2016-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 3 Member Bull opined that adjacent property may not be able to contain all the replacement 94 trees; and if not, that situation would drive the developer to a fee instead of putting any 95 trees in at all, when the next lot or two over may be suitable for tree coverage. 96 If there was a consensus to make this revision, Vice Chair Cunningham asked that staff 97 help with amendment language prior to a motion this evening. 98 Member Murphy asked what happened to fees in lieu of that were collected. 99 Ms. Collins responded that this was in discussion, with the City Council having received 100 their first touch on the proposed policy. Ms. Collins advised that staff would be meeting 101 with the Parks & Recreation Commission as previously noted, as well as the Public 102 Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission (PWETC) for their input on how 103 those funds should be used. At this point, Ms. Collins reported that the general 104 consensus was that the funds be used within a one to two year timeframe and that they 105 be used in the immediate development area. Ms. Collins noted that one goal was to use 106 the funds to provide potential screening options for adjacent properties, and not just used 107 for trees on public land, but for that screening, or at other public improvement projects as 108 well. 109 Member Murphy noted that, on line 55, he wondered if it was intentional to strike “or” at 110 the end of item a, which indicated either a, b or c was being proposed. 111 Ms. Collins advised that was an error and the “or” should remain in the proposed 112 language. 113 Member Gitzen referenced the language in the preamble (paragraph J, lines 42 – 49) and 114 his interpretation that either a or b was indicated. 115 However, Member Bull suggested several grammatical corrections, opining that the 116 wording suggested by staff, removing the “or.” 117 Based on her interpretation of the proposed changes, Member Kimble stated the 118 language indicates that the city directs the developer; with Ms. Collins confirming that 119 statement. 120 Mr. Lloyd noted that, based on input from the Parks & Recreation Commission, policy 121 document language would address how tree replacement and/or cash in lieu of 122 replacement was spelled out. 123 Ms. Collins noted that, as currently written in Items a and b (lines 50 – 58), the City’s 124 Arborist would approve or authorize any replacement locations, species and other 125 parameters for the developer if it appeared all other options had been exhausted on the 126 development site itself and no resolution was found, with city code and policy guiding that 127 determination. 128 Vice Chair Cunningham sought consensus on a motion for this issue. 129 Members Gitzen and Murphy stated they were amenable to either the 1,000' as staff 130 suggested, with additional language for adjacent properties within 400’. 131 Vice Chair Cunninghamclosed the public hearing at approximately 6:55 p.m., with no 132 one appearing for or against. 133 With ensuing discussion on the grammar of whether or not to include the “or” on line 55, 134 Member Murphy stated he interpreted the language to be prescriptive, that you could do 135 a, b OR c as outlined by staff. 136 Member Bull opined that if it was intended to be inclusive it would say “AND,” but by lack 137 of “OR, it defaulted to the last option c (lines 59-60). 138 Vice Chair Cunningham ruled to move forward with the suggestion made by Member 139 Gitzen, with further amendment as an option. 140 MOTION 141 Member Gitzen moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City 142