Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. We are on. Alright. Good evening. I would like to call the October 23 Planning Policy Commission meeting to order at 06:32PM. Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy Commission is in person, but staff or members of the public may be attending virtually or in person. Staff, do we have a quorum tonight?

Yes, we do.

Excellent. Now we will move on to the minutes. Our first item of business is to take action to approve the minutes for the September 25 PPC meeting. Are there any corrections to the draft minutes provided in the agenda packet? All right. Excellent. Hearing none, the minutes are approved. And our next item of business will be public comment. For this meeting, we're holding general public comment at this time for all general topics being discussed by the commission. Staff, has anyone signed up to make public comment?

No, Chair, they have not.

All right. Seeing no one in the room, we will move on to regular business. Regular business tonight, our first item is to review and discuss the proposed amendments to title 18, chapter 18.606, landscaping standards in right of way. John Mortensen, our transportation engineering manager, will be presenting tonight. And, John, I will turn it over to you if you're ready.

I am. Thank you very much. I'm John Mortensen. I am the city of Esquise Transportation Engineering Manager, and I'm here tonight to talk to you about landscaping standards for the streets. Share.

Oh,

that's interesting. The purpose of tonight's item is that the administration is seeking feedback from the Planning Policy Commission about changes to Isquah Municipal Code 18.606 and the street standards to align the landscaping requirements for streets with the comprehensive plan, critical areas code, and the city's strategic plan. The direction that the administration is requesting tonight are three questions. The first one is, does the commission support the proposed deviation process in the street standards to reduce or eliminate the landscape planter strip to preserve trees, protect critical areas, provide driveway access to properties that are not being developed as part of the project that's developing the street, and minimize or avoid impacts to section four f properties, which are recreational properties. And I'll go over that a little bit more later.

The next question is, does the commission support the proposed exemption to the landscaping standards for rehabilitation projects and interim bicycle and pedestrian connection projects. And then the third question for the commissioners for you to consider are there any other changes to consider which haven't been mentioned in the documents? A little bit of background on this. The street standards are the standards that are used to design street improvements, whether it's private development that's developing maybe some townhomes, and they would build their frontage improvements along the street. Or if the city has a project like we had a project on twelfth Avenue Northwest near PCC where we added some turn lanes and some protected bike lanes and sidewalks.

So the street standards apply to both those situations. And the street standards talk about a requirement to have a landscape planner strip that's five feet wide with street trees, and also the same requirement with more details is in title 18 in 18.606. And so as I mentioned, landscape planter strip is required between the travel lanes and the sidewalk, or in some situations, we'll have the protected bike lane next to the sidewalk, but there's still a landscape planter strip that's required to be installed. And in 18.606, it has a deviation, but there's only one possible deviation, and that is for a safety risk. There are no other deviations that are currently allowed.

And the administration has reviewed this, and we've worked with the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee and the Transportation Advisory Board, found this to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which talks a lot about the need to preserve trees and the Critical Areas Code, which talks about avoiding and minimizing impacts to critical areas. And so in our conversations with the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee and the Transportation Advisory Board, they provided us with guardrails to write deviations and exemptions that are proposed tonight before this body. As I mentioned before, a landscape planter strip is required. This is just a typical street section just showing what a landscape planner strip is. It could have grass, it could have shrubs, it could have ground cover, but it also has street trees.

And for a pedestrian, it is a great feature to have. It also widens the roadway section out, which is why we're talking about possible of adding more deviations to reduce that area. The administration was working on a project to come up with a proposed concept for sidewalk on Squawk Mountain on 12th Avenue Northwest in Mount Olympus. And so this is a picture of Mount Olympus, and this is really where it first came about, where we started talking about this conflict, because one of the things that I believe people like living on Squawk Mountain for are these big beautiful trees. And as we're coming up with a preferred concept, we realize that by code, a five foot planter strip would have to be installed.

