uh, so
the things I wanted to bring up today
[6:40] were after the seeing the fires on the
news in Spokane this year, I wanted us
[6:44] to consider as we move forward as a city
wider roads for fire breaks in
[6:50] neighborhoods as they're built to allow
um not only just for the fire break, but
[6:54] for the emergency vehicles to come in as
the cars are evacuating if the fire were
[6:58] to come through. Um, we want to consider
having more parks within walking
[7:04] distance of new neighborhoods as they're
being built. make sure that we're
[7:07] leaving space for that. Every
neighborhood should be able to have a a
[7:11] a park within walking distance. I think
that's really important for building
[7:14] community. Um, and my other concern, I
was recently talking about the oaks, and
[7:20] I had put in some written words about
the oak trees over on Vansel Road, but
[7:24] while we were talking about that within
our neighborhood, we really wanted to
[7:27] save the hundred-year-old fur trees as
well that were right along the road. And
[7:31] I didn't feel like I had a tool for that
because it wasn't part of critical
[7:34] habitat. But I really think that we
should be saving some of our old canopy
[7:39] whenever possible. If there's no reason
to take it down for a building, it
[7:42] should certainly be left or built
around. It could be part of people's
[7:45] yards, part of entryways to
neighborhoods. And I'm concerned that
[7:48] we're only getting short street trees.
And those big fur trees are wind breaks
[7:53] during fires. They stood in the Spokane
fires when whole neighborhoods went
[7:57] down. The fur trees were still standing.
They slowed down the winds. They help
[8:02] with our fall storms. Otherwise, we'd
have even faster winds. I think they're
[8:06] terribly important. So, I'd like to see
those preserved as we go forward. Um,
[8:11] and then we I know our town has a new
art program. I'd like to see that
[8:16] incorporated beyond Main Street. So, as
we put in wider roads going to new
[8:20] neighborhoods, it would be great if some
art could be incorporated in. I don't
[8:24] know how that would work, but just food
for thought. And then my last item is
[8:29] I'd like to see almost like I don't know
how to describe it, ADU style little
[8:34] business spaces for starter businesses
that aren't so expensive that we're only
[8:39] getting big corporate businesses, but
places where mom and pops could get
[8:42] started. So, if we could find ways to
add that to our community as we're
[8:46] planning, that would be really helpful.
>> Thanks.
[8:52] And Rachel, just uh on note, thank you
for being a voice in the community. I
[8:57] know that you're quite active on the
Yelmet surrounding area. So just
[9:02] » Yeah. but just I I I appreciate your
invol involvement. So
[9:15] » staff, is there any unfinished business
from the last meeting?
[9:19] Uh, as amended on the agenda,
we have a meeting scheduled uh for
[9:26] Thursday, August 27th at 6 PM with the
heritage owner, heritage zone land
[9:31] owners. Um, we met with one landowner
today um for a brief meeting about, you
[9:38] know, the the code, how it's written.
Um, but we have not had a chance to meet
[9:42] with all of them together at this point.
Um there have been my understanding
[9:47] several conversations but August 27th at
6 p.m. will be the the fin the main you
[9:52] know meet and greet and finalize the the
draft that we'll then take to planning
[9:59] commission and then city council.
>> Yeah. And will that be held in this room
[10:04] or is it over the community center or
>> uh the August 27th meeting uh is
[10:09] primarily for those who own property
there
[10:13] » uh and it's just at the the public
services conference rooms.
[10:30] Did that answer?
>> Yes. Thank you.
[10:33] » That you
[10:38] » um actually before I get going, was
there anything um that could be
[10:44] addressed on Rachel's statement? Um I
don't want her to leave her thinking. I
[10:50] mean,
I I'll I'll be honest with you that
[10:54] unfortunately there's some things that
you've mentioned that we don't handle.
[10:58] However, this is a recorded video. The
mayor watches it. There's a number of
[11:03] other folks, you know, that watch it.
Um, I Drew can potentially talk to the
[11:10] where you were talking about the parks
that in some of the communities, the new
[11:13] communities,
if I'm not mistaken, some of them
[11:17] include parks or, you know, small areas
that are designated um to be put in. So,
[11:25] as
>> pocket parks though, right? of the
[11:27] larger city of arts.
>> True. True. But I
[11:31] um
>> could I say?
[11:33] » Yeah.
>> Okay. I very much appreciated your
[11:36] comments because I'm vice chair of the
parks board.
[11:38] » Okay. And so I can carry that back to
our next parks meeting
[11:43] » because I've been looking for uh some
a strategy to fulfill what is our
[11:50] strategm
[11:53] uh for the comprehensive plan for parks
of how do we actually execute that have
[11:58] parks within 15 minutes walking distance
of each section of the city each
[12:05] neighborhood.
>> Very interesting. I used to work with
[12:07] recreation conservation board on some of
the grants. So I'd love to talk to
[12:11] someone about that later.
>> I could stick around for a little bit.
[12:16] » Okay.
>> Okay. So
[12:22] yeah. Um now Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I'm
just since she had since she had the
[12:27] floor and she and she spoke. I just kind
of wanted to address
[12:31] um you know I mean we I'm not sure what
you want to address but I mean because
[12:40] you know during that time has passed so
unfortunately we've kind of moved on but
[12:44] I just didn't want to leave her.
>> Were there were there anyone uh was
[12:50] there anybody else that wanted to
provide public comment? Did I
[12:56] » Sorry, we may have jumped that but Okay.
Yeah.
[13:00] » Yeah. If if you if you if you want
>> Okay. Um but did was that satisfactory
[13:09] on addressing some of your
>> We can wait for kind of a a summary um
[13:15] at the end of the public comment if that
helps.
[13:18] » Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I'm sorry if if you
want to go ahead and take the podium. I
[13:22] mean cuz cuz we're allowed up to five
people to come up and speak. So I'm I'm
[13:26] sorry. Would you like me to read I mean
the three minutes name, address?
[13:32] » Okay. Yeah. My name is Judy Hickman and
I live at 11505
[13:36] Taku Lane in Yel. I've lived there for
14 years, but I've been in the area for
[13:41] 36. And I I just recently got involved.
And I don't know if you are the people
[13:47] to talk to or if it's city council, but
I live 2 miles outside of Young, but all
[13:53] your decisions impact me greatly. I'm a
property owner. I have a home and I um
[13:59] I'm on a well and my concern is I see
all this building happening and um the
[14:05] last time I had my well worked on, the
person that worked on it told me my my
[14:11] water level had dropped 35 ft since it
was put in. So my concern is all the
[14:16] building is there been any um
like where's all the water going to come
[14:21] from? I remember hearing years ago that
it was limited and I know the aquifers
[14:26] are limited and so recently they built
the water towers on my house. I learned
[14:32] they're pumping it from across town. So
that's one of my concerns. The other one
[14:36] is that I don't feel like you have the
infrastructure for all the building
[14:39] that's being approved in such a rapid.
The the roads aren't built. The bypasses
[14:44] aren't built. I'm going to now have a
roundabout. I think one of the first
[14:48] ones out on Veil Road. I live on Cook
Road off of Cook Road. And that might
[14:54] help me get to Walgreens once in a
while, but it's not going to it's not
[14:59] going to help the big block up at 702.
and it's going to be really hard for me
[15:02] to get out of my road from now on
because all that traffic's going to be
[15:06] rerouted. So, I just those are my main
concerns. Um, I like this place and I
[15:12] feel like I'm being driven out because I
wanted to live in a rural area and I
[15:15] know growth is inevitable, but I just
would like the consideration and and
[15:20] hear what has been done to research
first of all the water
[15:24] » and what about the infrastructure that's
going to support all the you know when
[15:28] I5 gets jammed I can't go anymore
because it comes right by my house.
