[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?

Planning Commission Meeting 8/18/26

Transcript