Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
32. | 00:00:00 | |
And we will get started with our work meeting in committee or in attendance tonight is everyone. | 00:00:01 | |
Which is great. We all didn't have anything planned for our holidays. So the entire Commission is here and we have our legal | 00:00:09 | |
counsel and both city staff here as well. So we are excited and we have three public hearing items because #4 has been rescheduled | 00:00:16 | |
and then approval of minutes. | 00:00:22 | |
And the calendar, yes, thank you. Can't forget the important meeting scheduled for next year because we want to tweak that maybe. | 00:00:30 | |
So with that we will jump right in and ask Miss Marsh if you would want to cover the first item for us. | 00:00:37 | |
OK, so the first item is Country Pine View subdivision of PUD. This is the landscaping plan amendment. | 00:00:47 | |
Regarding the trees that are in the. | 00:00:56 | |
West N northwest corner of the property on the PUD. Those were designated as remaining on the site, the applicant submitted. | 00:00:58 | |
Assessment by. | 00:01:11 | |
They're AR. | 00:01:13 | |
It's when they went to go and start removing trees that the arbors did their assessments, so that's why they came back to amend | 00:01:15 | |
the landscape plan. | 00:01:18 | |
The amendment that I sent over yesterday does have the new landscaping plan in it. | 00:01:23 | |
Does anyone have any questions on this one? I don't know if I got a chance to Scroll down. Could you just pull that up before us | 00:01:31 | |
real quick so I can see it? | 00:01:35 | |
And this is the one where they're taking out. They propose taking out some trees because they're diseased or near utility lines or | 00:01:44 | |
leaning or whatever, but they're going to add back more than. | 00:01:50 | |
They were. | 00:01:57 | |
Their original plan I. | 00:01:59 | |
Was replacing more than they were removing. This new plan is replacing the same amount that they're removing OK? | 00:02:01 | |
So they had some cushion that was already built into their prior approved. | 00:02:11 | |
I think we've got one more page. | 00:02:17 | |
So are they not proposing to replace that Grove then? | 00:02:19 | |
They are. | 00:02:23 | |
With the same number of trees, because that looks like fewer. | 00:02:24 | |
Because on the arborist report that calls for this Grove to be removed, there are, if I remember correctly, 16 trees in total I | 00:02:30 | |
count. | 00:02:35 | |
Seven now in that corner, right? | 00:02:39 | |
That seems like half. | 00:02:42 | |
My mistake. And if they put the tree somewhere else. | 00:02:45 | |
I believe they added some more up in the front. | 00:02:48 | |
Unless you have additional requirements to meet one. For one, it's the canopy spread 1:00 to 1:00. | 00:02:53 | |
So that old clump of trees met 900 square feet and they have the seven trees that. | 00:02:59 | |
At full maturity will equal that 900 square feet. That's the ordinance. But this is a PUD. | 00:03:05 | |
You've already granted flexible setbacks. | 00:03:11 | |
To this project so conditional uses. | 00:03:14 | |
Flexibility to requests are warranted. | 00:03:18 | |
It's up to you. | 00:03:21 | |
OK. I mean, I'm OK with less trees, Do we? What are the trees they're planning to put in there? A whole bunch of Norway maples? | 00:03:22 | |
And what are the larger ones? | 00:03:27 | |
Let me zoom in on that the London plane. | 00:03:32 | |
Which is a Sycamore tree which gets anthrax in the entire city is riddled with problems with those. | 00:03:35 | |
Unless they get the disease resistant variety, which I don't think has been invented yet. | 00:03:43 | |
Such an interesting knowledge base I have. Just random stuff when it comes to trees. Sorry, it's that arborist in me. | 00:03:49 | |
And there's their canopy notes on there. So 12,513 square feet of canopy removed and 13,522 to be replaced. | 00:03:56 | |
So just about 1000 square feet more is what they're proposing back in. | 00:04:06 | |
So have the trees been removed? | 00:04:13 | |
The ones that were originally permitted to be removed have been so the neighbor whose comments were in the report. | 00:04:16 | |
Said it. | 00:04:24 | |
He basically took everything out. I'm just curious if we. | 00:04:26 | |
We typically want them to get this type of approval before they start chopping those things down, right? Right. And he went in and | 00:04:29 | |
started removing the trees that we already approved to be removed on the site plan. | 00:04:35 | |
Thanks for that clarification. | 00:04:42 | |
This property does have four housing units being placed on it and then kind of a unique shape with it being narrow at the bottom, | 00:04:45 | |
so. | 00:04:49 | |
What was reviewed? | 00:04:54 | |
Preliminary kind of the placement of the houses around existing trees. | 00:04:56 | |
I think there were not a lot of trees that were going to remain on there just based off the coverage and the amount of units that. | 00:05:03 | |
Were permitted for the. | 00:05:11 | |
Memory serves, this was two or three meetings ago, but one of the conditions or one of the requests for the PUD and the setbacks | 00:05:15 | |
to be allowed to be moved like that wasn't just for the aesthetics, but also because they initially were talking about wanting to | 00:05:21 | |
protect this Grove of trees, right? | 00:05:27 | |
There is the trees and then also angling houses so that there's more open space. That's common, right? So they wanted it | 00:05:34 | |
aesthetically for the house placement and. | 00:05:39 | |
Secondly, for this Grove of trees, which now the person who has removed all the trees says, Oh my gosh, these trees are sick too. | 00:05:43 | |
You should let me remove them. | 00:05:47 | |
Essentially, right, right. | 00:05:52 | |
Carrie, at what point do we concern ourselves with Canopy, in other words? | 00:05:55 | |
He can replace trees. | 00:06:00 | |
But if he replaces them with saplings? | 00:06:03 | |
The canopy. | 00:06:05 | |
Not going to. | 00:06:08 | |
Reveal itself for many years, right? Our ordinance does say that they have to have the same canopy at maturity. | 00:06:09 | |
So they're replaced with 1 1/2 diameter caliper trees. | 00:06:17 | |
That's the requirement. So it is specified in our code that they have to be at least 1 1/2 inch caliper tree. That's measured at | 00:06:24 | |
chest height. | 00:06:28 | |
And then the canopy has to reach the maturity of what was removed, so that could be 20 years. | 00:06:34 | |
Right. | 00:06:43 | |
19 proposed. | 00:07:06 | |
So are they 3000? | 00:07:08 | |
Square feet short. | 00:07:11 | |
So those were initial calculations that I had off of their original before they submitted their what their actual landscape plan | 00:07:15 | |
was. It was here's kind of a rough estimate of these trees that they're now proposing to be removed, but I didn't have actual | 00:07:21 | |
square footage from them yet. | 00:07:27 | |
Brad, did you have a? | 00:07:35 | |
Yeah, just just to give you some maybe a little bit of insight here. So this is the. | 00:07:36 | |
In my experience, the most aggressive progressive tree preservation plant in the state. | 00:07:43 | |
Ordinance in the state. I'm not saying there's no room for improving anything. I'm just telling you that this. | 00:07:49 | |
Is, I would say and I remember. | 00:07:55 | |
I'm going to forget his name. He used to be on the council. He is an attorney. | 00:08:00 | |
Yeah, Steve Gunn, he was a big proponent of this. He was assigned to the tree committee and I remember doing quite a bit of | 00:08:04 | |
research for him on this particular issue and turning it over all to him. And then he helped, you know, take that research and | 00:08:10 | |
provided. | 00:08:15 | |
Created a draft, you know him and I worked together and creating a draft for that tree preservation ordinance and then it went | 00:08:21 | |
through several. | 00:08:24 | |
Iterations and revisions at the tree committee, and that's how we ended up with this, but it is. | 00:08:28 | |
We tried to make sure it was constitutional so we could do, we could regulate in the way we did and you know, unfortunately you're | 00:08:35 | |
it's really difficult to transplant a 50 year old tree. | 00:08:41 | |
And have it survive. | 00:08:47 | |
And so we are taking out old trees and mature, replacing them with. | 00:08:48 | |
But overtime? | 00:08:53 | |
It should you know main. | 00:08:55 | |
And potentially increase the the actual tree canopy in the city. So anyway just wanted to give you a little bit of background on | 00:08:59 | |
that, but. | 00:09:03 | |
I think after our pre meeting that Commissioner Roche. | 00:09:08 | |
Chair Roach has some ideas on how to strengthen or some he wants to make some requests to strengthen this so that we can | 00:09:13 | |
potentially avoid these kind of things. Yeah, I think I'll I'll wait and do a little bit of fact finding with the applicant to to | 00:09:19 | |
ensure my understanding and comprehension of how this was put together before I move forward with any recommendation or requests. | 00:09:26 | |
And I think as as you as we talked in the pre meeting, I think it is perfectly. | 00:09:32 | |
Within the Commission's purview to request staff to come back with some ways that we could strengthen this, I've got. | 00:09:40 | |
You know, we talked, we identified a couple of ideas and I think they're. | 00:09:48 | |
You know, I'm almost certain there are probably some that we didn't think about. So anyway, perfect, thank you. What would that | 00:09:52 | |
mean from a practical standpoint? | 00:09:55 | |
With regard to what we're facing tonight. | 00:10:00 | |
You know that when you're taking out this number of trees and there is a question on whether or not. | 00:10:04 | |
For example, the Arborist report went into sufficient detail and provide sufficient evidence. | 00:10:12 | |
That the trees actually are diseased or dying, I. | 00:10:20 | |
Is there an opportunity for the city to challenge that or to, you know, at the city's expense, get their own expert to review? | 00:10:24 | |
That report, maybe you could beef up what the report requires. | 00:10:31 | |
When they're taking out, I mean the larger the Grove that you're taking out, the larger number of. | 00:10:35 | |
The more detailed the report has to be. | 00:10:40 | |
Things along those lines are kind of things that were kind of discussed. | 00:10:42 | |
So perhaps we would want to continue this. | 00:10:46 | |
So here's where I would say that there's. | 00:10:50 | |
Potentially. | 00:10:55 | |
I'm not saying there's not a hill that's worth fighting for. | 00:10:59 | |
But the particular tree species might play into that and whether this is the right hill. | 00:11:05 | |
In other words, we are talking about a Grove of Russian olives and Siberian Elms. Siberian Elms, which are not regarded as the | 00:11:11 | |
most aesthetic. | 00:11:16 | |
And highly invasive in some areas in fact. So it's not necessarily the quality of what's there, it's just the fact that it's there | 00:11:24 | |
and we're going to lose it and is there. | 00:11:30 | |
Enough justification based on someones opinion who works for a tree removal company to justify removing a Grove of trees in our | 00:11:36 | |
city. This just may not be the. I'm not saying there's not a hill that is worth. | 00:11:43 | |
Looking into that, but we need it would help to have a strengthened ordinance in addition to. | 00:11:50 | |
Finding the right hill, right. Well, yeah, I think if I might just clarify, up until this point you've been presented with | 00:11:56 | |
documents that. | 00:12:01 | |
Is providing a development pattern which hinges on the preservation of this growth of trees or more. | 00:12:06 | |
When you get to a point where you're like where your shovel hits the dirt and you start realizing. | 00:12:14 | |
Well, this house might be placed in a way that we can't get to those trees. If they do die or if they need to be maintained | 00:12:19 | |
another way, let's address them now. | 00:12:23 | |
And we're backtracking. That's what we're doing right now. We're backtracking it back into a preliminary level review. | 00:12:28 | |