[15:32] » Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[15:33] » Drew Drew do you have a response on the
water issue? Uh luckily we have our city
[15:39] engineer here today. Uh and I will defer
to Resa to uh help answer that if no.
[15:47] » Sure. Um um thank you. Thank you all and
uh my name is Resa Ruker. I'm the city
[15:52] engineer uh for city of Yon. Uh one of
the question that u that we are dealing
[15:57] with is the uh is the water uh
infrastructure that we have. So uh when
[16:03] we recently approve our water system
plan um and part of the the departmental
[16:09] health requirement is to analyze all the
the uh the aquifer and how is how it's
[16:16] adding mean well or drawing water is
going to affect the aquifer. So we still
[16:22] meet the uh I'm not sure the exact
impact on your individual uh well but we
[16:29] we we always meet the the minimum
requirements at least the department
[16:33] health and require the require um uh
regulations and the well we uh have
[16:43] uh two I I believe that we have uh um
the new well is going to be um on 640
[16:51] property which is uh in different
aquifer but um I don't believe that uh
[16:59] uh adding the I mean we we always look
at to see whether uh what's going to
[17:04] happen to uh the individual but but we
haven't heard anything so far that is um
[17:11] the impact is so bad that we have to
figure out something else because uh our
[17:16] modeling and and or our simulation shows
that it's uh the impact is within the
[17:22] reasonable um draw and um
so uh I would I would like to see I mean
[17:30] uh to see uh maybe [clears throat] look
at in details on your property uh well
[17:36] uh data to see what what's going to
happen and definitely we we can talk to
[17:40] our consultant to consider uh the impact
and to see uh what's happened in uh your
[17:46] individual well
>> but what you're saying it's like pretty
[17:49] right is that the seed developments are
on a different outer than I would be out
[17:53] there.
>> So the thing is that it depends on where
[17:56] you where you live. You may be in
different aquifer
[18:00] » possibly, but I didn't hear you say that
they had said there they studied that
[18:05] one to see if if
>> Yeah. So right now we are in the process
[18:09] of uh uh doing the modeling on the new
well that well 7 that's going to be on
[18:15] 640 property. I don't whether you know
or not. Uh so it's going to be at the
[18:19] end of tommo war and um so we we are
doing the uh the stimulation and the
[18:26] relationship with this aquifer and this
well with other uh adjacent wells.
[18:31] » So they do that with each new
development
[18:34] » uh not each development they're doing.
So what we do we we uh for each uh so
[18:42] uh what we do basically when when we we
we uh predict our we have our um
[18:48] population growth study and we know how
how many people are going to or we
[18:52] expect each in for example we are
expecting 10,000 people or 200,000
[18:57] people on by this year. So then we uh
plan ahead uh to see okay how much water
[19:03] we need and we start uh uh we start
communication with the bal health and to
[19:08] see how much water we can draw and if we
require a new tower a new reservoir
[19:13] basically a new well we uh we act
accordingly. So part of this development
[19:18] not individual development but all
together is considered on all all of our
[19:24] planning.
[19:27] I have a comment. I had understood that
the housing permits that are that are
[19:36] given for various developments.
>> Yes.
[19:39] » Those housing permits there is a a
quantity of those and it's based on the
[19:44] water that we already have.
>> Yes. And so we have to have as I thought
[19:51] that we have to have um capacity to
support the housing that's approved.
[19:59] » Yes.
>> But recognizing that planning
[20:03] there's going to be housing approved.
>> Yeah.
[20:05] » That does not yet have the quantity that
it may need. That's where your planning
[20:10] it comes in.
>> Sure. So so there are two things. I mean
[20:13] I appreciate that you mentioned that
one. So we have the water rights
[20:16] basically and uh the last thing that we
we acquire water rights we acquire water
[20:20] rights for uh for example for for we
still have about 4,000 water rights
[20:25] which means that we can still uh develop
up to 4,000 people
[20:30] uh
>> 5,000
[20:32] » 5,000 sorry um 5,000 um 114
uh so we we still can uh develop up to
[20:41] 5,000 u which is equivalent residential
units. That's that number comes uh the
[20:50] last water rights planning the big deal
and uh and then the the so the
[20:57] population study is not is kind of
separate from water rights. But what we
[21:00] do every time that we kind of look at
both documents together how much water
[21:05] rights we have and how much population
growth we are expecting and at some
[21:09] point we we say okay we have to we have
to plan ahead. So for example, if we are
[21:14] we only have 1,000 left. So that's the
part that's okay, we expect this much
[21:19] population. So now we need this much
water auth we go and uh acquire more
[21:26] water rights basically
[21:30] in
response to the uh statement about the
[21:35] uh the infrastructure and you know some
of the traffic. Okay, without getting
[21:39] in, I'm not the engineer, you know, or
whatever, but just just from some some
[21:43] of the things that I know of that there
is some stuff in the process that should
[21:49] alleviate
um some of the traffic, especially like
[21:53] when I5 gets shut down, it gets rerouted
through here. So that there some of the
[21:58] stuff in the future probably in the next
what 5 to 10 years um that will
[22:04] alleviate uh some of that. So it it is
it is being looked at because that was
[22:09] always one of my big uh things.
>> Yeah. I I I I mean I'm I'm being I'm
[22:16] being I'm being um
>> they've been saying nothing about that.
[22:20] » Yeah. Well, I I mean it was like I live
I lived in Cherry Meadows when they
[22:24] built the first part of the the byway. I
mean that was 2010. I mean this is you
[22:27] know 16 years later, you know. I do that
before all the houses are here that's
[22:33] going to bring
>> I I I understand that but it it's just
[22:37] the the approval for all that is done by
a secret separate entity. Um but there
[22:45] is there are plans in the process to
alleviate some of the the traffic
[22:51] problems. I realize you've got the
buildup and and stuff like that, but at
[22:57] the same time, some of that helps fund
some of the the road work that's that's
[23:03] being done. So, but like I said, I mean,
I'm not the one that actually gets into
[23:06] it. I'm just, you know, attempting to
put a little bit of
[23:12] answer to to your uh concern. So, there
there is something coming. But the
[23:18] construction was going to be starting
this summer on some of those
[23:21] roundabouts. That was the original.
>> Yeah, I Yeah, that's that's not an R.
[23:26] » Which roundabouts are you already in
question? Obviously, there's the one on
[23:31] 702
the there was a meeting at the center
[23:37] and he talked about all the somewhere I
I'm not sure if it was there, but they
[23:40] taught school. He talked about all these
maybe a year ago when they said that the
[23:45] first one was going to go in was a bagel
and that was going to start this summer
[23:49] and I I don't know. I haven't followed
it since I was
[23:53] » so wash did start their uh their 702
roundabout right there. Was it Hicks or
[23:59] the lake
>> right off 702? So that's the first one.
[24:02] It's a start. You're right.
>> Why is it there?
[24:05] » Because of the fatality rate. Oh,
>> that's the one where you have cars
[24:09] crossing and uh if you put in a
roundabout, it it nearly limits it
[24:14] minimizes your your T-bone accidents.
It's much more sideswipes and all that.
[24:19] Um and for your your comment regarding
traffic in town, uh correct me if I'm
[24:25] wrong, but we looked at a STIP, right?
We had our six-year transportation
[24:28] improvement project. Um and they do the
same thing. They look at um housing and
[24:33] population density and they they look at
all these intersections and rate them a
[24:37] level of service from an A to an F. Um
and we already know we have several
[24:41] intersections that are FS uh that we're
looking at seriously. And then down the
[24:46] road 2035 somewhere down there. Um
there's there's several that are are
[24:52] that fail again. And and the ones that
are failing now and the future ones are
[24:56] those are our probably I would say our
our priorities to look at. Um, so that's
[25:01] it. It is in the works. You know, it's
something that that [snorts] city staff
[25:05] and everybody is is well aware of.