So if we were to put a planter strip and sidewalk along this corridor, and it's a corridor that the neighborhoods really want sidewalk, a lot of these trees would have to be cut down,

and we just thought that that wouldn't well, one,

that wouldn't be right, and two, I could just see the community's reaction if they saw all these trees marked to be cut down so we could put in landscaping. And likewise, I've been mentioning critical areas. So critical areas, there's a lot of different critical areas, including streams. Got a picture of a stream that is parallel to 221st, and so in order to install sidewalk along that street, it would have to and planter strip, it would really get into the stream buffer. I haven't measured it to see how close it'd get to the stream.

Or wetlands. So the picture on the right is on Newport Way or Maple, one of the two. Maybe it's Maple right there. Anyways, it's in that vicinity, not too far from Target. And the sidewalk currently doesn't have a landscape planter strip, but if one were to be installed, then it wouldn't mean filling into the wetland, which we're supposed to avoid and minimize.

This picture is steep driveways. And the reason why a deviation process for steep driveways, and this was for situations where, like, is on Northwest Sammamish Road, the city has a project to install a, construct a 12 to 14 foot shared use path for bicyclists and pedestrians. It's going to connect the South Lake Sammamish neighborhood with the state park. And this is one of the driveways along there, and so the design team really wants to minimize the width of the planter strip in this area. That way, this driveway will not be any steeper than it already is.

I think it's about 25%. And when we met with the property owner too, he was very adamant about not wanting a steeper driveway, and he actually encouraged the design engineers to, and they did this, drive down and then try and drive back up, and it was

quite

challenging. And so this would apply if development or a city project were to be installing sidewalk, and this adjacent property is not getting redeveloped, because if this adjacent property was getting redeveloped, well then they could regrade the site and not have such a steep driveway. But just trying to get a deviation so that way we can tie into driveways in a situation like this and not make it worse for the resident. And a deviation was added for section four f properties. This is part of a transportation funding bill, I think from 1966 in section four f, but it's been codified into federal law that transportation projects are supposed, that have federal funding, are supposed to avoid or minimize impacts to recreational properties.

That could be a playground at an elementary school, it could be a city park, it could be the Harvey Manning Park, it could be a wildlife refuge, a number of things. And so a deviation was added in order to be consistent with the federal regulations, and I think it would also depend on the context of the Section 4 F property, because if it's a city park, well then it probably makes sense to put in a landscape planter strip because that's a place where people are going to be walking to, and we'd like it to be an ideal walking environment for the pedestrians. But if it's like the Harvey Manning Park along Newport Way, well, really doesn't make sense to widen the road. And actually, this might not be the best example because we're not even planning on putting sidewalk in this section of Newport, but it was the one I had. But the whole idea is to preserve the hillside and the park to be a forested hillside, not concrete and landscaping.

And then the administration worked with the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee and the Transportation Advisory Board to come up with an exemption for rehabilitation projects. This is where the use of the street would not be changing, but the city would do something to take care of the existing infrastructure. I've got two examples in the photos here. The one on the left is the Black Nugget retaining wall, and that it would be really expensive to put in a landscape planter strip. The retaining wall, something needs to be done, we can't just leave it in the current condition.

There's a design currently underway that will build a retaining wall in front of the existing retaining wall in order to help have an infrastructure that can last longer. And then the picture on the right, that's from if you're at Cougar Mountain Zoo and you start driving up Cougar Mountain, 190th And 191st, and the road is really deteriorating. And so we want to make sure that we have an exemption so that way we can take care of this, the pavement, and technically it would require a permit, which would trigger the landscaping requirements. But we don't want to do that because there's no pedestrian generators. Lots of reasons to not put landscaping along that corridor.

And then the next one is coming up with an exemption for interim bicycle and pedestrian connections. These are projects that would install interim non motorized gaps. And so the picture on the left, that is a situation where, I think it's on second, I could be wrong, but I think it's second. It's a location that we frequently get asked, can you put sidewalk in here? And there's a park just south of here, and Gilman Village is just north of there.

And there's sidewalk, and then there's three lots without sidewalk. And through the city's Cyclip Fix system, multiple times people have said, hey, can you please put in sidewalk? And we have to respond back and say, we would love to, but in order to do that, we'd have to underground the overhead power. We'd have to install a landscape planter strip, take care of the plants for three years, either temporary or permanent irrigation, which means the expense of a water meter. And it just gets really expensive.