So if this if you believe that this consideration hinders the way you approve the setbacks for this PUD. | 00:12:33 | |
That's in play. | 00:12:41 | |
So not necessarily the type of tree, or, you know, whether it's diseased or not. You developed a development pattern. You created | 00:12:47 | |
a contingent development pattern upon trees that were supposed to be protected. | 00:12:53 | |
So, you know, does the layout of the trees now in this configuration warranty the flexibility and setbacks? | 00:13:00 | |
That that could be a way that some considerations to think about. | 00:13:07 | |
Nobody on this Commission thought they'd spend this much time talking about tree placement, did they? It's great. | 00:13:13 | |
I see this as an opportunity to get rid of a lot of bad trees. | 00:13:20 | |
Especially ones that are power lines that we're all spending our money. | 00:13:25 | |
I had a house like that right before the cities ordinance went and we pulled all the trees out. | 00:13:31 | |
Power lines in the corner for the same reason it was not worth. | 00:13:38 | |
In there. | 00:13:42 | |
At some point, trees. | 00:13:48 | |
Agreed. | 00:13:51 | |
Good option to do that when. | 00:13:55 | |
I absolutely agree and please don't regard me as the the tree hugging hippie that thinks to save them all. I just. | 00:14:00 | |
Well, one thing that I might from a personal arborist. | 00:14:10 | |
Perspective challenge in this particular situation. | 00:14:22 | |
Is there a larger tree further into the lot line that doesn't actually impact power lines and is that really that disease and sick | 00:14:26 | |
based on the arborist report or are we talking about slime flux on a branch that was found at the top of the tree and now this 45 | 00:14:32 | |
foot established tree needs to come out? | 00:14:39 | |
A word that's allowed for. | 00:14:47 | |
City evaluation. | 00:14:49 | |
An evaluation. | 00:14:51 | |
Right. With all of that said, I I just think it's important as long as tree discussion is within our purview that we remember that | 00:14:54 | |
the tree canopy is one of the things that sets holiday apart. | 00:15:00 | |
But I will say this, I am pro property rights and I don't want anyone to tell me I can't cut down a tree I don't like on my | 00:15:08 | |
property or a disease sick tree. But I will comply with city code if required to put it back or get a permit to do so. And in this | 00:15:15 | |
particular case, I think it warrants A heavier discussion than just a simple property ownership, property rights situation because | 00:15:22 | |
of the meeting we had three meetings ago or two meetings ago. | 00:15:28 | |
Regarding the request. | 00:15:35 | |
To adjust the PUD and the placement of the homes based contingent on aesthetics and the trees. | 00:15:37 | |
So with that, sorry, but any other questions about this one before we move to the next item? | 00:15:45 | |
All right, roll into #2 carry. | 00:15:51 | |
All right, #2 is for a building footprint size for an existing building. Currently, the building is over the allowed footprint | 00:15:54 | |
size For an accessory building. They're making some modifications on the footprint, and with the modifications, it does require a | 00:16:00 | |
conditional use permit. | 00:16:06 | |
So the footprint is detailed. There's a area that's being removed and then area that's being added. | 00:16:13 | |
Any questions on this? | 00:16:24 | |
Is the. | 00:16:26 | |
The home that was removed from this site, is that in a plan to be put back in and this will still continue to be an accessory to | 00:16:28 | |
this 'cause, I mean at this point this is kind of the main building at this right? They do have a building permit for a for a | 00:16:34 | |
residence. Primary use of the property is residential. | 00:16:40 | |
So this will continue to be accessory building. | 00:16:48 | |
Under the building footprint maximum, I was looking at each of the size of the properties they had to be. Is there a maximum the | 00:16:53 | |
accessory building can be? There's not a maximum. OK, so as long as the conditional use permit, you could go well beyond. | 00:17:01 | |
Right. What would come into play is lot coverage. Percentage structures can only cover a certain percent of the setbacks and so | 00:17:09 | |
forth. Would kick in, and that would kind of restrict how big ultimately could be. But it still has to get a conditional use for | 00:17:16 | |
being over the maximum outright permitted. | 00:17:23 | |
What is the percentage of lot size that can be covered by an accessory building? | 00:17:31 | |
Generalities I mean. | 00:17:39 | |
10%, twenty percent, 50% Usually for a structure it. | 00:17:41 | |
As the property size increases, then your percentage goes down. I want to say for an acre it's 30. | 00:17:46 | |
35%. | 00:17:54 | |
John Gino off the top of your head. | 00:17:56 | |
That's why I don't memorize these things. I'm looking at our discussion. I'm just recognizing that it's a 10 acre property, so. | 00:17:59 | |
Strikes me. | 00:18:07 | |
There's a lot of percentage to work with there. | 00:18:09 | |
1% is 10,000 square feet, so I might have missed it, but is there? | 00:18:12 | |
A picture of where it's going to be on the lot. I could see the lot and I could see the building up, but I I might it's not a full | 00:18:20 | |
picture of the of the site, but this does show the property boundary that is on. | 00:18:27 | |
The oh, I'm not sure what side of the property it's. | 00:18:35 | |
Oh, I see. I didn't recognize that as a property. Yeah, so the solid line is a property boundary. So this is where the building | 00:18:40 | |
is. They're already very close to the property line, and they're making it bigger. They're pretty far from the property line. So | 00:18:47 | |
here's where the building is. The property line is out here. Oh, I see. Yep, I see it now. Got it. | 00:18:54 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:01 | |
And looking at this diagram just so I have my bearings straight and I know I'm looking at it right, the. | 00:19:03 | |
House that was there, The estate house was to the right of this. Yes. OK. | 00:19:07 | |
Commissioner Prince, yes, I think we already presumed it was. It's a large number, but it's. | 00:19:13 | |
20% of the lot size that's owned can be covered in structures. | 00:19:19 | |
For this works out to be 87,000 square feet. So we're. | 00:19:23 | |
I believe so. Good to know well based on what the building footprint for the house and then the existing other two houses that are | 00:19:28 | |
on that right And we do evaluate that lot coverage when building permits are submitted. | 00:19:33 | |
OK, good. | 00:19:39 | |
Any other questions on this one? | 00:19:42 | |
The other thing to note there is that I believe two or three trees are being removed. That's on this plan. | 00:19:46 | |
They're small XS on here. They're a little bit hard to see. | 00:19:55 | |
Do they have a replacement 1 here? | 00:20:01 | |
On this corner. | 00:20:04 | |
And then there's a couple of down here. And so their landscape plan is this next plan. | 00:20:06 | |
You can see an addition of trees here. They're planting multiple trees across the site. | 00:20:12 | |
But that can be a specific condition of trees being removed by this addition to the building be replaced on the site. Is that in | 00:20:19 | |
the? | 00:20:24 | |
Suggested motion. I don't believe I have a suggested motion for the tree. You can note that if that is something you'd want to | 00:20:30 | |
consider. | 00:20:34 | |
And that's also something that we check for on the on the building permit. So with the building footprint affecting trees being | 00:20:40 | |
removed, those ones would be required to be replaced. | 00:20:47 | |
Which it sounds like they're putting 2 to one if they're putting those six out front, OK. | 00:20:54 | |
All right, perfect. Any other questions on item 2? | 00:20:59 | |
All right. And then lastly is item 3, the text amendment that we're all excited to hear you've been working on. | 00:21:04 | |
Yes, So this is for home occupations, the basic. | 00:21:11 | |
Outline of this is one thing that we wanted to address was parking that became an issue for one of our prior conditional use | 00:21:16 | |
permits. Also being able to approve home occupations with a set list of standards instead of having them be reviewed by the | 00:21:22 | |
Planning Commission with a conditional use permit. | 00:21:29 | |
So additional languages added. There's some highlighted portions. | 00:21:36 | |
That there's some flexibility on any other things that you'd want to add. | 00:21:42 | |
Can be added in. We just note that and that would then go to planning or to City Council. If there was a positive recommendation, | 00:21:49 | |
you could have the conditions of with language. | 00:21:54 | |
Specific, You know, outline whatever you wanted to add in or change in the proposed language. | 00:22:00 | |
Kind of. The key points on this are hours. | 00:22:11 | |
7:00 AM to 10:00. | 00:22:14 | |
Not exceeding 6 people at A. | 00:22:16 | |
The on street parking would be approved in certain conditions or circumstances. | 00:22:20 | |
Usually if there's an unsafe circumstance or property access, that can be tweaked if that is something that you feel would be | 00:22:26 | |
unreasonable. | 00:22:30 | |
Off site parking agreements can be utilized. | 00:22:36 | |
And I added in a temporary exceedance of the allowed parking on site can occur twice within a month. | 00:22:40 | |
So that accounts for like recitals or graduations or other kinds of big larger group events that require more people to be there. | 00:22:50 | |
That can be adjusted as well or removed entirely. | 00:22:58 | |
I'm only concerned with that and we can talk about that in the work meeting might just. | 00:23:02 | |
How does that work from an enforcement standpoint like who's out there measuring you know like what's what's looky loo neighbor or | 00:23:07 | |
we encouraging to track it was more than twice that they had more than one car out front. | 00:23:13 | |
You could add in language about a single event permit being required if they were to have an event associated with their home | 00:23:20 | |
occupation. | 00:23:24 | |
So you're saying that the items that are highlighted in green are the items that we have an opportunity to weigh in on, Those are | 00:23:28 | |
some that are identified, any anything else is open to discussion as well if there's particular pieces that you'd like to see | 00:23:34 | |
added or pieces that you'd like to see removed. | 00:23:40 | |
Can you give us an idea on the parameters for the on street parking? | 00:23:49 | |
What if they want to have? They'll say the parking is a block away. | 00:23:55 | |
To me it doesn't do any good unless there is a distance to the site so that. | 00:24:00 | |
So what are what are you thinking as far as letting the? | 00:24:05 | |
Director make that approval. | 00:24:10 | |
But what is that based on? It is just. | 00:24:12 | |
I don't see any parameters by which they have to be measured by to make sure that. | 00:24:18 | |
They're in compliance and makes the directors position, so he's not just changing. | 00:24:23 | |
So we could say within a distance of 100 feet or. | 00:24:30 | |
There's or immediately adjacent to the property owner's property, or if that's not available then across the street or one house | 00:24:36 | |
down. Because you do run into issues sometimes with corner properties where you can't park right in front of the house, so then it | 00:24:43 | |
would have to be adjusted. That's one of those safety issues. | 00:24:51 | |
But we could put a distance on that. I think that would be reasonable. | 00:25:00 | |
OK, good catalog. | 00:25:04 | |
All right. Any other questions on item three? Yeah, one more. How much of the parking can they have on street? Are you thinking | 00:25:08 | |
the entire requirement they could use on street parking? | 00:25:13 | |
Or is. | 00:25:19 | |
They would have to have specific circumstances that they detail in their application in order for. | 00:25:21 | |
On street parking to be approved. | 00:25:28 | |
The parking is detailed that it has to be has all parking has to be on site. | 00:25:31 | |