You're right. We all live here. We all
[25:09] sit through the same traffic. Yo, and I
I use my app and it's like, okay, I's
[25:13] backed up both directions. I'm going to
tack on another 30 minutes to get home,
[25:17] you know. So, I I totally understand.
Yeah. But there are things in the
[25:21] process and uh Gilm loop I don't know if
everybody is aware it it supposed to go
[25:26] to AD or it it's at AD is supposed to be
open tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at watch
[25:31] headquarters. So
fingers crossed.
[25:34] » So [clears throat]
the 21st chair do you mind if I just say
[25:38] quick thing?
>> Yeah. Is that okay? Uh thank you
[25:42] Commissioner Bailey for for highlighting
that with development projects they pay
[25:46] in to what's called a traffic facilities
charge which is um proportionate impact
[25:51] of their development to our
transportation system and we use that
[25:56] those funds to uh improve the
intersections as we get the funds for
[26:02] them. One of the highlights that I'd
like to um bring to light is the
[26:06] Longmire intersection, Longmire and 507.
Uh we recently did a um intersection
[26:13] control evaluation to determine that a
roundabout could fit and it will work
[26:17] there. So that's one that's going to be
um almost entirely funded through two
[26:23] separate development projects.
And uh I do want to go back to Country
[26:28] Meadows just really quick. Thank you,
Rachel. It's nice to meet you in person,
[26:32] by the way, after your emails. And um so
hopefully this this eases some um I
[26:39] guess just some nerves. And I know
there's been a lot of public concern
[26:43] about this uh in the Oregon White Oak.
The city determined that the application
[26:51] was administratively complete, meaning
that they submitted the the materials so
[26:55] we could start a review. Uh as part of
that we have determined that an arborist
[27:00] report is also going to be required as
part of this application.
[27:05] The report will be reviewed by the
department of fish and wildlife and will
[27:08] not move forward with the project review
until that report has been submitted and
[27:14] that review has occurred. So I want to
assure everyone who's raised concerns
[27:17] about the oak that those concerns have
not been dismissed or resolved simply
[27:22] because the application was deemed
complete. The oak issue is still an
[27:26] outstanding part of our review.
>> Thank you.
[27:30] » Thank you for being a part of the public
process.
[27:36] » But did that help uh alleviate some of
your concern a little bit? Okay. Is
[27:41] there anybody else that would like to
take
[27:43] » have more to say about my comments? It
kind of went different direction.
[27:47] » I sorry, forgive me. I can't remember
every there was a lot to unpack there.
[27:51] Um but I'm happy to attempt and if not I
can follow up with you.
[27:55] » Yes, please. Thank you.
>> Uh but I will uh maybe not in this
[28:00] meeting because we have like some other
things on the agenda. I don't want to
[28:03] take too much time but um I I do
sincerely appreciate your input and
[28:07] we'll absolutely get in touch.
>> Okay.
[28:11] » Okay. If there's no further public
comment, we will move on. Uh, new
[28:17] business,
right?
[28:21] I'll pull up the uh the PowerPoint here.
[29:00] Thank you again for having me today. Uh
my name is Resza Ruker. I'm city
[29:03] engineer uh for city of today. I'm here
to present private landscaping including
[29:09] enhancement.
Uh so I'm uh here mainly to present some
[29:16] of the challenges that we have in
landscaping and maintenance and
[29:20] hopefully uh I
>> take your time. What specific challenges
[29:24] would you like to cover?
[29:28] » And
>> and hopefully hear from you if you have
[29:33] any comments that or uh want to um add
any other languages to the code that I'm
[29:39] bringing to you on um either September
or
[29:48] uh these are the content that I'm doing
today.
[29:54] The main objective of uh this code
update is basically the to have a clear
[30:00] enforcement enforceable rules for staff
and residents. we have a lot of uh um
[30:06] kind of uh confusing about the residents
who's going to maintain what what should
[30:10] I do how should I do and these are some
of the specification it's just not clear
[30:15] in the code that uh it would be easier
for the residents at least and our code
[30:19] enforcement to say okay this is the code
this is what we require this is what we
[30:23] expect to see uh and uh so then we can
forward it and by uh adding this
[30:30] language we're hoping to have a safer
pedestrian and vehicle access and um um
[30:36] basically ensure to have a community
safety and environment
[30:43] and uh so I kind of explained a little
bit about why we want to amend code and
[30:49] mainly it's going to be 18.52
55 and maybe 57. So uh in in in the
[30:58] landscaping portion uh as I explained we
have some gaps like uh the existing code
[31:03] lack clear maintenance guidelines
uh and there's no maintenance timeline
[31:08] for pruning or uh basic plant
replacement
[31:12] uh um and the planting requirements near
the utility line or the light pole or a
[31:18] driver is not defined properly.
[31:26] And uh I just I just uh have the code
for the maintenance of landscaping that
[31:30] we have right now in 18 uh.55 uh 060.
Uh if you want to look at it, I just
[31:38] pause.
[31:42] » I got a quick quick question. I I don't
know if it's going to fall within this
[31:46] purview or not, but I always understood
that there was a certain regulation for
[31:51] a setback law from like plants and trees
from a roadway
[31:58] that would potentially block
uh view. I think we we were talking
[32:03] beforehand like when you pull up next to
a driveway like on a corner to be able
[32:07] to see oncoming traffic
>> that you know there's been different
[32:11] instances that you know you you totally
can't see
[32:14] » that's part of this I mean I'm hoping
that's going to be covered on under this
[32:18] because one of the I'm going to show you
some of the pictures that I took so it's
[32:22] kind of showing why we have problem and
then what's the problem and then I maybe
[32:28] I the pictures that I have in this
PowerPoint doesn't kind of uh present
[32:33] that specific issue. But yeah, that was
part of the thing that I was I was
[32:37] thinking about it. Okay, we probably
kind of tackle at this point as soon as
[32:42] possible in this uh maybe next season we
have a better uh understanding.
[32:52] I just have a question. you had it on
here in the background, but um there's
[32:57] no maintenance timeline for burning or
plant replacement that I see
[33:02] next season.
>> Yeah. where it says plan the next
[33:05] » it's it's
so um I I kind of look at it and I said
[33:12] maybe it's it's maybe it's uh I
shouldn't put it there but I think I
[33:16] still I need to add more language in
terms of uh the the the pruning not the
[33:22] not the replacement
[33:27] did have a I think a question from Dana
as well you have a question
[33:32] » yes is this intended to apply to
just new developments or to the city as
[33:39] a whole?
>> Uh, for the city as a whole.
[33:42] » Okay. Cuz yeah, it's hard to
tell them to comply with an approved
[33:47] landscape and proposal should probably
be the plan. Um, if there wasn't one.
[33:54] » Yes. So, um, the the planting part of it
is is uh Yes. as as you mentioned that
[34:02] it's for the new development.
>> Okay.
[34:05] » Yeah. But uh um so by planting means uh
uh if if you have any utilities and um
[34:14] uh um if you have new if you have a
light bulb. So if we have new
[34:18] development then then it means that they
have to follow the new rules or the new
[34:23] setbacks that we want. But for the old
subdivisions, uh the ones that we have
[34:27] the approved landscaping, they have to
follow the exact landscaping unless uh
[34:33] I'm envisioning that if we have the
problem that we didn't have uh so if we
[34:38] have the problem like like we have the
trees next to the uh at the corner that
[34:43] that blur and we didn't catch it at that
point. So we can deviate under certain
[34:49] circumstances and I I I don't have the
language on right now but I'm thinking
[34:53] that we have some language that okay
under c some circum circumstances if we
[34:58] have a written written uh permission
from the city they can deviate from the
[35:03] approved landscaping plan because of
this criteria that we define in the
[35:08] code.