And so what looks like the easiest project just to go from point A to point B and put in a little bit of sidewalk, just becomes cost prohibitive. So it's a way to try and fill in those kind of gaps. Oh, yeah, on the right, that is the picture. So Confluence Park is just south of there, Gilman Village is just north of there, and that is 2nd Avenue Northwest. And as you can see, there's existing sidewalk on either side of this gap.

So the proposal that's been developed based on the feedback from the Transportation Advisory Board and the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee are to create a deviation criteria for tree preservation, protection of critical areas, driveway access, and recreational properties, and wanting to create the guardrails that we've been requested to. So the Washington State Department of Transportation has standards in their design manual for pedestrian level of traffic stress, and we utilize that to say the city standard would be two or better. And in most cases, that done it can be done with a landscape planter strip. It can be done with a wide sidewalk. It can be done if you have less traffic volume or fewer lanes.

But if you're on a street like East Lake Sammamish Parkway and you're North of 56th where the speed limit, I believe, is 40 miles an hour, you really would need to have a landscape planner strip in order to have a pedestrian level of traffic stress of two. And I guess I should tell you the pedestrian level of traffic stress, that's how it feels as a pedestrian, how stressed different users are. And so one would be everyone, including young children, people with disabilities, they would feel comfortable. Two, it would be most people, not everyone, and then three and four, it gets more and more stressful for more and more people. And in order to qualify for the deviation though, an applicant would need to have an arborist, a certified arborist, put together a tree health and condition assessment, because there's no point of not installing the planter strip in order to preserve a tree if after the project's constructed, the tree's just going to die.

And so we need to have an expert to weigh in on whether the tree would become either a hazard or nuisance tree after the project was complete. And the deviation criteria utilized as many existing definitions for landmark trees and significant trees that are currently in title 18 rather than trying to reinvent new definitions. And the critical areas report would be very important for considering a deviation to not install a landscape planter strip in order to avoid or minimize impacts to a critical area or its buffer, and looking really at the driveway grade, wanting to make sure that people have safe access to their property, and also considering recreational use on projects that have federal funds that are next to recreational property. I went a little bit into the pedestrian level of traffic stress, but the deviation criteria would need to look at the existing land use context. Is it in location with lots of pedestrians?

If that's the case, then it makes a better case for keeping the landscape planter strip because it's a corridor that would get really used a lot. What are the needs of the multimodal users, the roadway characteristics, equity, and costs? And one of the criteria also is, one of the criterion is, need 20 feet for a full width of a planter strip, and so in situations where there's trees, I'll come back to the previous slide, I want to show this picture. So the bottom shows a sidewalk where there's four trees that are being preserved, and the planter strip moves closer to the road in order to preserve those trees. The top one, though, shows a picture where the project could install 20 feet of a landscape planter strip.

That would be five feet wide. And 20 feet was chosen because city code says a planning bed needs to be a 100 square feet. If it's five feet wide, just doing the math, you get to a 20 foot length. And so any time with smooth transitions, which is defined as having a radius of 15 feet, any time a project can have 20 feet, there should be a landscape planter strip. The goal is to put those in when we're not avoiding those areas.

And I talked a little bit about the exemptions, where rehabilitation projects where the existing use would not be changing to maintain the existing infrastructure, or interim bicycle and pedestrian connections to help with the city's strategic plan goal of creating mobility connections to help people get around town. The direction needed from the commission tonight is these three questions. Does the commission support the proposed deviation process in the street standards to reduce or eliminate the landscape planter strip to preserve trees, protect critical areas, provide driveway access to properties that are not being developed, and minimize or avoid impacts to Section four F properties? Does the Commission support the proposed exemption to the landscaping standards for rehabilitation projects and interim bicycle and pedestrian connection projects? And are there other things that should be considered that are not mentioned in the documents?