Except if there are circumstances where there's personal property. | 00:25:36 | |
Access issues or unsafe conditions then we could look outside of that on site requirement. | 00:25:43 | |
So at this point in time, you're not sure if it'll be all acceptable off the site, I mean. | 00:25:48 | |
They can park on the street 100% or half and OK there would be some circumstances that that may occur where. | 00:25:54 | |
All of their parking would be on. | 00:26:04 | |
You said, Do you see the difficulty? I don't want to put you guys into another type of thing where you're having to try and figure | 00:26:07 | |
out what's the best way to interpret the codes. I think we want to make it as simple as possible. | 00:26:13 | |
Because you're not going to be able to meet everybody. | 00:26:20 | |
You know, difficulty with having on site parking. | 00:26:24 | |
Would it be acceptable to do limited to one on street parking space? | 00:26:27 | |
Are you asking me? | 00:26:34 | |
Yes. | 00:26:36 | |
So I know that. So we had a we had an issue a couple of months ago if you remember that is kind of driving the state law changes, | 00:26:38 | |
but there's also. | 00:26:42 | |
A couple of other issues that are changing kind. | 00:26:47 | |
Creating the catalyst for bringing this out. | 00:26:50 | |
And it's kind of, I don't want to say it's an unintended consequence, but it's a consequence that. | 00:26:54 | |
May be encompassing too much. How about that? | 00:27:00 | |
And so there are particular situations, for example, a corner lot. You can't park in front of a corner lot without violating | 00:27:06 | |
Clearview, right? So. | 00:27:10 | |
Are you basically saying, well the person on the corner because they can't violate peer review therefore, and they only and they | 00:27:15 | |
have a shared driveway. They can't have a home based business period and a discussion move on next person. | 00:27:20 | |
Right. I mean, that's kind of the situation that we're trying to address in this particular thing. | 00:27:25 | |
The default. | 00:27:31 | |
Isn't on street parking. That's not the default. The default is off street parking, and it leaves the director some flexibility if | 00:27:33 | |
there are some circumstances that make it impossible to comply. | 00:27:39 | |
With the on site parking. | 00:27:45 | |
So that's kind of and if there's suggestions in language and we want to tighten something up, I mean certainly. | 00:27:48 | |
There's an opportunity to look at that and make some recommendations. | 00:27:54 | |
Making some adjustments or changes to that, I mean that's certainly within your purview. | 00:27:58 | |
As. | 00:28:03 | |
But that's kind of the idea behind this is we had a situation where. | 00:28:04 | |
A particular home that has. | 00:28:09 | |
The way the code is written, she can't comply. | 00:28:11 | |
End of discussion. I mean, she either has to move. | 00:28:14 | |
Or do offsite parking, or get some parking across parking arrangement with the neighbor. | 00:28:17 | |
Basically, and so it's. | 00:28:25 | |
And this was for a music lessons, if you recall. I know most of you are here. | 00:28:28 | |
But so this. | 00:28:33 | |
And the other thing. | 00:28:36 | |
How much, how much regulation should we have on? So certainly we have a safety issue when plowing needs to happen, right? | 00:28:40 | |
But we have an aesthetic issue. | 00:28:47 | |
Not necessary safety issues, aesthetic issue, if everybody's parking on the street as well, right? And we know that's a problem | 00:28:49 | |
and we know that number one, one of the biggest. | 00:28:53 | |
Complaint generators in that city is on street parking. | 00:28:58 | |
So, but we're trying to come up with some with a kind of a regulatory. | 00:29:03 | |
Pattern that. | 00:29:08 | |
Has some flexibility, but doesn't open. | 00:29:09 | |
The floodgates to create even more. | 00:29:13 | |
Complaints, but allows for individuals. | 00:29:15 | |
That are doing music less. | 00:29:19 | |
They live on a corner. | 00:29:21 | |
But we also have language elsewhere in the document about. | 00:29:22 | |
Less in home. | 00:29:26 | |
For up to six people. | 00:29:28 | |
So what do we do in that case if we've got six students at a time? | 00:29:30 | |
Do we? I mean, does the teacher have to suggest carpooling? Yeah, And that's I'm going to have you table that question until we | 00:29:35 | |
actually get to the discussion on the the. | 00:29:40 | |
Agenda in the full formal meeting because it sounds like we've got some great jumping off points for that discussion. So hold on | 00:29:45 | |
to those, don't lose them because we'll we'll come back to them here. But with that, any other questions during our work meeting | 00:29:51 | |
before we roll into the official meeting? | 00:29:56 | |
OK. And just real quick. Well, with that we'll go ahead and close the work meeting. Does anyone need a quick brief recess for any | 00:30:04 | |
reason before we start the work meeting? | 00:30:08 | |
All right, we're ready to rock'n'roll. | 00:30:14 | |
So with that we will get started. It is 6:02 PM. | 00:30:16 | |
And welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on December 19. | 00:30:20 | |
We are going to go through three different public hearing items today and then we have approval of meeting changes and minutes | 00:30:26 | |
after those. | 00:30:31 | |
As with every meeting, we have a list of things which we read to the public, and I have asked Commissioner Barron if he would do | 00:30:38 | |
that for us. | 00:30:43 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:30:48 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning, map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:30:54 | |
subdivisions. | 00:31:00 | |
The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications. | 00:31:06 | |
Rather acts on the applications as they are submitted. | 00:31:09 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed meetings. | 00:31:13 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit attempt to visit each property on the agenda. | 00:31:18 | |
Where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures and uses related to the proposed use are proposed chain | 00:31:24 | |
are noted. | 00:31:29 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the city's general plan, zoning | 00:31:33 | |
ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments. | 00:31:39 | |
And evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public record. | 00:31:46 | |
Excellent. Thank you very much for that, Commissioner Barron. And with that we will get started on our meeting. We have on item | 00:31:51 | |
number one country Pineview Landscaping plan amendment. | 00:31:57 | |
And we will ask city staff if they will go ahead and walk us through the particulars before we invite the applicant up for that. | 00:32:03 | |
Thank you, Chair Roche. The first item is a subdivision plan amendment or PUD plan amendment for a landscaping plan. This PUD was | 00:32:19 | |
approved with a Grove of trees on the northwest side of the property that was going to stay on the lot. | 00:32:28 | |
The applicant went in and started removing trees that were approved to be removed on their PUD plan and their arborist. | 00:32:39 | |
Provided an assessment stating that trees on that northwest corner that were originally. | 00:32:51 | |
Designated to remain on the property were had various disease or other issues with them and recommended removal. So on the OR the | 00:32:57 | |
applicant submitted that assessment by their arborist and a new landscaping plan and I will have the applicant come up and they | 00:33:05 | |
can detail that. Great. Thank you very much. And do we have Grant Harrison here today as the applicant. | 00:33:14 | |
I'm going to defer to my son who is a little more. | 00:33:23 | |
Excellent. If you'll state your name and address for the record and go ahead. Good evening. Mark Harrison, obviously grandson, I'm | 00:33:28 | |
the general contractor and developing partner that will actually be building the homes on this site. | 00:33:33 | |
Like Carrie said. | 00:33:39 | |
We're here to ask for an addendum to the existing proposed or approved plan. As we started the project, we removed the items that | 00:33:41 | |
were scheduled to be removed. | 00:33:46 | |
But in the process we were left with this Grove of trees in the corner. | 00:33:52 | |
We approached our tree experts, which were diamond tree experts, were actually doing the removal and said to them, you know, what | 00:33:56 | |
can we do with this Grove of trees that is in this corner to make it look? | 00:34:01 | |
Good. Beneficial. | 00:34:07 | |
In this corner consists 15 trees, roughly. | 00:34:10 | |
13 Siberian Elms, 1 box elder and an apple tree. | 00:34:14 | |
Roughly. | 00:34:18 | |
These trees have not been touched in probably over 50 years extremely. | 00:34:20 | |
Unmaintained. | 00:34:26 | |
There is a lot of deadfall consistent in the trees right now. The Northside of the property is being topped by Rocky Mountain | 00:34:28 | |
Power, trying to keep their power lines safe. | 00:34:33 | |
There's. | 00:34:39 | |
Large trees hanging over the neighbor's property. We just we wanted to see, you know, can we can we trim them up? Can we lift them | 00:34:41 | |
up? Can we prune them? Can we make them look good? They just don't believe that it's worth the effort to try and save the trees. | 00:34:47 | |
We would propose that we come in, take out the existing trees, plant an equal number of trees to replace those just like we are | 00:34:54 | |
with the previous ones that we have removed. | 00:35:00 | |
And try and make that a little bit. | 00:35:07 | |
More quality trees than box. | 00:35:10 | |
You know those type of trees? | 00:35:14 | |
We understand that the tree ordinance, you know, holiday is holiday because of the tree cover, the canopy that they do have. We | 00:35:17 | |
want to maintain that, but we just don't feel that these trees that have not been touched in 60 years and pose A relative amount | 00:35:24 | |
of danger to property owners. | 00:35:30 | |
And the and we just don't believe. | 00:35:37 | |
We can do better. We can replace them. They've kind of reached their lifespan and we can do better and have them be something | 00:35:41 | |
beneficial for this property that is going to be. | 00:35:46 | |
Appreciate that. And if you do have any questions, we do have the arborist here that did the report and he can answer the disease | 00:35:53 | |
questions. Well, the first question I'd like to ask you, if I May is what was the date of, I did not see it on the arborist report | 00:35:59 | |
that was submitted to us. What was the date of this assessment? | 00:36:05 | |
Before we started removing any trees, it doesn't have a date on it. | 00:36:13 | |
But it. | 00:36:19 | |
It was. | 00:36:20 | |
Do you remember what day we did that, November 16, 1116? | 00:36:23 | |
OK. I appreciate that. And if perhaps city staff can just refresh my member. | 00:36:33 | |
What was the date we approved the PUD? | 00:36:40 | |
Request for this October 24th, October 24th, OK. | 00:36:45 | |
So this was just a couple weeks later. | 00:36:50 | |
And to also clarify. | 00:36:53 | |
Diamond Tree is who you've contracted with. They were contracted to do the removal on all the other trees and then at that time | 00:36:56 | |
provided you with this assessment. | 00:37:01 | |
Appreciate that. | 00:37:09 | |
Commissioners, do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? | 00:37:11 | |
Just because I'm new, Wendy anticipates starting construction on the. | 00:37:15 | |
Homes. We still have the development to do so we've just cleared the lot. We just demoed the house and demo the trees and that's | 00:37:20 | |
where we are. | 00:37:23 | |
So typically in this kind of situation, I'm not the expert. Do you plant now in the winter or wait till the spring? | 00:37:26 | |
Probably planting will happen after the houses are built. OK. OK. That's kind of what I was going. So, all right, thank you. As a | 00:37:35 | |
general rule of thumb, it's, it's difficult for the trees if there's heavy equipment and you know those. | 00:37:42 | |