>> Okay.
[35:10] » You still address it case by case basis.
>> Uh yes in in some cases. So the the uh
[35:17] pruning regulation is is kind of for
every houses every landscaping that we
[35:21] have but for planting or some of the
setbacks that I I want to introduce uh
[35:28] is mainly uh for the new development and
for some cases if we have some problem
[35:34] for example it's blocking the light or
blocking the the view or on at the
[35:39] intersections. So in those circumstances
we we just require we if if the the tree
[35:47] is dead basically I'm thinking not
necessarily okay if you have we have a
[35:51] tree there it's cause a problem now we
have a new code now it's your
[35:55] responsibility to remove the tree no we
don't want that we definitely we work
[35:59] with the homeowners if there is a dead
tree and they have to replace the dead
[36:04] tree so we we we consider that situation
and if uh to see if basically case by
[36:09] case on
those situations that okay it is dead
[36:13] tree and you have to replace it but it
caused the it has the problem before. So
[36:18] you we can you can just avoid planting
the tree or maybe uh replace it with
[36:24] some shrubs or shorter u plants to just
um um kind of uh mitigate the problem.
[36:32] the I'm sorry, another quick um thing.
Is this going to include especially in
[36:38] some of the areas that were just
recently uh annexed like you know like
[36:43] on Clark Road to where you've got uh and
actually some on the main drag to where
[36:50] you've got some of the vacant properties
that where there's nothing built on it
[36:54] but they're like really overgrown but
they're a fire hazard. Um, is there
[36:59] going to be like, you know, that they're
going to be required to keep it like in
[37:03] a certain height or, you know, mow it
once a year or something like that?
[37:07] » That's a good question. We I I didn't
envision to in this round of code
[37:13] updates because usually those things can
be can be cut by the fire department and
[37:18] we can we have that process that if the
fire marshall decided that that cause
[37:22] the fire it's a fire hazard. So we can
enforce it through that uh kind of pass.
[37:28] » Okay. Especially especially with the
fires that going on. So Okay. Thank you.
[37:39] Uh so I I went outside to the city and
take a couple of took a couple of
[37:44] pictures and as you can see for example
the picture on the right uh the the tree
[37:50] wasn't prone and the picture on the
bottom right it's it's me picking in
[37:53] front of the branches. So if if you are
walking on in the sidewalk
[37:59] you have to kind of bend to just pass in
some areas. So these are these are these
[38:05] are the things that we have we have the
code basically we are saying that in in
[38:10] in current code we're saying that okay
the homeowner is responsible to cleaning
[38:14] the right away but the code is not clear
uh when we are talking about the pruning
[38:19] okay how high we want to be or um or if
it's encroaching what does it mean if we
[38:25] are talking about private and uh private
uh landscaping which we have couple of
[38:31] them for example uh the one I mean, it's
kind of hard to see, but the one uh um
[38:38] here in the middle right. So, that's
that's kind of Blackberry Bush that from
[38:44] private property property goes to the
sidewalk
[38:48] that's on the sidewalk. So, some of the
some of the pictures that I have is not
[38:52] maybe shown the is the major pro they
doesn't show the major problem that we
[38:58] have. Uh but some of them uh which I'll
move forward with. Oh, I think Dana
[39:05] might have a question too.
>> Hey Dana, do you have a you have another
[39:10] question?
>> Yeah, sorry. Just on these pictures, is
[39:12] it clear that the these street trees are
responsibility of the property owners?
[39:20] So current code, if I go back um to
current code um
[39:30] » Oh, this is current code.
>> This is the current code.
[39:33] » Ah, okay. Yes. No wonder you want to
update it. Okay, got it.
[39:37] » It's kind of Yeah.
[39:43] So, so one of the kind of exaggerated
example is this this example that uh the
[39:49] shrubs basically blocking the sidewalk
right now.
[39:54] » Oh, yeah. I didn't even see the
sidewalk. Okay. Yes.
[39:57] » Yeah. Um
again, we we have we somehow we have the
[40:02] code somehow to code to enforce it, but
it's going to be difficult because the
[40:06] code is not clear. So now it's going to
be interpreted by us and we have a hard
[40:11] time to define and maybe sometimes the
homeowner doesn't because that shrubs
[40:16] and that tree is in in the right away.
So it's sometimes it's a little bit
[40:21] difficult to explain or the homeowners
have hard time to say okay can I touch
[40:26] it? Can I prune it? What's the
requirement? So those are the things
[40:29] that we we try to resolve in this round
of code changes.
[40:35] And uh aside from the sidewalk, it's
also um can cause problem um on the
[40:42] street. So if if it's not prone on the
streets, you're going to have a lot of
[40:46] problem. One of the complaint that we
received recently especially from the
[40:50] intercity transit and limate trucks. So
because as they're passing because these
[40:55] are the high the height of the truck is
higher than the usual the cars. So they
[41:00] can the the trucks kind of scratch the
cars as you can see. took couple of
[41:05] pictures to show you some of the trees.
Um, we have some problem. So, these are
[41:11] uh some of the examples that I showed
here is uh maybe it's not pruned because
[41:16] they didn't have any problem for the
parking. So, they park on the other side
[41:19] or where they can so they can avoid it
easily. But still it can cause a problem
[41:25] especially in in our main streets
[41:33] and uh one of one of the the language
that I want to add also uh to uh
[41:41] or setbacks of planting in in regard to
hydrants. So even even though the the uh
[41:50] business owner clear the pruned the area
around the the high end but still if the
[41:56] fire um firefighter wants to access the
hideand they have to go through the
[42:01] bushes to access the high end. Uh so
these are kind of we try to uh uh kind
[42:07] of define okay this is what we are
expecting and we want to see and also in
[42:12] terms of the sidewalk and the driveway
that's that's uh kind of uh different uh
[42:17] I mean I I bring it here because we have
the we planted trees very close to the
[42:22] sidewalk and we didn't have we mean we
may not have root barriers we not have
[42:27] uh different things and also as you
mentioned that it's also blur so you
[42:32] can't see so you have kind
have to go to streets before you can see
[42:36] to turn off.
[42:42] So in terms of driveway maintenance, we
don't have any code uh right now uh uh
[42:48] we don't have any language in our code
and if you if there is a abandoned uh uh
[42:53] abandoned
side and driveway approach or u so there
[42:59] isn't any language for that one either.
So I I just bring the code which is the
[43:06] entire driving requirements but this is
not driving maintenance.
[43:24] So some of the problem that we see in
the driveways basically uh the main
[43:29] problem that we have is that there isn't
any any language in the code showing
[43:33] that if if the driveway is damaged who's
responsible for maintaining that because
[43:40] the driveway uh because the only the
homeowner is the only beneficiary of the
[43:46] driveway approach. So uh we are
expecting that the homeowners if there's
[43:50] a damaged driveway they are responsible
for that one. The the the main factor
[43:56] that we want to I want to add is that
most of the driveway approaches uh
[44:03] maintenance requirement is because of
the safety hazard. So if if if the if
[44:08] the sidewalk is part of the driveway and
if it if it's damaged then we're going
[44:14] to have a problem. So because because
the pedestrian
[44:17] are using the driveway basic part of the
driveway. So um that's and also I mean
[44:23] as you can see here um there are utility
boxes there that they they need to
[44:28] maintain and uh if if for any reason
that the drive approach is settled or
[44:33] something happened or cracked so uh they
are responsible to maintain as uh
[44:40] should
[44:45] one of one of the other problem that we
have is that the the overhang basically
[44:51] uh that I I mean I can
give you a thousand picture or thousand
[44:56] example that uh which is uh mainly we
have problem with the RVs that they are
[45:02] overhanging to either the sidewalk or
the streets.