The timing and next step at your next meeting, there's scheduled to be a public hearing on November 13, and then this item will return to the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee just before Thanksgiving on November 24. And tentatively, this item would go to the City Council for adoption on January 5 year. And with that, are there any questions? Excellent.

Thank you, John. Commissioners, we're going open up to questions. We'll try and have one person at a time, but we'll do round robin, make sure everyone gets a chance before we move on. So let's go ahead and start with Commissioner Kress, and then we'll just let me know if

Does that work? Yeah, there you go. Okay, well I'll share this one. I'll bring batteries next time. So thanks for that. I like the idea for the deviations and the exemptions. I think a lot of it is based on common sense. So I think weaving that into the examples that you gave are good ones. So I have two questions. The first one is, because I think it's important because you can't have something that'll work for everything.

The process and kind of the decision matrix of how things can get a deviation or exemption, and how that works in practicality. And then the second question was a little bit related to that is, the five foot is something that may not work everywhere, whether it's a narrower street or something like that. Is it better to have a four foot or slightly, for example, versus no planning. So I'm not sure if that would also be something that would be part of a deviation or exemption, but just to start with the how the process would work, especially if a developer or someone wants to build something or wanna get something like that. The example on second is a good one.

It's like, that would be a good one, like use common sense and just put a simple sidewalk there and then fix it later. How does that how does that work?

Great questions. I'm gonna start with the second one because that's the easiest one to answer. And so it can either eliminate or reduce the landscape planter strip. So the standard is five feet, and that is because that is the width needed for a tree in order to avoid having the roots cause a lot of problems with the sidewalk. And so for example, if possible, I think it'd be better for a project to reduce rather than eliminate, depending on where the tree is, which kind of gets into your next question, which is about the process.

And so they would put together a deviation that would really be all encompassing. It would include the arborist report and or critical areas report. It would

really So either the city or the developer, whoever would They would propose It's a almost like when you ask, like, for a permit, you would ask for a deviation Right. Of

Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah, it would be during the permitting process. And so I'll walk through both the situations. So let's say the city's got a project on Swach Mountain, we're going to put in sidewalk, and when it comes time to apply for a permit, included in the permit submittal would be the deviation. And then likewise for a private development, I'm guessing they probably want to do it during the land use phase in order to set things up, but it would be

And then who decides, and how does that work? That's really the crux of the question of the transparency of how it all works, and when it comes into the process, and just how does it work? Is it just you, or is it like a panel, or how is it?

Yeah, it would be the reviewers on the permit. And so I envision that it would be one of the current planners, it would be someone from engineering, and that they would come together and review it and make a determination.

And then would there be a back, sorry, would there be a back and forth then of, because they may not have all the facts when you fill out something in a form, you may not get it. Like the steep driveway was a great example, unless you go out there and see it, and you're like, okay, well, unless you do that, you're launching somebody into a busy road, and that would not work. So is part of that process, they review it, they say yes or no, and that's it, or is there the ability for the requester to have that conversation, have people come out, etcetera?

Yeah, there's a back and forth, and so it could be in the first round, there might be some comments or questions. It might be, hey, address this aspect or something else. Or include a profile of the driveway. But yeah, it would be back and forth. It wouldn't be a someone submits it, it gets approved or denied, and that's it. It'd go through the regular permit review process.

I'm give you back your dead mic crest. I'm just kidding. Commissioner Mulberry.

I very much like your proposal. I like the fact that it's taking into account what exists rather than simply trying to lay over the same thing everywhere in the city. When my father developed Sycamore in the nineteen sixties, he went through He went round and round with the city of Issaquah to get them to approve gutter and swale and to not have street lights because he said, it is a country place. It is not We are It is not a normal city even though it's within the city of Issaquah. And I think most people would say Sycamore is a nice neighborhood because it worked with the environment.

And I think what you have proposed here is excellent at working with the environment and creating different textures and different neighborhoods in the city. So that's my opinion. I also think doing doing a little something like the sidewalk that doesn't require a huge project just to at least improve it, I think that's an excellent idea. So I support that as well.

Thank you. Excellent. Anyone else? Commissioner Zakroff?