Construction conditions, that's why my question. Yeah, good question. Thank you. One thing I might just add is we do, we are | 00:37:49 | |
required to put in a large French grain system that is on the West side of the property and if you go to, I don't know if you can | 00:37:54 | |
pull up page 4. | 00:37:59 | |
Of not the landscape plan but the regular plan. I don't have those, but I can pull it up. There is a large French drain that we | 00:38:05 | |
have to put in and. | 00:38:09 | |
It does encroach on that Grove of trees. We will have to put in a dry well. | 00:38:13 | |
Right on the edge of this group of trees. | 00:38:19 | |
Which is going to require a large amount of excavation. | 00:38:23 | |
And will that well impact your landscape trees that you're proposing to put in there in a way to where it will limit their ability | 00:38:27 | |
to reach that full canopy maturity over time? | 00:38:34 | |
And it's all buried and then we can plant around it. | 00:38:42 | |
Totally fine. OK. I see. All right, Commissioners, any other questions? | 00:38:49 | |
OK, we'll go ahead and have you sit. Commissioners, did we want to invite the, well, I guess should we take public comment and | 00:38:54 | |
then invite the arborist or take public comment? | 00:38:59 | |
Your purview chair. All right, well. | 00:39:06 | |
Let's. | 00:39:10 | |
All right, let's go ahead. We're going to open the public meeting and invite anyone up to the wants to make comment on the | 00:39:12 | |
landscaping plan amendment. We do ask that if you come up, you state your name and address for the record and that you try and be | 00:39:19 | |
brief and direct to the point with your comments taking no more than three or 4 minutes. And then if you are following someone | 00:39:25 | |
who's already made comments that you do not reiterate the same comments made. | 00:39:31 | |
And with that, we'll invite any members of the public that we should come up at this time. | 00:39:39 | |
Hi, I'm Megan Miller and I live at 2775 E, 4510 S which is right next door. | 00:39:46 | |
And that Grove of trees, they're terrible trees. | 00:39:54 | |
There were beautiful trees taken off that had to be taken off and those are, those are really bad trees. I can't imagine anyone. | 00:39:59 | |
Living in that in a brand new house that would want those trees in their backyard. So that's our input right next door, looking at | 00:40:06 | |
them all the time. And if you if you could just expand on that to Miss Miller, What is it that makes them terrible, Theresa? | 00:40:13 | |
They're they're kind of half dying, and they're not quality trees. They're not the kind of tree that someone would want to plant. | 00:40:22 | |
You know, if they wanted landscaping, if they'd built a brand new house, I would take them out if I built a house there. | 00:40:28 | |
OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. | 00:40:34 | |
My name is Scott Miller. I'm Megan's husband next door. Anyway, for years I've been going over there and helping Mrs. Sweet and | 00:40:45 | |
kind of maintain some of that area. | 00:40:51 | |
And in fact, I took a lot of the dead fall and I. | 00:40:57 | |
Stand them up against the fence to try to keep the deer out of there and their big large deadfalls. They just. | 00:41:00 | |
Crack off and they're just, it's just a junk tree. They're really hard to maintain and they're hard to keep clean. | 00:41:07 | |
We were all for taking him out, OK? | 00:41:14 | |
Thank you. Appreciate that. That's very helpful. | 00:41:17 | |
And with that, any other members of the public that wish to make comment on the trees at this time? | 00:41:21 | |
All right. And with that, I believe we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. They did bring the arborist. So I think it's only | 00:41:28 | |
fair that we invite the representative from Diamond to come up and make any comment on this. | 00:41:34 | |
On these terrible trees. | 00:41:40 | |
Hey everybody, My name is Sean Sortland. I am the certified arborist who works with diamond tree experts. | 00:41:44 | |
I live at 1541 S 200 W in Bountiful, UT. | 00:41:49 | |
Yeah, these trees. I agree with the Millers completely. Everyone of the Elms is exhibiting. | 00:41:55 | |
Slime flux, which is a bacterial infection. It leads to rot in the trees and it's also. | 00:42:03 | |
It's gathering right in the union of the Co dominant lead, so I'm not sure if you guys were. | 00:42:11 | |
What neighbor you are, but some of the larger trees they are compromised. | 00:42:19 | |
They all have included bark with these codominant leads. That compromises them and makes them less strong. | 00:42:23 | |
Everyone of the Elms also exhibited signs of leaf miners. | 00:42:31 | |
Which will dramatically. | 00:42:35 | |
Decrease the canopy of these trees because they feast on the leaves and then. | 00:42:37 | |
They produce little flies that fly around everywhere and, you know, make enjoying your backyard pretty tough. | 00:42:44 | |
The apple tree is totally dead. That's not coming back at all. And then the box elder after years of Rocky Mountain power | 00:42:51 | |
hammering on it. I'm sure there are many capitals and other weak unions up there too, that. | 00:42:57 | |
You know that tree should just be removed? | 00:43:04 | |
Even if they were cleaned. | 00:43:08 | |
With the hazards in the upper canopy would be pretty unsafe for you know any little kids playing in the backyard, anybody just | 00:43:10 | |
trying to enjoy their space back there. So, and I appreciate you mentioning your is a certified. I was just curious are you also | 00:43:15 | |
track certified? | 00:43:20 | |
And for anyone not aware, track is Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, which is an additional certification by ISA. | 00:43:26 | |
And so this line flux you found to be in the main trunk of the trees on everyone of them. It wasn't like higher up on branches. | 00:43:34 | |
They're kind of bad. I could e-mail you them too really quick if you wanted to bring them up on your computer, but. | 00:43:44 | |
Yeah, every single one of the Elms exhibited this. | 00:43:51 | |
Slime. | 00:43:55 | |
OK. And then as far as determining leaf miners, I'm assuming being in November, you were looking at the leaves on the ground. Well | 00:43:56 | |
you could see the the, the leaves that were still on. I mean you can see some of the little larva still inside of the leaves that | 00:44:01 | |
didn't make it out. You know it's it's pretty obvious to tell. | 00:44:07 | |
I have pictures of those too, if you'd like. OK, gotcha. All right. Any other questions for the arbors? | 00:44:13 | |
All right. We'll go ahead and have you sit down. Thank you very much. | 00:44:21 | |
All right. | 00:44:24 | |
With that, we'll go ahead and move into. | 00:44:27 | |
Discussion. | 00:44:31 | |
So I'm grateful that the applicant took the time to have the arborist take a look at these and I do like the plan that they've | 00:44:33 | |
presented to try and make sure the canopy is met. | 00:44:39 | |
And with. | 00:44:46 | |
Drainage that they have to put in, yes. The disturbance to the root zone is going to be very problematic in there and it's | 00:44:48 | |
definitely going to impact the long term survival of the trees and push them into a further decline, which it sounds like quite a | 00:44:54 | |
few of them already might may be in. | 00:45:00 | |
That being said, I do have some concerns or reservations just from the. | 00:45:07 | |
Way the ordinance is set up and written currently. | 00:45:14 | |
To allow the. | 00:45:19 | |
Assessment or. | 00:45:21 | |
To allow an arborist. | 00:45:24 | |
To be done by also a company that specializes in removal and this is not targeting any specific company, but I think there may be | 00:45:28 | |
sometimes a conflict of interest. | 00:45:32 | |
If there's financial benefit to. | 00:45:38 | |
Person conducting the report. | 00:45:41 | |
To say, well, we can also take those out for you. Um. | 00:45:44 | |
So I think it might be something looking future into our ordinance and the way it's written, it might be beneficial to have it be. | 00:45:48 | |
Done by a representative who is not in the business also of removal but specializes just in care and. | 00:45:58 | |
Preservation. | 00:46:08 | |
But obviously still take into account when removal is recommended. | 00:46:11 | |
Chair, I'm curious, are there enough companies out there? | 00:46:15 | |
That do this in terms of care and observation that are not. | 00:46:20 | |
Tree removal services or would that be a cumbersome? | 00:46:26 | |
I believe I can think of several off the top of my head that do exist. Are they as large and well established as the one the | 00:46:31 | |
applicant is used? Maybe not, but I do believe there are other companies out there that could provide that and I would just look | 00:46:37 | |
to staff if maybe there's a way to. | 00:46:42 | |
Articulate that better in the ordinance for future. | 00:46:49 | |
Amendment. | 00:46:54 | |
But I think as far as what the applicants have presented tonight. | 00:46:55 | |
Based on the tree health assessment and the fact that he does carry the track certification, which I think is very important in a | 00:47:01 | |
situation like this. | 00:47:05 | |
Safety is paramount, right? Like I'll cut down a whole forest if it means we're going to save someone from Hazard. | 00:47:11 | |
Right. So I think that's definitely something that must be considered. And again, when you talk about the grading and everything | 00:47:16 | |
that's going to go into where this was preserved. | 00:47:21 | |
I don't think the trees would handle the additional stress, so I do agree with the arborists. | 00:47:28 | |
Recommendation based on all those factors. That being said, I do think it's important because of the conversation that we had with | 00:47:34 | |
the applicant 2 months ago back on October 24th. | 00:47:41 | |
Where you know, 50% of the PUD approval for this project was based on trying to protect that Grove of trees that we hold them | 00:47:49 | |
accountable to, ensuring that they're still going to be a sufficient tree canopy of what hopefully the neighbors, the Millers next | 00:47:56 | |
door can call quality or aesthetic trees as opposed to terrible ones. | 00:48:03 | |
To be placed back in there and along with that I might make a recommendation that we also ensure that proper watering. | 00:48:12 | |
Place a factor in that as well. Not just the planting of the trees, but ensuring that proper irrigation techniques is outlined in | 00:48:20 | |
city code as far as drip systems and everything else. | 00:48:25 | |
Are added in there as well to ensure long term viability so that we do obtain that lush canopy. | 00:48:30 | |
That the terrible trees were trying to provide. | 00:48:38 | |
So that's my thoughts and with that I will open it up for other commissioner dialogue, feedback or input on this. | 00:48:42 | |
So Chair, you're suggesting that any requirements moving forward that we have a secondary assessment? | 00:48:51 | |
Not apply in this. | 00:49:00 | |
Correct. I think in this case that would be onerous and outside of what's currently in code. | 00:49:03 | |
And I don't think that's a fair requirement to put on the applicant at this time. And also. | 00:49:10 | |
Is it important moving forward that a secondary assessment be conducted by an organization that? | 00:49:18 | |
Would also be qualified to remove the trees. | 00:49:28 | |
I would be concerned about a secondary organization that specializes or profits from removal. | 00:49:34 | |
Because even though, excuse me, but even though they don't also have the same conflict of interest as would be the case here. | 00:49:42 | |
In other words, the secondary assessment wouldn. | 00:49:50 | |
Provide the conflict of interest. | 00:49:53 | |
We have here. Are you suggesting that they could go with any vendor that can provide an assessment that does removal as long as | 00:49:55 | |
they don't contract that for the applicant? | 00:50:01 | |
I would be interested in that discussion with city staff at a future time. | 00:50:09 | |
I mean, it gives us more flexibility, right? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to limit any business. | 00:50:15 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
