Planning & Community Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll start tonight's city Valvette Plan Community Design Commission for March 5th, 2026 to order. Madam Secretary, will you please call the role? Certainly. Uh Robert Jurgil, present. Jenna Nat, if she's absent. Tim Spiegel, present. Sam Wall, present. Felicia Ford, present. Laura Radale, present. And Petri Pal, present.

All right. Let it also be known that our city council uh liaison uh Brian Lewis is in in attendance. Um as well as uh Carlos Tjo, the city of Alvette's planning and community development uh director. Uh Dawn Dodie, senior planner, and Jack Carswwell, planning and zoning administrator. I don't think we have anybody else online or anything. No, sir, not at this time. Okay. So, we've all done this before, so I don't think we need to go over the instructions. If somebody does pop on by chance and they do want to add a public comment, how about we pick it up at the end? Does that sound good?

Okay, we'll do that. Um, and we'll defer that to later. So, we'll move on to item three, which is discussion regarding petition review process. Jack, good evening, commission. So about a few months ago, we had the session with the city attorney going over um you know just the commission guidelines and the code behind um related to the review process and I gave like a little intro presentation into how those reviews are conducted. Um I do want to note that you guys all have a flowchart. This is something I'm actively working on. It's going to be edited and changed and um to reflect the um process that Carlos and I were discussing today. But for instance, what you're going to see here is just that, you know, something will come into the city. I will determine whether it's, you know, an I'll do an initial review of that project to see, you know, if it hits certain requirements that would designate it for the commission review. Once I've done that initial submission um review, it will go to a completeness check and my in-depth review. So that those two boxes are going to be merged together as one. So when I do this completeness check, I'm going to be looking for all of the submission standards. if they have their project report, if they have the storm water plans, if they have their arborist report, when if they don't, if they're deficient, I'll send it back to them, they have 30 days to make the uh submission complete. Whether that's, you know, adding one existing tree that's missing on the plans or giving us a whole storm water plan, they're held to that 30-day time frame. The petitioner, it's the ball's in the petitioner's court then. So then if we don't hear from 30 days that permit or action will be voided. However, if I do get revisions within 30 days, Carlos and I were talking this morning or this afternoon that that would go into uh that starts my 30-day timeline then. So this 15-day staff review timeline is inaccurate on the side. I'm sorry about that. I have yet to update this

flowchart, but that's going to be when that 30-day timeline is. So, when Carlos and I were discussing this today, it was more about um making sure that we can get these this information out to you guys earlier in the weeks and in the process within that 30-day timeline so that you guys will see um our EDM storm water consultants letter prior to it coming to the commission. And we did work with this saying that um as the revisions received that we would send the revised plans to the storm water consultant once we get the once the plan sets designated complete. So then we're not sending something to the storm water consultant and it's missing, you know, the elevation of the pit or the distancing that maybe Curtis would need for his review. So just making sure that that's actually all considered complete prior to us sending it to the consultant and then that the comments also from the consultant would be addressed either with the commission if you know the reviews done in a timely fashion from our outside consultant or that it would just then be addressed prior to applying for the building permit. Um so that's kind of just the process of our PCDC review. But I would get by the next meeting I'm going to have this flowchart all edited correct and then you guys can see it actually from the information I was just discussing. I know it's kind of hard for me to phrase this to you and then the flowchart is not as accurate as you know what I'm saying up here.

Can I ask a question? Yes ma'am. Um so the thing that frustrates me just a little bit not a lot but a little bit is you know we had I think going back to two meetings you know the gentleman had submitted the storm water report and our storm water consultant had not yet reviewed it and we wanted him to go and talk to the neighbors and it seems to me is that projects shouldn't come here until they are complete and that means that a storm water review has taken place and so if it can't be done within the the allotted days, then maybe the ordinance needs to change to account for that.