[45:07] We just want to define clear language
that this is not the acceptable
[45:12] uh uh behavior and this is what we are
expecting that if if you have a right
[45:18] army so you have you can park it on the
street we have the code for that we have
[45:23] we accommodate that and if you cannot uh
park if if if you drive if you park in
[45:28] the driveway and it's overhang that's
not going to be acceptable.
[45:34] I'm sorry. I got I got a quick question
again back on the other slide with the
[45:38] utility box. Now, did you say that the
the maintenance on the utility boxes
[45:42] where this one here is down 2 in, is it
the resident's responsibility to repair
[45:48] that or is the whoever's responsible for
that utility box?
[45:52] » So, utility box itself, it's damage
because so it's it's city's
[45:57] responsibility for the utility box. But
if if there is a if the the damage
[46:02] because of the driveway damage or
because of the the root of the trees
[46:08] that damaged the box is property owner
responsibility.
[46:12] » So it'll be kind of on a case by case by
cases. Yeah.
[46:16] » Thank you.
[46:22] » I have a question.
>> Yes, please question. um for the the
[46:28] annexed
uh properties. Yes.
[46:31] » That have been brought into the city.
>> Yes.
[46:34] » Uh that have not had requirements for
sidewalks or
[46:44] » for landscaping.
>> Yes.
[46:45] » These are places that have been here
quite some time.
[46:48] » Yes. Does that mean that these new
requirements for how landscaping is done
[46:54] are going to be imposed
retroactively?
[46:58] » So if
>> that should just qualify. I I don't live
[47:01] in the city so
>> it doesn't apply to me but I'm I have
[47:05] friends who do.
>> No no I understand. So if if there is a
[47:09] sidewalk even if it's the county I
believe that there's the language in the
[47:13] county that who's going to be
responsible for the sidewalk. So it's
[47:18] the way that we are if they annex to the
city is kind of the same thing applied
[47:22] to them. I don't think that's uh going
to be a new uh code for those cases.
[47:29] » I'm talking about the the trees, the
bushes that that may um be alongside the
[47:37] roads and such that need to be
>> trimmed.
[47:43] Yes. because because one of the things
one of the problem with the with I mean
[47:48] the is um trimming tree
u if they don't trim the tree that cause
[47:54] a safety hazard one way or another we
have to we have to but in in some cases
[48:00] uh if the trees uh um it's it's really
case by cases but in some cases that I
[48:06] mean specific cases that cause generally
cause safety hazard and we just
[48:11] announced that okay this is the safety
hazard Then yes, the home is responsible
[48:16] is going to be responsible regardless
whether it's a new tree or old tree or
[48:20] it's a new annex or
>> most of those areas that are recently
[48:23] annexed don't have that kind of
infrastructure anyway,
[48:26] » but they do have high grasses on their
the embankments that are right next to
[48:32] the road. And they're my friends have
stated they're concerned that the county
[48:39] used to maintain that to uh cut all that
gas.
[48:43] » Yeah.
>> On a regular basis and it sounds like
[48:47] that
it's going to be um a requirement that
[48:53] they assume that responsibility. Uh so
so because um the current code requires
[49:02] regardless I mean it's new annex or or
it's already annex um to maintain the
[49:10] land escaping in front of the property
in right away. So if if a property annex
[49:16] so they it's already kind of considered
that they have to maintain regardless
[49:21] » they may not
>> chain is not going to change that
[49:24] » but they may not recognize that as
>> the county used to do it for them. No, I
[49:30] understand that part and we we we have
problem. I mean it's not I mean you saw
[49:34] the pictures as I showed. So some of
them is not clear. That's why we want to
[49:38] strong code kind of first and then start
with uh with the education and outreach
[49:44] to to make sure that everyone understand
what's the responsibility was uh and uh
[49:50] yeah that's
>> so with with these these code
[49:55] adjustments
>> will we do an open house and we'll
[49:59] invite people
from the annexed groups to start to
[50:05] understand what's being um was being
clarified.
[50:10] we we can we can um I I didn't envision
that we need I mean definitely we're
[50:16] going to have public hearing but aside
from that uh um not I don't think that
[50:22] for this code changes specifically we're
going to have open house but the next
[50:26] open house we have we can add something
like that that okay u landscaping
[50:30] maintenance in general
that's that's that's a good idea
[50:34] actually we can uh to that part of kind
of education and outreach that we are
[50:39] expecting think to have in your regular
basises.
[50:44] » Thank you. Good idea.
>> Yeah, it is a good idea. Thank you. I
[50:48] have one other question. You had
mentioned about you know street trees is
[50:52] being trimmed up and I understand
totally being trimmed up so people can
[50:55] walk and that makes but you' also
mentioned RVs. Well, I have a um a motor
[51:01] home and if you had to trim up a street
tree so that I could park my motor home,
[51:07] that tree would considering the size of
some of these trees, you know, you'd be
[51:12] like a topper, you know, would be
>> that's that's that's what we have to
[51:16] figure out because uh I understand I
mean most of the trees even on the
[51:20] cities that we have are very small trees
and uh so we are expecting basically
[51:26] from the curve if we just have a ruler
and just go and just cut all the way.
[51:30] Yeah. Uh so and how it's going to impact
the tree itself that's that's that's
[51:35] question I don't have the answer right
now but what we require or what we are
[51:40] we have to require part of the um at
least the main so we can maybe um
[51:48] uh maybe have different code for
different area. So uh our main complaint
[51:55] is uh the the lim and the intercity
transit when they're uh um in the in the
[52:02] city they have problem because they have
to go all the way to the uh basically
[52:06] the curb to either uh uh pick up the
passengers or or um have the pick up the
[52:12] trash. So those are the ones that
basically the trees is going to impact
[52:16] them. So that's that's that's the
problem that we see. So, uh, yeah. Yeah,
[52:21] that's that's that's good point. Yeah.
Or you could put up a sign RVs and u
[52:26] motor homes over 30 ft long can't park.
>> They're 35 ft apart.
[52:32] » I mean, the trees are, you know,
>> the the height that we consider is
[52:36] mainly uh the buses and the lemon truck
basically. So, that's when I go to the
[52:42] code proposed code changes, I mean, you
can see the height that I presented
[52:46] basically. Uh but that's kind of we we
that's that's a good thing that we want
[52:50] to that's what we are that's why I
wanted to add the code that okay what
[52:54] what's the height so we can so everyone
can go and measure it okay this is what
[52:58] we expect this is what so that's kind of
easy for everyone to understand
[53:11] this is a draft right you obviously
nothing in here is set in stone this is
[53:16] this is the direction you're heading.
Yes, that's okay. Sorry.
[53:22] » Um
I can jump to this the the kind of
[53:26] proposed code changes
I so one of one of the problem that we
[53:32] see in in mainly some of the development
that we have u is that there we don't
[53:38] have any specific requirement for
irrigation. We don't uh we don't require
[53:43] the uh for any landscaping. What we
require we require to have uh to
[53:50] maintain the trees. So how they maintain
it? It's so for some cases it's really
[53:56] difficult uh some sometimes because the
irrigation system is costly. So some
[54:01] some prefer that they go with the hose
and in the trees. So if they can
[54:06] maintain the tree that's that's great.