Thank you. Well, I'm definitely on the same page with both Commissioner Kras and Commissioner Moll. Yes, this is a wonderful idea. But my question is, how long do you expect that time line of permitting process to be? Just any kind of consideration about the time because to me, speeding up permitting process is the thing.

The timing of the permit process. I don't envision this taking longer, and really it's also a deviation, so it's the applicant wanting to do something that's different from our standard. And so if time is really of the essence, they could do what they could do today, which is just go with the standard. That if they want to preserve the trees, which I think is a great idea, But it would also be reviewed concurrently with the land use or the construction permit that it would not add to the timeline.

Excellent, thank you so much.

No, I was just going to concur that it happens at the same time. Sometimes it doesn't come in at the same time as the application and we say this isn't going to work and then they request it, but we all have timelines that we're required to meet too. It all works out because we do other deviations as well.

Then John, may I have you go back one slide to your questions just to make sure or I guess one more slide, there we go, just so we can do that. And then just a reminder, so we'll do our formal recommendation at the next meeting. So I think for tonight, we just want to continue to ask any questions, clarifying questions or anything we have on it, and then try and give John some feedback on these specific questions if we can. Do you have one Commissioner Miller Erwin?

I do. My question is in regards to critical areas. So what I'd like to know is if there is a demonstrated need for public safety to have a sidewalk area next to a critical area. How would the deviation look like for that type of request?

Yeah. So Okay. Let me make sure I heard the question right. It's there's a demonstrated safety need, and there's a critical area. So now we're in a conflict.

Great question. And that's why we would look at it, the permit review process would look at it holistically. And the level of service that the city is putting in the standards for pedestrian facilities is level of traffic stress of two or better. And so then that means when you go to the wash. Design manual, for all streets with the speed limits less than 40 miles an hour, you can achieve that without a landscape planter strip.

And so really the only situations where we'd be looking at that are on streets like Southeast 43rd, believe, East Lake Sammamish Parkway, Issaquah Falls City Road, I might be missing one, but oh, yes, 17th or SR 900. But those are really the only situations where this conflict would happen. And in this situation, we talked a lot with the Transportation Advisory Board, and that's where we came up with this, looking at the land use, the pedestrians, the context, the equity, the cost, because it might, depending on the need, if there's a lot of pedestrians, one, maybe we shouldn't have the speed limit be 40, but let's just say that the council's not going to change it and there's a lot of pedestrians. And that might push it into the situation where the city would either accept pedestrian levels, traffic stress at three, or things to need to mitigate for the critical areas impacts. I think it'd really be context sensitive, although, like I said, if we have that many pedestrians on a 40 mile an hour street, I think at that point the conversation needs to be, the speed limit's no longer appropriate.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Matthews, did you have a question?

I actually did have a question that carries on to the question that was just asked about the critical areas. I'm not sure why that would be a deviation and not just a subject on its own, because if you think about on seventeenth and nine hundred, you had brought that up as an example, they actually have elevated boardwalks. So in that case, why would you put a sidewalk when you could put in an elevated boardwalk instead, so that you're not impacting and building into the critical area? It seems like it could be a subject on its own, and not part of a deviation process.

That is actually thank you for refreshing my memory. That is in the new standards is to consider things like a boardwalk. So, yes, thank you. I failed to mention that.

Okay. Oh, good. I must have

read that. That's why it

popped into my head. Thank you very much.

Yeah. And Commissioner Olinner. I think it just has to like sink. It kind of my god, thank you.

Thanks, Jesse. I guess it's more of a naive or legal question, so the planter strips are typically within the city's right of way, correct? Yes. So developer wants to build on property, they're expected to plant that planting strip and maintain it for a period of, was it three years? How does that work from a legal standpoint? You know, private developer is putting plantings on public property. Is that that an It's not an unusual situation, but

It's not unusual, and I've actually had a few conversations with the city attorney about it, just wanting to make sure that I understand it correctly, and it's very common. A lot of cities have that, and it it even could be that the city could put in the landscaping and then the adjacent property owner after the initial plant establishment period is responsible for long term maintenance of it.