32. | 00:00:00 | |
And we will get started with our work meeting in committee or in attendance tonight is everyone. | 00:00:01 | |
Which is great. We all didn't have anything planned for our holidays. So the entire Commission is here and we have our legal | 00:00:09 | |
counsel and both city staff here as well. So we are excited and we have three public hearing items because #4 has been rescheduled | 00:00:16 | |
and then approval of minutes. | 00:00:22 | |
And the calendar, yes, thank you. Can't forget the important meeting scheduled for next year because we want to tweak that maybe. | 00:00:30 | |
So with that we will jump right in and ask Miss Marsh if you would want to cover the first item for us. | 00:00:37 | |
OK, so the first item is Country Pine View subdivision of PUD. This is the landscaping plan amendment. | 00:00:47 | |
Regarding the trees that are in the. | 00:00:56 | |
West N northwest corner of the property on the PUD. Those were designated as remaining on the site, the applicant submitted. | 00:00:58 | |
Assessment by. | 00:01:11 | |
They're AR. | 00:01:13 | |
It's when they went to go and start removing trees that the arbors did their assessments, so that's why they came back to amend | 00:01:15 | |
the landscape plan. | 00:01:18 | |
The amendment that I sent over yesterday does have the new landscaping plan in it. | 00:01:23 | |
Does anyone have any questions on this one? I don't know if I got a chance to Scroll down. Could you just pull that up before us | 00:01:31 | |
real quick so I can see it? | 00:01:35 | |
And this is the one where they're taking out. They propose taking out some trees because they're diseased or near utility lines or | 00:01:44 | |
leaning or whatever, but they're going to add back more than. | 00:01:50 | |
They were. | 00:01:57 | |
Their original plan I. | 00:01:59 | |
Was replacing more than they were removing. This new plan is replacing the same amount that they're removing OK? | 00:02:01 | |
So they had some cushion that was already built into their prior approved. | 00:02:11 | |
I think we've got one more page. | 00:02:17 | |
So are they not proposing to replace that Grove then? | 00:02:19 | |
They are. | 00:02:23 | |
With the same number of trees, because that looks like fewer. | 00:02:24 | |
Because on the arborist report that calls for this Grove to be removed, there are, if I remember correctly, 16 trees in total I | 00:02:30 | |
count. | 00:02:35 | |
Seven now in that corner, right? | 00:02:39 | |
That seems like half. | 00:02:42 | |
My mistake. And if they put the tree somewhere else. | 00:02:45 | |
I believe they added some more up in the front. | 00:02:48 | |
Unless you have additional requirements to meet one. For one, it's the canopy spread 1:00 to 1:00. | 00:02:53 | |
So that old clump of trees met 900 square feet and they have the seven trees that. | 00:02:59 | |
At full maturity will equal that 900 square feet. That's the ordinance. But this is a PUD. | 00:03:05 | |
You've already granted flexible setbacks. | 00:03:11 | |
To this project so conditional uses. | 00:03:14 | |
Flexibility to requests are warranted. | 00:03:18 | |
It's up to you. | 00:03:21 | |
OK. I mean, I'm OK with less trees, Do we? What are the trees they're planning to put in there? A whole bunch of Norway maples? | 00:03:22 | |
And what are the larger ones? | 00:03:27 | |
Let me zoom in on that the London plane. | 00:03:32 | |
Which is a Sycamore tree which gets anthrax in the entire city is riddled with problems with those. | 00:03:35 | |
Unless they get the disease resistant variety, which I don't think has been invented yet. | 00:03:43 | |
Such an interesting knowledge base I have. Just random stuff when it comes to trees. Sorry, it's that arborist in me. | 00:03:49 | |
And there's their canopy notes on there. So 12,513 square feet of canopy removed and 13,522 to be replaced. | 00:03:56 | |
So just about 1000 square feet more is what they're proposing back in. | 00:04:06 | |
So have the trees been removed? | 00:04:13 | |
The ones that were originally permitted to be removed have been so the neighbor whose comments were in the report. | 00:04:16 | |
Said it. | 00:04:24 | |
He basically took everything out. I'm just curious if we. | 00:04:26 | |
We typically want them to get this type of approval before they start chopping those things down, right? Right. And he went in and | 00:04:29 | |
started removing the trees that we already approved to be removed on the site plan. | 00:04:35 | |
Thanks for that clarification. | 00:04:42 | |
This property does have four housing units being placed on it and then kind of a unique shape with it being narrow at the bottom, | 00:04:45 | |
so. | 00:04:49 | |
What was reviewed? | 00:04:54 | |
Preliminary kind of the placement of the houses around existing trees. | 00:04:56 | |
I think there were not a lot of trees that were going to remain on there just based off the coverage and the amount of units that. | 00:05:03 | |
Were permitted for the. | 00:05:11 | |
Memory serves, this was two or three meetings ago, but one of the conditions or one of the requests for the PUD and the setbacks | 00:05:15 | |
to be allowed to be moved like that wasn't just for the aesthetics, but also because they initially were talking about wanting to | 00:05:21 | |
protect this Grove of trees, right? | 00:05:27 | |
There is the trees and then also angling houses so that there's more open space. That's common, right? So they wanted it | 00:05:34 | |
aesthetically for the house placement and. | 00:05:39 | |
Secondly, for this Grove of trees, which now the person who has removed all the trees says, Oh my gosh, these trees are sick too. | 00:05:43 | |
You should let me remove them. | 00:05:47 | |
Essentially, right, right. | 00:05:52 | |
Carrie, at what point do we concern ourselves with Canopy, in other words? | 00:05:55 | |
He can replace trees. | 00:06:00 | |
But if he replaces them with saplings? | 00:06:03 | |
The canopy. | 00:06:05 | |
Not going to. | 00:06:08 | |
Reveal itself for many years, right? Our ordinance does say that they have to have the same canopy at maturity. | 00:06:09 | |
So they're replaced with 1 1/2 diameter caliper trees. | 00:06:17 | |
That's the requirement. So it is specified in our code that they have to be at least 1 1/2 inch caliper tree. That's measured at | 00:06:24 | |
chest height. | 00:06:28 | |
And then the canopy has to reach the maturity of what was removed, so that could be 20 years. | 00:06:34 | |
Right. | 00:06:43 | |
19 proposed. | 00:07:06 | |
So are they 3000? | 00:07:08 | |
Square feet short. | 00:07:11 | |
So those were initial calculations that I had off of their original before they submitted their what their actual landscape plan | 00:07:15 | |
was. It was here's kind of a rough estimate of these trees that they're now proposing to be removed, but I didn't have actual | 00:07:21 | |
square footage from them yet. | 00:07:27 | |
Brad, did you have a? | 00:07:35 | |
Yeah, just just to give you some maybe a little bit of insight here. So this is the. | 00:07:36 | |
In my experience, the most aggressive progressive tree preservation plant in the state. | 00:07:43 | |
Ordinance in the state. I'm not saying there's no room for improving anything. I'm just telling you that this. | 00:07:49 | |
Is, I would say and I remember. | 00:07:55 | |
I'm going to forget his name. He used to be on the council. He is an attorney. | 00:08:00 | |
Yeah, Steve Gunn, he was a big proponent of this. He was assigned to the tree committee and I remember doing quite a bit of | 00:08:04 | |
research for him on this particular issue and turning it over all to him. And then he helped, you know, take that research and | 00:08:10 | |
provided. | 00:08:15 | |
Created a draft, you know him and I worked together and creating a draft for that tree preservation ordinance and then it went | 00:08:21 | |
through several. | 00:08:24 | |
Iterations and revisions at the tree committee, and that's how we ended up with this, but it is. | 00:08:28 | |
We tried to make sure it was constitutional so we could do, we could regulate in the way we did and you know, unfortunately you're | 00:08:35 | |
it's really difficult to transplant a 50 year old tree. | 00:08:41 | |
And have it survive. | 00:08:47 | |
And so we are taking out old trees and mature, replacing them with. | 00:08:48 | |
But overtime? | 00:08:53 | |
It should you know main. | 00:08:55 | |
And potentially increase the the actual tree canopy in the city. So anyway just wanted to give you a little bit of background on | 00:08:59 | |
that, but. | 00:09:03 | |
I think after our pre meeting that Commissioner Roche. | 00:09:08 | |
Chair Roach has some ideas on how to strengthen or some he wants to make some requests to strengthen this so that we can | 00:09:13 | |
potentially avoid these kind of things. Yeah, I think I'll I'll wait and do a little bit of fact finding with the applicant to to | 00:09:19 | |
ensure my understanding and comprehension of how this was put together before I move forward with any recommendation or requests. | 00:09:26 | |
And I think as as you as we talked in the pre meeting, I think it is perfectly. | 00:09:32 | |
Within the Commission's purview to request staff to come back with some ways that we could strengthen this, I've got. | 00:09:40 | |
You know, we talked, we identified a couple of ideas and I think they're. | 00:09:48 | |
You know, I'm almost certain there are probably some that we didn't think about. So anyway, perfect, thank you. What would that | 00:09:52 | |
mean from a practical standpoint? | 00:09:55 | |
With regard to what we're facing tonight. | 00:10:00 | |
You know that when you're taking out this number of trees and there is a question on whether or not. | 00:10:04 | |
For example, the Arborist report went into sufficient detail and provide sufficient evidence. | 00:10:12 | |
That the trees actually are diseased or dying, I. | 00:10:20 | |
Is there an opportunity for the city to challenge that or to, you know, at the city's expense, get their own expert to review? | 00:10:24 | |
That report, maybe you could beef up what the report requires. | 00:10:31 | |
When they're taking out, I mean the larger the Grove that you're taking out, the larger number of. | 00:10:35 | |
The more detailed the report has to be. | 00:10:40 | |
Things along those lines are kind of things that were kind of discussed. | 00:10:42 | |
So perhaps we would want to continue this. | 00:10:46 | |
So here's where I would say that there's. | 00:10:50 | |
Potentially. | 00:10:55 | |
I'm not saying there's not a hill that's worth fighting for. | 00:10:59 | |
But the particular tree species might play into that and whether this is the right hill. | 00:11:05 | |
In other words, we are talking about a Grove of Russian olives and Siberian Elms. Siberian Elms, which are not regarded as the | 00:11:11 | |
most aesthetic. | 00:11:16 | |
And highly invasive in some areas in fact. So it's not necessarily the quality of what's there, it's just the fact that it's there | 00:11:24 | |
and we're going to lose it and is there. | 00:11:30 | |
Enough justification based on someones opinion who works for a tree removal company to justify removing a Grove of trees in our | 00:11:36 | |
city. This just may not be the. I'm not saying there's not a hill that is worth. | 00:11:43 | |
Looking into that, but we need it would help to have a strengthened ordinance in addition to. | 00:11:50 | |
Finding the right hill, right. Well, yeah, I think if I might just clarify, up until this point you've been presented with | 00:11:56 | |
documents that. | 00:12:01 | |
Is providing a development pattern which hinges on the preservation of this growth of trees or more. | 00:12:06 | |
When you get to a point where you're like where your shovel hits the dirt and you start realizing. | 00:12:14 | |
Well, this house might be placed in a way that we can't get to those trees. If they do die or if they need to be maintained | 00:12:19 | |
another way, let's address them now. | 00:12:23 | |
And we're backtracking. That's what we're doing right now. We're backtracking it back into a preliminary level review. | 00:12:28 | |