So this I'm presenting this code some
[54:13] code could change that it could be
changed but to have some sort of water
[54:17] source relatively close to the
landscaping. So we know that okay that's
[54:22] that's manageable that's that's uh
achievable in in terms of say okay you
[54:28] don't want to do it we don't require
you're good to go. So that's why we u uh
[54:34] we want to add some language. Okay,
within 50 ft you have to have some some
[54:39] um
speed or faucets that you can use for
[54:44] the irrigation if you don't want to have
uh actual irrigation system.
[54:49] » So if I have a yard that's 100 ft
[54:54] it's mainly for right away landscaping,
right? And that's what I'm saying. So my
[54:59] so say my yard is 100 ft long from my
house. My closest hose bib is at the
[55:04] front of my house
>> and if my that property adjusts adjuts a
[55:10] piece of a roadway then that that
landscaping up there is my
[55:13] responsibility. Am I supposed to put a
hose bib within 50 ft of that? So this
[55:20] is um what I envision when I put it
there is for the new development and
[55:26] mainly for the businesses not because if
if you are talking about the new
[55:30] subdivisions so they have to have
irrigation system because most of them
[55:34] they cannot uh or some of them because
uh for the new subdivision at least I
[55:40] what I see I mean we can I can change
the code there is a bit to kind of
[55:43] accommodate the the house I mean that's
a good example I didn't think about that
[55:47] one but the new houses that we have they
have a 25th setbacks and they have a um
[55:52] they have a some some sort sort of water
at the outside that basically relatively
[55:58] easy to uh irrigate the trees. Okay.
>> And the one other thing is um the
[56:06] maintaining the look of the property.
Are you suggesting that during the
[56:10] summer people should be irrigating their
lawn?
[56:14] » No. No.
>> Okay. So, um yeah. Um
[56:20] so we we want to maintain the
landscaping. So landscaping includes
[56:25] yeah it's it's a very uh
so it include trees, grass and
[56:31] everything. The grass comes back.
>> So you basically you you maintain it. So
[56:36] we're fine with that. But trees main
problem is the trees and the shrs that
[56:41] okay no that's not going to happen. So
that's kind of our concern.
[56:49] So this is the clearance that I I
mentioned. So we are thinking about uh 8
[56:55] ft on the sidewalks
[56:59] and maybe 14 to 18 ft on the on the
roads and depends on the the the road
[57:06] classification. So if you're talking
about Yelm Avenue, we have a bigger
[57:09] truck then uh that's different than if
you're talking about local access
[57:13] residential.
uh that uh we don't expect
[57:23] » or regardless of the road
classification, you're still going to
[57:25] have garbage trucks which are still
>> That's why that's why the minimum is 14.
[57:31] » Minimum 14. Okay.
>> Yes.
[57:46] And also I mean I mentioned here that we
want to have a clearance from the signs
[57:51] part of kind of we can also add new
language about the
[57:56] intersections too.
[58:04] Uh so this is this is one sample of
language that uh still I'm going to work
[58:09] through and it's it's it's not going to
be uh it's not going to be exactly the
[58:13] same on the final draft but it's kind of
a sample language that I thinking that
[58:18] okay I'm kind of bringing to the uh code
changes that I want and present it to
[58:24] you. Uh so for uh generally speaking for
u um this basically for the setbacks for
[58:30] the trees mailboxes uh utility poles u
and other uh structures
[58:38] » commissioner Allen did you have a
question?
[58:41] Yes, on this slide um just a comment on
the I guess the second bullet point from
[58:47] the bottom. You know, we we do want to
maintain the clearances from utilities,
[58:52] but I also don't want to take liability
for what the utility might need and
[58:57] their needs might change. So, I wouldn't
want someone to think, oh, I'm 5t away,
[59:02] I'm good, but then, you know, um PSC,
you know, they're they change their
[59:07] requirements and all of a sudden they
need 10 feet or something. So if nothing
[59:11] else like a reference to um check with a
local utility provider for that kind of
[59:17] thing.
>> I mean they they can they can always
[59:20] have more strict uh regulation than us
of course. Uh so if you are saying 5T uh
[59:26] and uh PSCS for 10 ft so that's
different service. So we always have to
[59:30] follow that. Uh
>> right it's just I don't know just
[59:34] » this is kind of a minimum requirement
that we're presenting.
[59:37] » Right. But I just wouldn't want someone
to read this, think they're covered, and
[59:40] then forget to like actually check with
the actual utility. I know it's not
[59:43] really
>> the city's responsibility, but try to
[59:48] make it.
>> Yeah.
[59:52] » Cover bases. That's all.
[1:00:04] Uh this is the proposed coach changes
for driveway. For driveway the main uh
[1:00:09] purpose is just to clear who's
responsible for the uh for the driveway.
[1:00:16] uh when you're designing the driver, we
also have to figure out okay um uh and
[1:00:22] it shouldn't require backing anywhere
into sidewalk or or streets except in
[1:00:28] designated central business zones uh or
create a or uh your your driveway create
[1:00:36] a hazard to pedestrian by um cyclist,
transit vehicle or other responsive
[1:00:42] responders.
And also if if there is a abandoned uh
[1:00:48] driveway. So we have a couple of
abandoned driveway on because the future
[1:00:53] u uh or they demo the house but there's
abandoned driveway. So it's not clear
[1:00:59] okay whether we expect to remove it not
remove it. So that's going to be added
[1:01:04] to the new code that's going to be
required that if you are demoing the
[1:01:07] house or if it's a basically if it's
abandoned driveway you'll have to remove
[1:01:11] it.
[1:01:21] Uh,
so when you say drainage structures,
[1:01:26] catch basins, man holes. So are you
expecting me to hire a vector truck to
[1:01:30] come in and clean it out or just around
it?
[1:01:35] » Uh, so uh
uh you're you're talking about the last
[1:01:40] bullet.
>> The last bullet. Yes.
[1:01:42] Uh
[1:01:48] uh no.
>> Okay.
[1:01:49] » So it's not the maintaining of the the
structure itself. It's the so it's not
[1:01:54] it's not the back using backtrack to
maintain the the storm water per se.
[1:02:00] It's the maintain of the structure
itself. So if if a structure is in your
[1:02:03] driveway and for any reason driveway
damage and that damage cause the damage
[1:02:08] to the drive structures, we don't want
to see that. So that's that's kind of
[1:02:11] the idea of this coach on this.
>> Okay.
[1:02:20] » Question back.
>> Yeah.
[1:02:22] » My question is on the um utilities when
use of trees couldn't be within 5 ft of
[1:02:26] utilities. Yes.
>> Are the trees existing already
[1:02:29] grandfathered in or will this lead to a
whole bunch of trees being removed?
[1:02:32] » I mean you don't expect to you don't
expect
[1:02:36] » No. I mean so so the thing is that um
uh unless if they damage the the utility
[1:02:43] that we have
>> okay
[1:02:46] that needs to be
>> that needs to be cut but otherwise we
[1:02:49] we're not going to move the trees I mean
these there are mainly for planning and
[1:02:53] design
[1:02:59] » thank you
>> thank you
[1:03:02] » I do have question actually I was
waiting for the question slide to come
[1:03:06] back. Um, thank you for the
presentation. I My question is how much
[1:03:12] of
>> these code updates were complaint driven
[1:03:16] or review driven and in those reviews
did you look at um comparable cities?
[1:03:25] » Uh, so yes uh I did. So um I'm still I'm
still reviewing the other cities uh to
[1:03:32] see how they handle this um their
maintenance and I I search couple of
[1:03:36] cities not not many cities that's why I
was thinking that okay um as we go I'm
[1:03:41] going to search more um at least I
searched I think I believe four or five
[1:03:45] cities for this purposes and I said that
similar language that they have uh some
[1:03:50] of the language that I have here is
basically uh kind of kind of copy paste
[1:03:54] from them and uh so uh in terms of
complaint driven or review driven. I
[1:04:00] think that is is almost [snorts] 5050%.