Okay. Follow on question if I will. So these planter strips are if if a private developer let let let's say it's a renovation project and it's a homeowner and they're adding a second story to their home, that wouldn't necessarily trigger their responsibility to put a planting strip in front of their house.

Correct. They they would be exempt, and I would also say if they were to do middle the housing, that is also exempt. And if it's a vacant lot and you put in a single family home, that's also exempt from the standard, and that's not a change from how it's been Well, the middle housing exemption's been in place since May, and then the single family housing's been in since at least 2010 and probably longer.

Thanks for the clarification.

Excellent. And we've completed our round robin, so if anyone has additional questions, Commissioner Kress.

I can actually help you with that because I went through this exact thing. So we had some trees die in the parkway that the builder put in, brand new house from ten years ago. It was me as a homeowner responsible, and I got working with the city of what should go there to put the trees in, but it was my expense and I maintain it, even though I don't own the property. Very weird, but it is, but I have a vested interest to make it look good, so I didn't put grass, I do ground cover. But the I wanted to answer that.

I do think it's really interesting, this whole thing about conflict of you have two different objectives and they could they can conflict. I'll use I'll just pick two as an example. One is the idea of putting parkways and sidewalks from a safety pedestrian standpoint and tree preservation. So when you do have that conflict and say, I'm not sure if it's a public or private, if that matters in this discussion, You have different people who should probably weigh in within the city because you something's gonna give. You can't do both, right?

You can't if you have a big tree there, but you need to put a sidewalk there. How does that just work in practicality? Because you're right, when you start cutting trees down, everyone goes, oh my god, what's going on? So the more clear the city is with how those decisions are made and how that works makes people probably feel better about when those red tags go on trees and then they get chopped down. How does that work in practicality when there's a conflict of objectives?

Well, I guess the first answer is I can say how I envision it going, but I think the true test will be once it's adopted to observe how it happens and then see if the standards need to change. But the way I envision it is if an applicant, whether it's the city developing its own capital project for a transportation facility or a developer, if they have trees that meet the definitions that are in the standards, whether it's a significant tree or a landmark tree, and that an arborist says that that tree is not going to become a nuisance or a hazard tree after the improvements been built that then they could apply for and get their deviation. Now if the arborist says, no, this tree isn't going to survive the improvements, then yeah, deviation would not be approved. So it's, I guess I'd say it's erring on the side of approving it in order to preserve the trees as long as the trees meet the criteria of being a significant tree or a landmark tree, I forget what else we put in there, and that the arborist has report also supports that that tree would do well after the improvements.

Sometimes you may have to use the 2nd Avenue example. Let's say there was a big tree in the middle of that space, that gap, you have to cut it down. So that decision would have to be made. So it's not like a, is it gonna hurt the tree? Hurt the tree because it'll be cut down. But just how do how do you get to that decision? It's not just the the planner or the person who's looking at the permit. I assume they would have to bring in other folks within the city to if you start cutting down larger trees to do something like that. I'm just trying to understand.

There has to be an arborist report. So an arborist will come out and look at the tree and determine

No, it's going be a Let

me tell

you The sidewalk has to go right where the tree is. You don't need an arborist for that. Like, No tree will survive if you have to put a sidewalk through there. I'm coming up with an example based on I'm stretching your example.

Okay. So I think in that case, even with the current standards, that tree would be coming down. Yeah. Now I guess I will say, I just had a thought, is there have been times, though, when the permit team has said, hey, yeah, your typical section shows that sidewalk going right through that tree, but you have lots of right of way, put the sidewalk further back, and I've seen that.

And we do have tree retention that's required for every permit that is submitted, and you also have tree coverage. And you all remember that from So the tree those things are also considered when these come through. If you take this tree down, what's gonna happen to your tree retention and your tree coverage?

Well, is different though, because this is essentially on a right away where you need to have a sidewalk. I'm just it's not like I'm building a

It still factors in.