So if this if you believe that this consideration hinders the way you approve the setbacks for this PUD. | 00:12:33 | |
That's in play. | 00:12:41 | |
So not necessarily the type of tree, or, you know, whether it's diseased or not. You developed a development pattern. You created | 00:12:47 | |
a contingent development pattern upon trees that were supposed to be protected. | 00:12:53 | |
So, you know, does the layout of the trees now in this configuration warranty the flexibility and setbacks? | 00:13:00 | |
That that could be a way that some considerations to think about. | 00:13:07 | |
Nobody on this Commission thought they'd spend this much time talking about tree placement, did they? It's great. | 00:13:13 | |
I see this as an opportunity to get rid of a lot of bad trees. | 00:13:20 | |
Especially ones that are power lines that we're all spending our money. | 00:13:25 | |
I had a house like that right before the cities ordinance went and we pulled all the trees out. | 00:13:31 | |
Power lines in the corner for the same reason it was not worth. | 00:13:38 | |
In there. | 00:13:42 | |
At some point, trees. | 00:13:48 | |
Agreed. | 00:13:51 | |
Good option to do that when. | 00:13:55 | |
I absolutely agree and please don't regard me as the the tree hugging hippie that thinks to save them all. I just. | 00:14:00 | |
Well, one thing that I might from a personal arborist. | 00:14:10 | |
Perspective challenge in this particular situation. | 00:14:22 | |
Is there a larger tree further into the lot line that doesn't actually impact power lines and is that really that disease and sick | 00:14:26 | |
based on the arborist report or are we talking about slime flux on a branch that was found at the top of the tree and now this 45 | 00:14:32 | |
foot established tree needs to come out? | 00:14:39 | |
A word that's allowed for. | 00:14:47 | |
City evaluation. | 00:14:49 | |
An evaluation. | 00:14:51 | |
Right. With all of that said, I I just think it's important as long as tree discussion is within our purview that we remember that | 00:14:54 | |
the tree canopy is one of the things that sets holiday apart. | 00:15:00 | |
But I will say this, I am pro property rights and I don't want anyone to tell me I can't cut down a tree I don't like on my | 00:15:08 | |
property or a disease sick tree. But I will comply with city code if required to put it back or get a permit to do so. And in this | 00:15:15 | |
particular case, I think it warrants A heavier discussion than just a simple property ownership, property rights situation because | 00:15:22 | |
of the meeting we had three meetings ago or two meetings ago. | 00:15:28 | |
Regarding the request. | 00:15:35 | |
To adjust the PUD and the placement of the homes based contingent on aesthetics and the trees. | 00:15:37 | |
So with that, sorry, but any other questions about this one before we move to the next item? | 00:15:45 | |
All right, roll into #2 carry. | 00:15:51 | |
All right, #2 is for a building footprint size for an existing building. Currently, the building is over the allowed footprint | 00:15:54 | |
size For an accessory building. They're making some modifications on the footprint, and with the modifications, it does require a | 00:16:00 | |
conditional use permit. | 00:16:06 | |
So the footprint is detailed. There's a area that's being removed and then area that's being added. | 00:16:13 | |
Any questions on this? | 00:16:24 | |
Is the. | 00:16:26 | |
The home that was removed from this site, is that in a plan to be put back in and this will still continue to be an accessory to | 00:16:28 | |
this 'cause, I mean at this point this is kind of the main building at this right? They do have a building permit for a for a | 00:16:34 | |
residence. Primary use of the property is residential. | 00:16:40 | |
So this will continue to be accessory building. | 00:16:48 | |
Under the building footprint maximum, I was looking at each of the size of the properties they had to be. Is there a maximum the | 00:16:53 | |
accessory building can be? There's not a maximum. OK, so as long as the conditional use permit, you could go well beyond. | 00:17:01 | |
Right. What would come into play is lot coverage. Percentage structures can only cover a certain percent of the setbacks and so | 00:17:09 | |
forth. Would kick in, and that would kind of restrict how big ultimately could be. But it still has to get a conditional use for | 00:17:16 | |
being over the maximum outright permitted. | 00:17:23 | |
What is the percentage of lot size that can be covered by an accessory building? | 00:17:31 | |
Generalities I mean. | 00:17:39 | |
10%, twenty percent, 50% Usually for a structure it. | 00:17:41 | |
As the property size increases, then your percentage goes down. I want to say for an acre it's 30. | 00:17:46 | |
35%. | 00:17:54 | |
John Gino off the top of your head. | 00:17:56 | |
That's why I don't memorize these things. I'm looking at our discussion. I'm just recognizing that it's a 10 acre property, so. | 00:17:59 | |
Strikes me. | 00:18:07 | |
There's a lot of percentage to work with there. | 00:18:09 | |
1% is 10,000 square feet, so I might have missed it, but is there? | 00:18:12 | |
A picture of where it's going to be on the lot. I could see the lot and I could see the building up, but I I might it's not a full | 00:18:20 | |
picture of the of the site, but this does show the property boundary that is on. | 00:18:27 | |
The oh, I'm not sure what side of the property it's. | 00:18:35 | |
Oh, I see. I didn't recognize that as a property. Yeah, so the solid line is a property boundary. So this is where the building | 00:18:40 | |
is. They're already very close to the property line, and they're making it bigger. They're pretty far from the property line. So | 00:18:47 | |
here's where the building is. The property line is out here. Oh, I see. Yep, I see it now. Got it. | 00:18:54 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:01 | |
And looking at this diagram just so I have my bearings straight and I know I'm looking at it right, the. | 00:19:03 | |
House that was there, The estate house was to the right of this. Yes. OK. | 00:19:07 | |
Commissioner Prince, yes, I think we already presumed it was. It's a large number, but it's. | 00:19:13 | |
20% of the lot size that's owned can be covered in structures. | 00:19:19 | |
For this works out to be 87,000 square feet. So we're. | 00:19:23 | |
I believe so. Good to know well based on what the building footprint for the house and then the existing other two houses that are | 00:19:28 | |
on that right And we do evaluate that lot coverage when building permits are submitted. | 00:19:33 | |
OK, good. | 00:19:39 | |
Any other questions on this one? | 00:19:42 | |
The other thing to note there is that I believe two or three trees are being removed. That's on this plan. | 00:19:46 | |
They're small XS on here. They're a little bit hard to see. | 00:19:55 | |
Do they have a replacement 1 here? | 00:20:01 | |
On this corner. | 00:20:04 | |
And then there's a couple of down here. And so their landscape plan is this next plan. | 00:20:06 | |
You can see an addition of trees here. They're planting multiple trees across the site. | 00:20:12 | |
But that can be a specific condition of trees being removed by this addition to the building be replaced on the site. Is that in | 00:20:19 | |
the? | 00:20:24 | |
Suggested motion. I don't believe I have a suggested motion for the tree. You can note that if that is something you'd want to | 00:20:30 | |
consider. | 00:20:34 | |
And that's also something that we check for on the on the building permit. So with the building footprint affecting trees being | 00:20:40 | |
removed, those ones would be required to be replaced. | 00:20:47 | |
Which it sounds like they're putting 2 to one if they're putting those six out front, OK. | 00:20:54 | |
All right, perfect. Any other questions on item 2? | 00:20:59 | |
All right. And then lastly is item 3, the text amendment that we're all excited to hear you've been working on. | 00:21:04 | |
Yes, So this is for home occupations, the basic. | 00:21:11 | |
Outline of this is one thing that we wanted to address was parking that became an issue for one of our prior conditional use | 00:21:16 | |
permits. Also being able to approve home occupations with a set list of standards instead of having them be reviewed by the | 00:21:22 | |
Planning Commission with a conditional use permit. | 00:21:29 | |
So additional languages added. There's some highlighted portions. | 00:21:36 | |
That there's some flexibility on any other things that you'd want to add. | 00:21:42 | |
Can be added in. We just note that and that would then go to planning or to City Council. If there was a positive recommendation, | 00:21:49 | |
you could have the conditions of with language. | 00:21:54 | |
Specific, You know, outline whatever you wanted to add in or change in the proposed language. | 00:22:00 | |
Kind of. The key points on this are hours. | 00:22:11 | |
7:00 AM to 10:00. | 00:22:14 | |
Not exceeding 6 people at A. | 00:22:16 | |
The on street parking would be approved in certain conditions or circumstances. | 00:22:20 | |
Usually if there's an unsafe circumstance or property access, that can be tweaked if that is something that you feel would be | 00:22:26 | |
unreasonable. | 00:22:30 | |
Off site parking agreements can be utilized. | 00:22:36 | |
And I added in a temporary exceedance of the allowed parking on site can occur twice within a month. | 00:22:40 | |
So that accounts for like recitals or graduations or other kinds of big larger group events that require more people to be there. | 00:22:50 | |
That can be adjusted as well or removed entirely. | 00:22:58 | |
I'm only concerned with that and we can talk about that in the work meeting might just. | 00:23:02 | |
How does that work from an enforcement standpoint like who's out there measuring you know like what's what's looky loo neighbor or | 00:23:07 | |
we encouraging to track it was more than twice that they had more than one car out front. | 00:23:13 | |
You could add in language about a single event permit being required if they were to have an event associated with their home | 00:23:20 | |
occupation. | 00:23:24 | |
So you're saying that the items that are highlighted in green are the items that we have an opportunity to weigh in on, Those are | 00:23:28 | |
some that are identified, any anything else is open to discussion as well if there's particular pieces that you'd like to see | 00:23:34 | |
added or pieces that you'd like to see removed. | 00:23:40 | |
Can you give us an idea on the parameters for the on street parking? | 00:23:49 | |
What if they want to have? They'll say the parking is a block away. | 00:23:55 | |
To me it doesn't do any good unless there is a distance to the site so that. | 00:24:00 | |
So what are what are you thinking as far as letting the? | 00:24:05 | |
Director make that approval. | 00:24:10 | |
But what is that based on? It is just. | 00:24:12 | |
I don't see any parameters by which they have to be measured by to make sure that. | 00:24:18 | |
They're in compliance and makes the directors position, so he's not just changing. | 00:24:23 | |
So we could say within a distance of 100 feet or. | 00:24:30 | |
There's or immediately adjacent to the property owner's property, or if that's not available then across the street or one house | 00:24:36 | |
down. Because you do run into issues sometimes with corner properties where you can't park right in front of the house, so then it | 00:24:43 | |
would have to be adjusted. That's one of those safety issues. | 00:24:51 | |
But we could put a distance on that. I think that would be reasonable. | 00:25:00 | |
OK, good catalog. | 00:25:04 | |
All right. Any other questions on item three? Yeah, one more. How much of the parking can they have on street? Are you thinking | 00:25:08 | |
the entire requirement they could use on street parking? | 00:25:13 | |
Or is. | 00:25:19 | |
They would have to have specific circumstances that they detail in their application in order for. | 00:25:21 | |
On street parking to be approved. | 00:25:28 | |
The parking is detailed that it has to be has all parking has to be on site. | 00:25:31 | |