Uh and u the last question I I forgot.
[1:04:08] Sorry.
>> Don't you use the one question you did
[1:04:12] in both. Yes. Thank you. Uh could you
name the cities that you looked at? So
[1:04:18] of uh so the cities that I I look I look
at the I believe I look at Olympia and u
[1:04:29] I look at Auburn
uh Olympia lac
[1:04:34] and um
and talking
[1:04:49] question regarding sidewalk maintenance,
not driveway, not landscaping. Is
[1:04:55] sidewalk maintenance property owner
responsibility or is it city
[1:04:59] responsibility?
>> So it's it's very complicated cases. So
[1:05:04] mainly our current code this mean that
the sidewalk maintenance is the city is
[1:05:09] responsible for maintaining the sidewalk
but the the m the major problem that we
[1:05:14] have right now for the sidewalk they're
barkling because of the road trees.
[1:05:18] » See okay.
>> So that's that means that okay the
[1:05:21] homeowners responsible for maintaining
the trees. So that's that's that's kind
[1:05:25] of
>> last question.
[1:05:29] » Yes.
>> What are next steps for you? So my next
[1:05:32] step is that uh so I'm going to uh draft
a code language and I'm going to present
[1:05:38] it uh hopefully um I'm thinking probably
October
[1:05:44] » but if not it's going to be in September
>> here or straight to the council.
[1:05:49] » No, it needs it because it's coins to
chapter 18. It needs to come here for
[1:05:54] your approval. Uh and then uh if you
approve it then it goes to the council.
[1:06:02] Thank you.
[1:06:14] » Are you covering the overview of code
change table or is that are we just
[1:06:18] » Yes, sir. Um I'll do a quick one
considering I don't know how to set the
[1:06:23] alarm in this building and we're about
15 minutes or 10 minutes past. Um
[1:06:29] I do want to show you up I believe it's
in your packet there but up on the
[1:06:33] screen very small is uh just an overview
of the code changes that staff has
[1:06:39] identified. Some of these are more
housekeeping or code cleanup while
[1:06:44] others are intended to streamline
processes
[1:06:49] and some are policy changes. The green
items are uh changes that we've
[1:06:54] completed this year. The yellow items
are ones we are currently prioritizing
[1:07:00] and the ones without any highlight are
the ones that are still you know on the
[1:07:05] docket but not being heavily prioritized
at this time. Uh I'm happy to answer any
[1:07:11] questions now or um you know through
email or anytime but yeah definitely
[1:07:17] want to keep it a little shorter.
[1:07:22] Thank you.
>> Hey draft outline of mission rules and
[1:07:28] procedures. Dana, are you covering that
or
[1:07:31] » I can Yeah. Um I don't know if
there was a second print out that wasn't
[1:07:39] part of the agenda if that was able to
get printed or not, but um
[1:07:43] » it was. It was. Okay, great. Okay, so um
yeah, just an update.
[1:07:50] Uh we were looking at
consolidating
[1:07:55] the documents that we have as planning
commissioners. Uh there's there's a few
[1:08:00] of them. The main ones we were looking
at obviously were the uh rules of
[1:08:05] procedure and the conduct of business
and they're two separate documents right
[1:08:09] now. um we just thought they could be
combined. And then as we looked into it
[1:08:14] a little further, there's some other
documents
[1:08:17] um that uh there's a whole appendix in
the mayor and city council manual that
[1:08:24] uh I don't think any of us were aware of
before we joined and um I'm not really
[1:08:29] sure if the council's aware of it
either. So that's why I think we wanted
[1:08:32] to meet with council and get some
clarity on that. It also discusses a
[1:08:35] work plan which I don't think we were
aware of either. So, um, we're still
[1:08:40] looking to to have a study session with
council or some kind of meeting to to go
[1:08:45] over these items. Um, so the I think
it's like a I don't have it open. The
[1:08:51] 15page point um Oh, I do have the agenda
open. I saying um the one that's part of
[1:08:57] the agenda packet
um is
[1:09:02] it's 12 12 points 12 points. Yeah. So
ending it with an appendix and then the
[1:09:09] the one that's was printed standalone um
is kind of consolidating it into four
[1:09:17] chapters which is similar to the Lacy
and Olympia planning commission guide
[1:09:22] book. So I think the big question is do
we want to
[1:09:27] um
adopt try and put our efforts into
[1:09:32] creating a guidebook or do we want to
limit it to simply updating the rules of
[1:09:36] procedure and or uh conduct of business
documents.
[1:09:45] D. I could I offer a few items based on
what the people that are here are
[1:09:52] seeing.
>> Y the draft outline that that we've
[1:09:57] pulled together.
Um
[1:10:00] and I believe you've got that from the
uh the agenda
[1:10:07] that helps them understand what you mean
by rules and procedures. what what is
[1:10:12] the context and the the content that
we're looking at? And um and
[1:10:22] and we've got
the details that go behind each one of
[1:10:28] the like the uh the roles and
responsibilities which is number two as
[1:10:35] well as the um the organization and
officers.
[1:10:40] the how we work with staff
and number five ethics and conflict of
[1:10:47] interest and fair process
and I won't need to read all of them
[1:10:51] basically there's there's several
sections that we've um we've managed to
[1:10:57] glean from all of the materials
and what Dana has nicely done is put
[1:11:04] together uh the a way to present all of
that uh in four sections which is this
[1:11:14] hard copy. people that are attending
that are um uh running
[1:11:20] back. was don't have this but it's um
it's something that
[1:11:26] I think well
we is there's a a three person team um
[1:11:33] Dana and myself uh and Ashley uh that
are that have been working this
[1:11:42] and we've got enough content now that we
wanted to have you know what we what's
[1:11:47] in it
and what are rules and procedures that
[1:11:51] we need to uh
all be aware of
[1:11:57] and uh to work through
and to see if this format for how we
[1:12:04] present them is is acceptable.
That's that's what I understood. Um then
[1:12:12] it's that given all the materials
um
[1:12:18] we're probably going to need a work
session with the full commission to take
[1:12:22] what we've brought today and to talk
through each of the details.
[1:12:33] It's
for those your thoughts as well
[1:12:37] following just you know presenting what
we the outlines that we've got.
[1:12:45] » Yeah. And if if anyone has any immediate
thoughts, you know, we can keep working
[1:12:49] on it in the meanwhile before we have a
commission study session.
[1:12:54] » Okay. If if I could if I could make a
suggestion. Okay. The um as it as it's
[1:13:00] standing right now that the meeting uh
joint sessions a steady session between
[1:13:09] the planning commission and the city
council is uh currently slated for
[1:13:13] December.
Um I talked to the mayor just just
[1:13:16] before the meeting here. So um
>> what's that?
[1:13:22] » Oh, I said great. So, um, yeah, it's
only taken a year. Um, but, um, anyway
[1:13:31] though, so, uh, it's supposed to be, um,
like I said, a, uh, joint study session
[1:13:38] in December.
So we can work on something
[1:13:44] beforehand or if you want to opt and
wait until we have that because I think
[1:13:50] that there may be something that will
come out of that joint study session
[1:13:54] to incorporate into this because I know
that we were wanting to try to come up
[1:14:00] with some um ideas with the city council
on
[1:14:06] different responsibilities that the
planning commission can potentially do.