Um, and in terms of talking to neighbors, I think that's an easy box to just check. Yes, this person said he talked to the neighbors or yes, the neighbors have been consulted and then that way we're not reviewing stuff and then they get mad that they got to wait another two weeks for us to process it. I just think it, you know, we need to have a complete file when we're here. And if we're going to ask a storm water review consultant to review something, then to me, until we get that report, the application is not complete. That's just my personal opinion. I don't know how anybody else feels about it. I don't disagree, you know, but I do know sometimes developers, they they're so anxious and sometimes

time is money. Time is money. and they want to get, you know, they think it's minor and they want to get, you know, moving.

But if you're if you're telling them they need a storm water report, then it's not minor, you know, that's to me that's one of our major things that we always talk about. I mean, it seems like when we're looking at stuff, we're mostly focused on that and maybe some of the architecture, but the storm water is so important that to me, I I don't want to see an application until that report's been done. if if the the report if the application is otherwise complete because you don't want to do a stormwater report and find out, oh, they changed the dimensions on the building or whatever. So, that's just I think that would expedite things here. I

I definitely agree in in principle, Petri. I my view on how we've handled this most of the time is that we approve subject to a storm water report and we assume that if it comes back and it fits within whatever our guidelines are the staff says okay great because I don't know that we really have we're not stormwater experts if the stormwater consultant says it's good I think generally we say all right sounds sounds great to us So like it's a it's a point of emphasis emphasis important for us. I don't know how much we normally have to say that the one you're talking about in general was a little bit of an unusual situation and that

delayed another two weeks to be able to talk to the neighbors. It wasn't so and and the report from our consultant had not been done yet. Yeah. And to me then that means that that coming to us was premature. Yeah. I I would just note that that submission that was however many weeks ago was compliant with our submission standards. Us going out of the way and submitting it to the storm water consultant is and my understanding is not code, right? That's just us getting additional insight on the project. So for the PCDC it would be approval. I agreed. So it is a requirement whether it would be subject to you guys because you guys were the ones to defer it as for the in you know insight from the consultant.

We don't just to be clear we don't get we don't send it out to the consultant every job. It's just when the commission says we'd like to do it or you guys say we're Carlos and I I think are now going to the route of doing all new homes with the consultant and just making sure that that's handled. But we yeah just right when we get those when it's deemed complete actual site plan you know maybe there are other little details that don't require a change front to water storm water you know calculation but I get the whole oh subject too it's a delay no matter how you do it. It just seems to me is that

if if we let people know that you need you're going to we're going to need to review this and that's going to take time and so the delay it it just seems like we could cut down on how much time we have to spend if we are just going ahead and saying you got to have this. Well, it puts more pressure on you guys.

Yeah. Well, and there's two components because we it's not the pressure on that. The the the the whole contract with the storm water consultant is to evaluate the calculations, the sizing, and the construction. That's all they're providing uh to the commission uh in there. Now, in the situation that we had the last meeting, the commission, you know, after some concerns from the neighbors wanted to broaden that and so then we go back to the storm water consultant to ask them to take a look at the grading uh or or other options or concerns that were brought forward. Uh because again, by code, they they're providing that on-site detention. They're reducing the volume of of detention that was going off to that site. uh if we see something ourselves that hey this this you know there's a big slope or or or we're at the bottom of the hill we may ask them for some input but in this case nobody had brought any concerns or issues till that meeting.

Well we had the neighbor the neighbor you know that brought concerns correct at that meeting and that was signed off by somebody correct by the petition. Mhm. To me that should have been the end of the discussion person but

and and I I concur and again the commission is under no obligation to act on a petition that night. Now my staff and myself are under an obligation to bring it to the commission within a window. We don't have that choice or that flexibility um in there. So there's two things that we can kind of take a look at. again the the what we're asking the storm water consultant to do because it's it's kind of a a contractual thing and then you know if we you know if we want to expand their analysis you know it's something we can take a look at and see what those costs would be. I'd still like the idea if there if we have a known water issue, you know, affecting adjacent properties that we, you know, do get that review to include that, talk about it, especially if there's a simple thing that could be corrected that could kill two birds with one stone. I think we owe it to the neighbors that are there. um you know and we also just don't want to get blamed for something later down the road that was a pre-existing issue and just to make sure and again if at the meeting uh a concern is brought forward towards the commission regarding drainage at that point I mean the commission has the authority to defer action and request that we consult with the city storm water consultant to take a look at at at the what was brought forward At that point, we have no problem.