Except if there are circumstances where there's personal property. | 00:25:36 | |
Access issues or unsafe conditions then we could look outside of that on site requirement. | 00:25:43 | |
So at this point in time, you're not sure if it'll be all acceptable off the site, I mean. | 00:25:48 | |
They can park on the street 100% or half and OK there would be some circumstances that that may occur where. | 00:25:54 | |
All of their parking would be on. | 00:26:04 | |
You said, Do you see the difficulty? I don't want to put you guys into another type of thing where you're having to try and figure | 00:26:07 | |
out what's the best way to interpret the codes. I think we want to make it as simple as possible. | 00:26:13 | |
Because you're not going to be able to meet everybody. | 00:26:20 | |
You know, difficulty with having on site parking. | 00:26:24 | |
Would it be acceptable to do limited to one on street parking space? | 00:26:27 | |
Are you asking me? | 00:26:34 | |
Yes. | 00:26:36 | |
So I know that. So we had a we had an issue a couple of months ago if you remember that is kind of driving the state law changes, | 00:26:38 | |
but there's also. | 00:26:42 | |
A couple of other issues that are changing kind. | 00:26:47 | |
Creating the catalyst for bringing this out. | 00:26:50 | |
And it's kind of, I don't want to say it's an unintended consequence, but it's a consequence that. | 00:26:54 | |
May be encompassing too much. How about that? | 00:27:00 | |
And so there are particular situations, for example, a corner lot. You can't park in front of a corner lot without violating | 00:27:06 | |
Clearview, right? So. | 00:27:10 | |
Are you basically saying, well the person on the corner because they can't violate peer review therefore, and they only and they | 00:27:15 | |
have a shared driveway. They can't have a home based business period and a discussion move on next person. | 00:27:20 | |
Right. I mean, that's kind of the situation that we're trying to address in this particular thing. | 00:27:25 | |
The default. | 00:27:31 | |
Isn't on street parking. That's not the default. The default is off street parking, and it leaves the director some flexibility if | 00:27:33 | |
there are some circumstances that make it impossible to comply. | 00:27:39 | |
With the on site parking. | 00:27:45 | |
So that's kind of and if there's suggestions in language and we want to tighten something up, I mean certainly. | 00:27:48 | |
There's an opportunity to look at that and make some recommendations. | 00:27:54 | |
Making some adjustments or changes to that, I mean that's certainly within your purview. | 00:27:58 | |
As. | 00:28:03 | |
But that's kind of the idea behind this is we had a situation where. | 00:28:04 | |
A particular home that has. | 00:28:09 | |
The way the code is written, she can't comply. | 00:28:11 | |
End of discussion. I mean, she either has to move. | 00:28:14 | |
Or do offsite parking, or get some parking across parking arrangement with the neighbor. | 00:28:17 | |
Basically, and so it's. | 00:28:25 | |
And this was for a music lessons, if you recall. I know most of you are here. | 00:28:28 | |
But so this. | 00:28:33 | |
And the other thing. | 00:28:36 | |
How much, how much regulation should we have on? So certainly we have a safety issue when plowing needs to happen, right? | 00:28:40 | |
But we have an aesthetic issue. | 00:28:47 | |
Not necessary safety issues, aesthetic issue, if everybody's parking on the street as well, right? And we know that's a problem | 00:28:49 | |
and we know that number one, one of the biggest. | 00:28:53 | |
Complaint generators in that city is on street parking. | 00:28:58 | |
So, but we're trying to come up with some with a kind of a regulatory. | 00:29:03 | |
Pattern that. | 00:29:08 | |
Has some flexibility, but doesn't open. | 00:29:09 | |
The floodgates to create even more. | 00:29:13 | |
Complaints, but allows for individuals. | 00:29:15 | |
That are doing music less. | 00:29:19 | |
They live on a corner. | 00:29:21 | |
But we also have language elsewhere in the document about. | 00:29:22 | |
Less in home. | 00:29:26 | |
For up to six people. | 00:29:28 | |
So what do we do in that case if we've got six students at a time? | 00:29:30 | |
Do we? I mean, does the teacher have to suggest carpooling? Yeah, And that's I'm going to have you table that question until we | 00:29:35 | |
actually get to the discussion on the the. | 00:29:40 | |
Agenda in the full formal meeting because it sounds like we've got some great jumping off points for that discussion. So hold on | 00:29:45 | |
to those, don't lose them because we'll we'll come back to them here. But with that, any other questions during our work meeting | 00:29:51 | |
before we roll into the official meeting? | 00:29:56 | |
OK. And just real quick. Well, with that we'll go ahead and close the work meeting. Does anyone need a quick brief recess for any | 00:30:04 | |
reason before we start the work meeting? | 00:30:08 | |
All right, we're ready to rock'n'roll. | 00:30:14 | |
So with that we will get started. It is 6:02 PM. | 00:30:16 | |
And welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on December 19. | 00:30:20 | |
We are going to go through three different public hearing items today and then we have approval of meeting changes and minutes | 00:30:26 | |
after those. | 00:30:31 | |
As with every meeting, we have a list of things which we read to the public, and I have asked Commissioner Barron if he would do | 00:30:38 | |
that for us. | 00:30:43 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:30:48 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning, map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:30:54 | |
subdivisions. | 00:31:00 | |
The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications. | 00:31:06 | |
Rather acts on the applications as they are submitted. | 00:31:09 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed meetings. | 00:31:13 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit attempt to visit each property on the agenda. | 00:31:18 | |
Where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures and uses related to the proposed use are proposed chain | 00:31:24 | |
are noted. | 00:31:29 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the city's general plan, zoning | 00:31:33 | |
ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments. | 00:31:39 | |
And evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public record. | 00:31:46 | |
Excellent. Thank you very much for that, Commissioner Barron. And with that we will get started on our meeting. We have on item | 00:31:51 | |
number one country Pineview Landscaping plan amendment. | 00:31:57 | |
And we will ask city staff if they will go ahead and walk us through the particulars before we invite the applicant up for that. | 00:32:03 | |
Thank you, Chair Roche. The first item is a subdivision plan amendment or PUD plan amendment for a landscaping plan. This PUD was | 00:32:19 | |
approved with a Grove of trees on the northwest side of the property that was going to stay on the lot. | 00:32:28 | |
The applicant went in and started removing trees that were approved to be removed on their PUD plan and their arborist. | 00:32:39 | |
Provided an assessment stating that trees on that northwest corner that were originally. | 00:32:51 | |
Designated to remain on the property were had various disease or other issues with them and recommended removal. So on the OR the | 00:32:57 | |
applicant submitted that assessment by their arborist and a new landscaping plan and I will have the applicant come up and they | 00:33:05 | |
can detail that. Great. Thank you very much. And do we have Grant Harrison here today as the applicant. | 00:33:14 | |
I'm going to defer to my son who is a little more. | 00:33:23 | |
Excellent. If you'll state your name and address for the record and go ahead. Good evening. Mark Harrison, obviously grandson, I'm | 00:33:28 | |
the general contractor and developing partner that will actually be building the homes on this site. | 00:33:33 | |
Like Carrie said. | 00:33:39 | |
We're here to ask for an addendum to the existing proposed or approved plan. As we started the project, we removed the items that | 00:33:41 | |
were scheduled to be removed. | 00:33:46 | |
But in the process we were left with this Grove of trees in the corner. | 00:33:52 | |
We approached our tree experts, which were diamond tree experts, were actually doing the removal and said to them, you know, what | 00:33:56 | |
can we do with this Grove of trees that is in this corner to make it look? | 00:34:01 | |
Good. Beneficial. | 00:34:07 | |
In this corner consists 15 trees, roughly. | 00:34:10 | |
13 Siberian Elms, 1 box elder and an apple tree. | 00:34:14 | |
Roughly. | 00:34:18 | |
These trees have not been touched in probably over 50 years extremely. | 00:34:20 | |
Unmaintained. | 00:34:26 | |
There is a lot of deadfall consistent in the trees right now. The Northside of the property is being topped by Rocky Mountain | 00:34:28 | |
Power, trying to keep their power lines safe. | 00:34:33 | |
There's. | 00:34:39 | |
Large trees hanging over the neighbor's property. We just we wanted to see, you know, can we can we trim them up? Can we lift them | 00:34:41 | |
up? Can we prune them? Can we make them look good? They just don't believe that it's worth the effort to try and save the trees. | 00:34:47 | |
We would propose that we come in, take out the existing trees, plant an equal number of trees to replace those just like we are | 00:34:54 | |
with the previous ones that we have removed. | 00:35:00 | |
And try and make that a little bit. | 00:35:07 | |
More quality trees than box. | 00:35:10 | |
You know those type of trees? | 00:35:14 | |
We understand that the tree ordinance, you know, holiday is holiday because of the tree cover, the canopy that they do have. We | 00:35:17 | |
want to maintain that, but we just don't feel that these trees that have not been touched in 60 years and pose A relative amount | 00:35:24 | |
of danger to property owners. | 00:35:30 | |
And the and we just don't believe. | 00:35:37 | |
We can do better. We can replace them. They've kind of reached their lifespan and we can do better and have them be something | 00:35:41 | |
beneficial for this property that is going to be. | 00:35:46 | |
Appreciate that. And if you do have any questions, we do have the arborist here that did the report and he can answer the disease | 00:35:53 | |
questions. Well, the first question I'd like to ask you, if I May is what was the date of, I did not see it on the arborist report | 00:35:59 | |
that was submitted to us. What was the date of this assessment? | 00:36:05 | |
Before we started removing any trees, it doesn't have a date on it. | 00:36:13 | |
But it. | 00:36:19 | |
It was. | 00:36:20 | |
Do you remember what day we did that, November 16, 1116? | 00:36:23 | |
OK. I appreciate that. And if perhaps city staff can just refresh my member. | 00:36:33 | |
What was the date we approved the PUD? | 00:36:40 | |
Request for this October 24th, October 24th, OK. | 00:36:45 | |
So this was just a couple weeks later. | 00:36:50 | |
And to also clarify. | 00:36:53 | |
Diamond Tree is who you've contracted with. They were contracted to do the removal on all the other trees and then at that time | 00:36:56 | |
provided you with this assessment. | 00:37:01 | |
Appreciate that. | 00:37:09 | |
Commissioners, do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? | 00:37:11 | |
Just because I'm new, Wendy anticipates starting construction on the. | 00:37:15 | |
Homes. We still have the development to do so we've just cleared the lot. We just demoed the house and demo the trees and that's | 00:37:20 | |
where we are. | 00:37:23 | |
So typically in this kind of situation, I'm not the expert. Do you plant now in the winter or wait till the spring? | 00:37:26 | |
Probably planting will happen after the houses are built. OK. OK. That's kind of what I was going. So, all right, thank you. As a | 00:37:35 | |
general rule of thumb, it's, it's difficult for the trees if there's heavy equipment and you know those. | 00:37:42 | |