[1:14:12] So, it it's up to uh your group if if
you want to do that or we can go ahead
[1:14:19] make a motion to um if that's you know
what staff thinks that we should do to
[1:14:25] you know try to do
um a work session to come up with
[1:14:30] something. But
>> since we haven't gone through the
[1:14:34] details of the actual
uh second document that that currently u
[1:14:43] do you have I know you have a copy
because you you submitted this to staff
[1:14:49] to provide to us. Uh, so I'm assuming
we're all looking at the same thing even
[1:14:54] though you're
>> not looking
[1:14:57] » dated August 14th.
>> Uh,
[1:15:00] » on the top
>> there's no nothing on the top.
[1:15:03] » Unfortunately, I'm I'm going to inter
I'm going to interrupt as as Drew said,
[1:15:07] our our time is getting short because
we're going to get evicted out of the
[1:15:10] building here. Um, so if if we can come
to a consensus real quick on
[1:15:18] the way forward on uh what you want to
do,
[1:15:22] » I'd like to know what Ashley wants to
do.
[1:15:25] » I would like to motion to uh direct the
staff to uh plan a work session for our
[1:15:32] body to go over our preferences. We're
moving forward with the rules uh
[1:15:38] procedure versus the uh commission rules
um book.
[1:15:45] » I second that.
[1:15:52] » Uh
yeah,
[1:15:56] » what does your timeline look like? I
guess I don't know what would be I don't
[1:16:00] know what's being asked of us as staff
at this moment. I didn't want to apply
[1:16:04] any restrictions. So, I don't have a
exact timeline. My preference would be
[1:16:10] before December. Um, but that I didn't
want to give you any restrictions on
[1:16:17] » Yeah. And I don't I don't want to commit
without Gary being here.
[1:16:20] » Yeah.
>> Um, would it be okay to maybe postpone
[1:16:23] this conversation to the next meeting?
I'd like to start getting something
[1:16:28] scheduled because I would like to have
it before December so that we have
[1:16:33] something that we all understand now
before we meet jointly with council.
[1:16:43] So if we could at least have it as a
proposal and once Gary gets back we
[1:16:50] could work with him offline. If if the
if this commission agrees that we want
[1:16:55] to do a work session
then
[1:17:00] we three can that are on the
subcommittee can work with Gary on how
[1:17:04] to go about that to try to get it on a
schedule. Now honest honestly okay
[1:17:11] correct me if I'm wrong but being is
that it's a work session
[1:17:15] okay that
if so it's it's kind kind of off the
[1:17:21] books so so to speak I mean you know
it's just kind of a brain brainstorming
[1:17:25] session so do we actually have to have
it here or in the I mean because if
[1:17:31] we're wanting to get together to hash
this out
[1:17:35] prior to December prior to meeting with
the city council because I I agree with
[1:17:41] them as far as being able to get
everything figured out as much as
[1:17:45] possible, you know, before we talk to
the the council, you know. So, but I
[1:17:50] mean, can we figure it out on our own on
when we want to meet conduct a
[1:17:58] doesn't have to be on a Tuesday at 4:00.
Um, but it is a public meeting. We have
[1:18:04] we do have noticing requirements for
special meetings and things like that.
[1:18:09] » Can we just say that within the next 90
days is 90 days puts us prior to our
[1:18:14] October meeting.
>> It's Yeah, that book that puts a book
[1:18:20] end on it. It's like hey [snorts] we
know we want to have this meeting
[1:18:23] » 60 days August, September, October,
November.
[1:18:27] » Well, no matter. So 60 days. Yeah. It
Yeah. that that gives us a little time
[1:18:32] to coordinate and then time to plan and
then time to schedule that meeting
[1:18:38] acceptable.
>> Uh I I appreciate the conversation well
[1:18:42] the discussion and uh I want to
purposely not put a date on it uh an end
[1:18:49] date or a cap date so that there's
flexibility with the staff. Um,
[1:18:54] » but if that's But if that if that's the
case though, then it could go beyond
[1:18:59] » Do you think our staff would do that?
>> Well, no, I don't. I I don't. But I'm
[1:19:04] I'm just I'm just saying though that if
you know the the main concern has come
[1:19:09] up that it's wanting to be done before
our uh joint work session with the
[1:19:15] [clears throat] city council, there
needs to be some kind of end date on it.
[1:19:21] » Maybe that's specific enough. is to do
it before
[1:19:26] the December meeting.
>> I feel like I'm in a little bit of an
[1:19:28] awkward situation here because I'm not
the one who coordinates. Um, and
[1:19:34] you know, doing my best here. Can Well,
how how about we do this? We may we make
[1:19:39] the motion to do it within
>> second next next 90 days.
[1:19:46] If Gary if okay 60 days if Gary
>> if there's some something outside of
[1:19:53] there then he can let us know and we can
adjust accordingly but at least we we've
[1:20:00] got a way forward right now. So I mean
does that does that work?
[1:20:04] » So the motion was made and seconded
without a date.
[1:20:06] » Yeah.
>> So that is the motion currently on the
[1:20:09] floor.
>> Okay. So need to
[1:20:12] » we need to figure out if we all approve.
>> Okay. or and or say is there any
[1:20:18] discussion?
>> Well, yeah, I thought I thought this was
[1:20:23] this was the discussion.
>> Yeah, you didn't you didn't say is there
[1:20:27] any discussion?
>> Okay. Well, all right.
[1:20:34] I've been kind of going on. Okay. The
motion was no end date. Then it was
[1:20:40] brought up to have it done before the
date with the with the city council. All
[1:20:45] right.
What is it that is wanted? No date or
[1:20:52] before the meeting with the city
council. So then then we would do the
[1:20:56] motion according to I mean if we if we
want to roll with a no date then we'll
[1:21:02] go with that. Okay. If if there's a
then I will continue with that or
[1:21:10] » so the original motion was with no date
with no end date. So that is what we
[1:21:15] should be
>> okay
[1:21:16] » discussing and then voting on.
>> Okay. So then we'll take take the
[1:21:21] meeting with the council off off the
table as is being a deciding factor on
[1:21:26] that. Okay. So the the motion is for uh
staff to get it on the books for the
[1:21:34] planning commission to have a work
session so we can uh get stuff together
[1:21:39] on the uh rules and uh procedures
uh with no date. Is uh there any further
[1:21:48] discussion or
ending of the motion?
[1:21:55] Okay. No. So again, the motion is for
staff to get it uh on the books for a
[1:22:05] working group for the uh planning
commission to work on the rules of
[1:22:11] procedures for the planning commission.
Um
[1:22:15] all in favor
>> I
[1:22:18] » we Okay, motion carries
the um
[1:22:26] has a
[1:22:30] » sorry I meant to say I [laughter]
[1:22:34] » thank you.
>> Okay. Okay, the motion passes. Um,
[1:22:40] so the uh
staff uh will let us know
[1:22:48] when uh that can be scheduled or we'll
hear from Gary. Um,
[1:22:53] okay. So that
does that work? That a factor? Okay.
[1:23:02] Hey, uh, Dana, did you have any
additional comments on that?
[1:23:06] » Nope. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. There's no public hearing.
[1:23:10] Uh are there any subcommittee reports
for the commission?
[1:23:15] » No.
>> No.
[1:23:17] » Okay. Um
>> to adjourn a second.
[1:23:22] » I will get there.
[laughter]
[1:23:26] I will get there. I'm not I'm not there
yet. Okay. As a note, um like I said,
[1:23:33] the I talked to the mayor. It's supposed
to be getting on the books that the
[1:23:38] there will be a joint working group
between the uh planning commission and
[1:23:43] the city council in December. And he
also told me that it will happen
[1:23:49] annually from here on. So every year
there will be a meeting between the uh
[1:23:55] city council and the planning
commission. Is there a motion to
[1:23:59] adjourn?
>> Yeah, I made a motion and it was
[1:24:01] seconded.
>> Okay, so
[1:24:06] All in favor?