Yeah. And there's still tree replacement. So if it's a city project, it's exempt from needing a tree permit, but the project still needs to replace the trees within the same sub area. And just as someone whom my division manages these projects, we want to keep our costs down and it gets expensive when you're replacing a bunch of trees. So we like to try and avoid.

I disagree with the approach that is being discussed here.

So we're just trying to do questions right now and then we can do deliberations and discussions after that because I think we're gonna provide another opportunity for public comment. Okay. A question is yes.

Why is there the need for uniformity? Why did this Does the city not feel that that in fact perhaps this would be a way to create different approaches? I mean, the tree's in the middle, why can't the city make the decision to simply have the path go both ways around it, so that we have things that are interesting within the city rather than everything looking uniform? Why is that not considered acceptable?

Well, I'd say it's acceptable. It's hard to put it into a standard to say I don't know how to quite word that, but I've also seen it very specifically where there is a project going to cut down a whole bunch of trees, and the planner on the review said, put it here, and the applicant said, oh, good idea, let me draw this up. So it's in practicality what you're saying happens, but I don't know how to quite put it into the standards.

Okay, so that would be part of the City of Issaquah's approach to dealing with these standards, is coming up with something that might make good practical sense even though it appears to be a variance, correct?

Well, would say moving the if you have five feet with trees in between the sidewalk and the road, that wouldn't be a deviation. Okay. So someone could propose that and that would just be approved.

Okay.

It's really when you're wanting to do less than that, that you need the deviation.

I was more thinking if you had to had to put sidewalks on both sides of the tree so you don't have to cut down the tree. Just so it looks interesting.

I I When you start factoring the width needed to meet ADA standards, then that starts to be a lot of concrete. I mean, might be interesting, but you need five feet, sometimes you can go down to four feet, but usually our sidewalks are between five and eight feet. But something to consider.

We're probably getting a little deep into the weeds or the trees, I suppose, for But right for right now, I think we want to see we'll be able to deliver more next meeting during the public hearing when we make a formal recommendation. But for the rest of this evening, are there any additional questions to clarify any information that John shared with us this evening? Going once, going twice. John, do you have what you need from us tonight?

I do. Thank It's you very great being here tonight with you all. Yeah.

Awesome. Yeah. So while we did pass our general public comment, we know that traffic and parking was a little busy tonight. So we did wanna offer an opportunity for a few folks who have joined us in the room if you would like to make a public comment on this topic at this time. No? Okay. Excellent. Good. I think we're good. Thank you. Alright. Thank you again, John. I appreciate the the presentation. And personally, I really enjoyed the photos, maps, and diagrams myself. So thank you.

Next up, we have a proposal to change the election date of the PPC chair and vice chair. We will be taking action on this tonight with a vote. So Kristen Leeson, our is it Principal Planning Manager now? Okay, that's not my

No, just Planning Manager.

Oh, just Planning Manager, okay. Will be presenting tonight. So Kristen, please go ahead. Let's see.

I've never seen this on my screen before. One second. I just wanna share a word, and it won't let me share a word.

Bye, John. Thank you. Oh, this maybe this is it. Bye, John. Thank you. You're about to

be Okay. There we go. Okay. There we go. So this is a very, very Yes, Kristen Leeson, Planning Manager for the City of Issaquah.

This is a very simple discussion, but one that needs to be had. So last year, we had probably I think five new members join us, and the same night that they joined, they had to vote on a chair and vice chair. But they didn't know how meetings worked, they didn't know who they were voting on, and we've been doing it this way for a very long time, but I'm thinking it's time to change. Let's give the new members a chance to kind of figure out what they really think is going to work best, and you all as well. So our proposal is that we move the election date of Chair and Vice Chair from the first meeting in May, which is the same day that the new members start, to either September or January, which is just what other commissions and boards have done.

And you all are different than any other commission or board in the city in that you meet twice a month at least as opposed to once a month. Everybody else meets about once a month every other month. So you do get a little closer and better knowledge of each other and the way things work in a shorter amount of time. So at any rate, this is now open for discussion. And there was another proposal in here that the officers also would hold their positions for a one year term or until their successors are elected, and that's just in case something comes up and we don't meet.