On that one case, though, it was clear that they had done more to control the water than what they were even legally li obligated to do. And yet, we still kicked them back another two weeks um in order to get some input from the neighbor who it wasn't an engineer. I mean the engineering report was signed by an engineer or whoever does that. That engineering report is spec specific to just that. I I understand that but it's but he but it was very specific. Well, okay. Sorry.

And it's and it's meeting the code requirements that we have for that specific property. So whether it addresses anything else that could be going on in that area that could be addressed, I I don't think it was, you know, or it that wasn't the intent of what that engineer was doing. I thought that engineer had said that they had reduced how much storm water they the new building was going to create far less storm water runoff than the existing building. So they had done that work which would affect positively the neighbor And maybe the neighbor needed to just, you know, maybe there's just a check mark. Did you discuss with your neighbors?

Did you, you know, because I, again, it was another two weeks. And it wasn't so much that we needed a consultant to review it. It was it was hung up on consultation with neighbors. But remember, our codes make it better by them building the house and putting in the water rotation retention system that's required. that is better than what was there before by code, right? And so why why did we postpone doing it just for the sake of him talking to the neighbors? That's I mean that was my point that night too. So because that only looks at that particular property rather

No, it looked it it looked at the storm water runoff to the neighboring properties and it was going to be less than what was there based on our current codes. You hear that? I will take everyone else's mic start.

Okay. Sorry. Um I will say I don't think my understanding was when that review letter came in, it was specific to that property with what was designated from his suggestions on the site. So I mean all the only information our storm water consultant is getting is any you know all of the plans that you guys all see as well. So he's not, you know, getting the full scale neighborhood plan and he's really just sending in these remarks based off of that one property. I do agree there was, you know, this commission discussion pertaining to that project and there were, you know, additional um suggestions from the storm water consultant, but then we brought it back and we all had the discussion and it was found out that it was not necessary. So I mean I think it was beneficial for the consultant to have the review process just for the additional you know mitigation methods but I do also see the point of you know if it was to code but I think but it's all in your the right of the commission to request that and you guys did and it got deferred and you know now we're here and it's approved. though.

There's also a lot of gray areas in construction and an engineer that's working for the property owner and that's working for the developer that's worked with them for 15 houses is going to treat it differently than somebody that's an outside person. Just because you have that stamp doesn't mean that you're looking out for the cities and the neighbor and everybody else's best. They're looking out for the cost of it and that owner of it and that they don't get sued in 10 years down the road. Good point.

So, it's there's a reason why you bring outside council in for these kind of things that know what they're doing and is watching our backs and watching the city's backs. And to just jump on to what Tim's point was too is like with the changing or not we're not changing anything with the review process, but with these the timeline and how Carlos and I were talking through it now is when that plan is designated complete, that plan will be sent directly to the storm water consultant and then I do have that 30-day timeline to designate when they go to that meeting. So if all of a sudden, you know, there's two meetings in the month. The first meeting, we don't have the review letter back yet, I'm we're subject to hold them to the second meeting to allow additional time for that letter to come in. So I think it's just also something internally with our reviews that, you know, I can clean up and hopefully that will enhance the process and you guys will get that storm water information earlier where we're not putting the commission in a position to defer it because we're bringing an incomplete submission before you guys.