Construction conditions, that's why my question. Yeah, good question. Thank you. One thing I might just add is we do, we are | 00:37:49 | |
required to put in a large French grain system that is on the West side of the property and if you go to, I don't know if you can | 00:37:54 | |
pull up page 4. | 00:37:59 | |
Of not the landscape plan but the regular plan. I don't have those, but I can pull it up. There is a large French drain that we | 00:38:05 | |
have to put in and. | 00:38:09 | |
It does encroach on that Grove of trees. We will have to put in a dry well. | 00:38:13 | |
Right on the edge of this group of trees. | 00:38:19 | |
Which is going to require a large amount of excavation. | 00:38:23 | |
And will that well impact your landscape trees that you're proposing to put in there in a way to where it will limit their ability | 00:38:27 | |
to reach that full canopy maturity over time? | 00:38:34 | |
And it's all buried and then we can plant around it. | 00:38:42 | |
Totally fine. OK. I see. All right, Commissioners, any other questions? | 00:38:49 | |
OK, we'll go ahead and have you sit. Commissioners, did we want to invite the, well, I guess should we take public comment and | 00:38:54 | |
then invite the arborist or take public comment? | 00:38:59 | |
Your purview chair. All right, well. | 00:39:06 | |
Let's. | 00:39:10 | |
All right, let's go ahead. We're going to open the public meeting and invite anyone up to the wants to make comment on the | 00:39:12 | |
landscaping plan amendment. We do ask that if you come up, you state your name and address for the record and that you try and be | 00:39:19 | |
brief and direct to the point with your comments taking no more than three or 4 minutes. And then if you are following someone | 00:39:25 | |
who's already made comments that you do not reiterate the same comments made. | 00:39:31 | |
And with that, we'll invite any members of the public that we should come up at this time. | 00:39:39 | |
Hi, I'm Megan Miller and I live at 2775 E, 4510 S which is right next door. | 00:39:46 | |
And that Grove of trees, they're terrible trees. | 00:39:54 | |
There were beautiful trees taken off that had to be taken off and those are, those are really bad trees. I can't imagine anyone. | 00:39:59 | |
Living in that in a brand new house that would want those trees in their backyard. So that's our input right next door, looking at | 00:40:06 | |
them all the time. And if you if you could just expand on that to Miss Miller, What is it that makes them terrible, Theresa? | 00:40:13 | |
They're they're kind of half dying, and they're not quality trees. They're not the kind of tree that someone would want to plant. | 00:40:22 | |
You know, if they wanted landscaping, if they'd built a brand new house, I would take them out if I built a house there. | 00:40:28 | |
OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. | 00:40:34 | |
My name is Scott Miller. I'm Megan's husband next door. Anyway, for years I've been going over there and helping Mrs. Sweet and | 00:40:45 | |
kind of maintain some of that area. | 00:40:51 | |
And in fact, I took a lot of the dead fall and I. | 00:40:57 | |
Stand them up against the fence to try to keep the deer out of there and their big large deadfalls. They just. | 00:41:00 | |
Crack off and they're just, it's just a junk tree. They're really hard to maintain and they're hard to keep clean. | 00:41:07 | |
We were all for taking him out, OK? | 00:41:14 | |
Thank you. Appreciate that. That's very helpful. | 00:41:17 | |
And with that, any other members of the public that wish to make comment on the trees at this time? | 00:41:21 | |
All right. And with that, I believe we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. They did bring the arborist. So I think it's only | 00:41:28 | |
fair that we invite the representative from Diamond to come up and make any comment on this. | 00:41:34 | |
On these terrible trees. | 00:41:40 | |
Hey everybody, My name is Sean Sortland. I am the certified arborist who works with diamond tree experts. | 00:41:44 | |
I live at 1541 S 200 W in Bountiful, UT. | 00:41:49 | |
Yeah, these trees. I agree with the Millers completely. Everyone of the Elms is exhibiting. | 00:41:55 | |
Slime flux, which is a bacterial infection. It leads to rot in the trees and it's also. | 00:42:03 | |
It's gathering right in the union of the Co dominant lead, so I'm not sure if you guys were. | 00:42:11 | |
What neighbor you are, but some of the larger trees they are compromised. | 00:42:19 | |
They all have included bark with these codominant leads. That compromises them and makes them less strong. | 00:42:23 | |
Everyone of the Elms also exhibited signs of leaf miners. | 00:42:31 | |
Which will dramatically. | 00:42:35 | |
Decrease the canopy of these trees because they feast on the leaves and then. | 00:42:37 | |
They produce little flies that fly around everywhere and, you know, make enjoying your backyard pretty tough. | 00:42:44 | |
The apple tree is totally dead. That's not coming back at all. And then the box elder after years of Rocky Mountain power | 00:42:51 | |
hammering on it. I'm sure there are many capitals and other weak unions up there too, that. | 00:42:57 | |
You know that tree should just be removed? | 00:43:04 | |
Even if they were cleaned. | 00:43:08 | |
With the hazards in the upper canopy would be pretty unsafe for you know any little kids playing in the backyard, anybody just | 00:43:10 | |
trying to enjoy their space back there. So, and I appreciate you mentioning your is a certified. I was just curious are you also | 00:43:15 | |
track certified? | 00:43:20 | |
And for anyone not aware, track is Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, which is an additional certification by ISA. | 00:43:26 | |
And so this line flux you found to be in the main trunk of the trees on everyone of them. It wasn't like higher up on branches. | 00:43:34 | |
They're kind of bad. I could e-mail you them too really quick if you wanted to bring them up on your computer, but. | 00:43:44 | |
Yeah, every single one of the Elms exhibited this. | 00:43:51 | |
Slime. | 00:43:55 | |
OK. And then as far as determining leaf miners, I'm assuming being in November, you were looking at the leaves on the ground. Well | 00:43:56 | |
you could see the the, the leaves that were still on. I mean you can see some of the little larva still inside of the leaves that | 00:44:01 | |
didn't make it out. You know it's it's pretty obvious to tell. | 00:44:07 | |
I have pictures of those too, if you'd like. OK, gotcha. All right. Any other questions for the arbors? | 00:44:13 | |
All right. We'll go ahead and have you sit down. Thank you very much. | 00:44:21 | |
All right. | 00:44:24 | |
With that, we'll go ahead and move into. | 00:44:27 | |
Discussion. | 00:44:31 | |
So I'm grateful that the applicant took the time to have the arborist take a look at these and I do like the plan that they've | 00:44:33 | |
presented to try and make sure the canopy is met. | 00:44:39 | |
And with. | 00:44:46 | |
Drainage that they have to put in, yes. The disturbance to the root zone is going to be very problematic in there and it's | 00:44:48 | |
definitely going to impact the long term survival of the trees and push them into a further decline, which it sounds like quite a | 00:44:54 | |
few of them already might may be in. | 00:45:00 | |
That being said, I do have some concerns or reservations just from the. | 00:45:07 | |
Way the ordinance is set up and written currently. | 00:45:14 | |
To allow the. | 00:45:19 | |
Assessment or. | 00:45:21 | |
To allow an arborist. | 00:45:24 | |
To be done by also a company that specializes in removal and this is not targeting any specific company, but I think there may be | 00:45:28 | |
sometimes a conflict of interest. | 00:45:32 | |
If there's financial benefit to. | 00:45:38 | |
Person conducting the report. | 00:45:41 | |
To say, well, we can also take those out for you. Um. | 00:45:44 | |
So I think it might be something looking future into our ordinance and the way it's written, it might be beneficial to have it be. | 00:45:48 | |
Done by a representative who is not in the business also of removal but specializes just in care and. | 00:45:58 | |
Preservation. | 00:46:08 | |
But obviously still take into account when removal is recommended. | 00:46:11 | |
Chair, I'm curious, are there enough companies out there? | 00:46:15 | |
That do this in terms of care and observation that are not. | 00:46:20 | |
Tree removal services or would that be a cumbersome? | 00:46:26 | |
I believe I can think of several off the top of my head that do exist. Are they as large and well established as the one the | 00:46:31 | |
applicant is used? Maybe not, but I do believe there are other companies out there that could provide that and I would just look | 00:46:37 | |
to staff if maybe there's a way to. | 00:46:42 | |
Articulate that better in the ordinance for future. | 00:46:49 | |
Amendment. | 00:46:54 | |
But I think as far as what the applicants have presented tonight. | 00:46:55 | |
Based on the tree health assessment and the fact that he does carry the track certification, which I think is very important in a | 00:47:01 | |
situation like this. | 00:47:05 | |
Safety is paramount, right? Like I'll cut down a whole forest if it means we're going to save someone from Hazard. | 00:47:11 | |
Right. So I think that's definitely something that must be considered. And again, when you talk about the grading and everything | 00:47:16 | |
that's going to go into where this was preserved. | 00:47:21 | |
I don't think the trees would handle the additional stress, so I do agree with the arborists. | 00:47:28 | |
Recommendation based on all those factors. That being said, I do think it's important because of the conversation that we had with | 00:47:34 | |
the applicant 2 months ago back on October 24th. | 00:47:41 | |
Where you know, 50% of the PUD approval for this project was based on trying to protect that Grove of trees that we hold them | 00:47:49 | |
accountable to, ensuring that they're still going to be a sufficient tree canopy of what hopefully the neighbors, the Millers next | 00:47:56 | |
door can call quality or aesthetic trees as opposed to terrible ones. | 00:48:03 | |
To be placed back in there and along with that I might make a recommendation that we also ensure that proper watering. | 00:48:12 | |
Place a factor in that as well. Not just the planting of the trees, but ensuring that proper irrigation techniques is outlined in | 00:48:20 | |
city code as far as drip systems and everything else. | 00:48:25 | |
Are added in there as well to ensure long term viability so that we do obtain that lush canopy. | 00:48:30 | |
That the terrible trees were trying to provide. | 00:48:38 | |
So that's my thoughts and with that I will open it up for other commissioner dialogue, feedback or input on this. | 00:48:42 | |
So Chair, you're suggesting that any requirements moving forward that we have a secondary assessment? | 00:48:51 | |
Not apply in this. | 00:49:00 | |
Correct. I think in this case that would be onerous and outside of what's currently in code. | 00:49:03 | |
And I don't think that's a fair requirement to put on the applicant at this time. And also. | 00:49:10 | |
Is it important moving forward that a secondary assessment be conducted by an organization that? | 00:49:18 | |
Would also be qualified to remove the trees. | 00:49:28 | |
I would be concerned about a secondary organization that specializes or profits from removal. | 00:49:34 | |
Because even though, excuse me, but even though they don't also have the same conflict of interest as would be the case here. | 00:49:42 | |
In other words, the secondary assessment wouldn. | 00:49:50 | |
Provide the conflict of interest. | 00:49:53 | |
We have here. Are you suggesting that they could go with any vendor that can provide an assessment that does removal as long as | 00:49:55 | |
they don't contract that for the applicant? | 00:50:01 | |
I would be interested in that discussion with city staff at a future time. | 00:50:09 | |
I mean, it gives us more flexibility, right? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to limit any business. | 00:50:15 |