So they don't automatically end, say, the first meeting in September, what if we don't meet the first meeting in September? So you need to have somebody there for the second. So that's the reason for that wording. So now it's time for you to discuss.

Awesome. Thanks, Kristen. Commissioners, do we have any questions or comments regarding this matter? Commissioner Matthews?

So who will run the meetings in the beginning if we don't have a head for the group? So right now his name just popped right out of my head. He's not here.

Jason. Jason.

Jason is not here, but if he's not running, I mean, who would take that spot until September?

Oh, if you adopted this, it would happen now. So he would, they would he and Jesse would continue. Okay. Yes.

Alright. Thanks.

Yeah, so it just shifts it, so instead of right now it's April the or I guess May to April?

May to the April.

Yeah. So instead it would shift it to September to August. And so there would be people already elected into those roles when the new folks came on, but then we would do a new election in September if this yeah. So the idea would be that the new folks who joined the commission, like for a while there was four of us or five or six of us or whatever, operating for a little bit, and then we welcome kind of a new group so we expanded. But like Kristin was saying, the first meeting you had to make an election and choose a chair and vice chair.

So in this adjustment, it would give they would already be in place for the new people or the new commissioners, And then they would have from May to September to kind of get to know them a little bit, go through some meetings, understand maybe why they would be chosen as potential electors. And so it just kind of gives some time for that to breathe before a vote is chosen. Anyone else have questions, comments? Commissioner Kress? Do

you you have an opinion which is better, September or January? Do have a preference?

No preference.

Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner O'Learn.

Do you see any downside in shifting dates?

I don't see any downsides. Yeah. No.

Commissioner Zakroff. I

have a question about the second paragraph. Like first one is understandable? About the second sentence? Second sentence, yeah. And we don't see it now, so I'm sharing

it Okay. Right There

we go.

It's coming. There it is. Okay.

To me, it's kind of like, I don't know, repeats?

Well, the way that it's written now, they hold it from from May 1 through April 30, period, then they're done. And then if you don't have a meeting in May and June comes up, who's running the meeting? So if you do this until the next one is elected, then that gives coverage for that one month.

Then if I may continue, I'm suggesting September.

Yeah, that's definitely open for discussion if we can discuss it before motion, yeah. Okay. So yeah, that's open for discussions like when we would have the election. Commissioner Mulberry?

Given what happened this last year, which is we had very few meetings during the summer, does it make sense to do it in January simply because new members would have not had it, would have missed maybe six meetings out of what you would have expected?

I am going to bring up that that is a good point. We just I just had the question around we typically don't take summers off. This is the first summer that we've had a lot of meetings, but it was just requested that we do take August off this year. So.

Yeah, personally, agree with that point. I think also January is typically when we kind of like ramp into new topics, like we do our docket approval in December for the New Year. So to your point, that might be a good alignment in that it's kinda like, alright, here's the new chair, vice chair, here's the docket for the year, like we're off and running. Typically, we're pretty consistent in that time of year, I would say. So that's it. That's it. Got my sales hat on tonight. Alright. Any other comments, questions, feedback, thoughts? So we need a formal motion here. Would anybody like to make a motion? Commissioner Matthews?

Make a motion that we adopt the January date.

And the proposed language as well? The proposed language as well.

Yeah. Is that I

second the motion.

Excellent. So motion is on the table. Should we take a vote? All in favor, say aye and raise your hand. Aye. All opposed? All right, that's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely. Next on the agenda is reports. City Council updates, anything to report on that, Kristen?

I had to think for a minute, let's see. We have a few agenda bills going to council on November 10. One is the comprehensive plan, which will actually be on consent. And another one that will be on consent, sorry, I can't remember what it is at this moment. We are taking back the Bellevue College development agreement discussion. I think that many talked with you all about that. That goes on the tenth. That'll be an interesting discussion if you want to tune in. Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

And any other updates from staff?

Not at this time, no.

Alright. Commissioners, any further business this evening? No? All right. Well, there being no further business before the commission, we will adjourn this meeting at 07:28 p. M. Thank you very much.