Okay. Um, additionally, there we were, Carlos and I were going through some of the PCDC review obstacles that just come up when I'm doing those general reviews. Um, for instance, these accessory structure projects, I have to hold them to the same submission standards as a new home. There's no differentiation within the code. For instance, it requires, you know, um, a streetscape elevation. And why would we want to see a streetscape elevation of a pool if it's behind the house and you don't see it from the street? So I just have to, you know, I always have to make these petitioners aware that they can um exclude any information that they may seem that is not necessary. However, you guys all have the right to request that information and we will always make it apparent to the commission on what information the commission or the petitioner decided to leave out or you know did not feel that was necessary as part of their submission. So it's just been something a little bit challenging within our review process and we wanted to see you know some insight from the commission on whether it's necessary for you know just a flatwork project to come here or a pool to come here or these two dimensional projects. We haven't had anything related to, you know, a sports court or a botchi ball court or something yet, but then how does that work within those two dimensional structures too? And we were thinking of just if that goes down the um if that's something where we increase the numbers of that flat work per you know the flat work is 200 square feet bigger and that means then it has to go to the commission or something like that where internally staff works. we come to you guys with some updates and see how we have that discussion, but then it's kind of uh then I'm just not holding, you know, a 1,000 foot patio to the same standards as a whole new home. So, it's kind of been challenging within that review process.

I think that makes sense. What do you how do you guys all feel? I thought we had some of these things that that that triggered a review that you guys could do administratively things, but like the flat work if they were over concerned square footage and we do have that. I think it's maybe more within our current submission standards. I don't know if it's something that internally staff just needs to, you know, decipher. These are all the standards for a new home. These are the standards that are for, you know, a flatwork project and then it's just outlined in that way. So, if someone was applying for an accessory structure, here's the submission standards that wouldn't be applicable to

a new home. And then we do I'm currently working through those submission standards, kind of playing around. I'm working on a PCDC review guide where it's like all all of the information on how staff conducts their reviews. And I'm going to put that into there and then bring it before the commission to just inform you guys and also get additional insight before it's something, you know, we utilize or post onto our website. So sorry, would you So you would say access accessory structures that is basically flat work should be viewed differently than say a garage or an ADU.

They're just hold held to the same standards. So it's looking as like a building there. I get calls, you know, related to why do I need these architectural plans or what am I looking at from, you know, these additional standards. if well if you're putting flat work and it doesn't do anything with you know utilities or something sometimes they get the boundary surveys and they don't check the box for utilities and they don't pay for someone to mark where those utilities are. Um so sometimes these little standards that are applicable to all new homes we do get some push back from certain petitioners saying you know I don't find that information necessary why do you need this for this small of a project or something along those lines.

So make it more efficient. just make it more efficient in terms of for the petitioner but also for you all in terms of them we're not bringing a pool to you before because it's one square foot over that needs to come before the commission and then it's just approved you know versus the if there's additional insight of course but you know then we can kind of streamline that process

one of the things to that commissioner splass brought up so we we do have uh like certain levels that we can review and authorize administratively. What we found with someone some of these it doesn't take much to get over 500 square ft of flat work of a of a patio. And that's what we're starting to to see that you know we're well we had one that was maybe like 550 or 590. We had to bring it to the commission. It was flat work. So there's really not you know the value added by the commission was was pretty minimal. I'm not going to say that, you know, you guys didn't bring any input, but there was, you know, if that was on a oneacre, you know, a halfacre lot, right?

You know, it it was it was a an unnecessary obstacle they had to go through just so they could get to the permitting. And and I think that's what Jack's kind of referring to. And in addition to that, the way the code is currently written is that we would have them submit the up to the same standards as as a new new house would, you know. So we want to change some of those uh administrative uh thresholds, right? Yeah. Just just looking into that and then you know talking within staff internally of how we can see how this plays out working with those numbers and then bringing them back before you guys to get some additional insight of course.

Yeah. And I think when we put those together, we were trying to be conservative as it was a it was a whole new, you know, process that we were trying to implement u in there. And I think we found in and you know, we're we're dealing with that those those 10 to 15% cases that fall in between.

Yeah. I would like I would like to see on your flowchart references to the city ordinances that where things are required and why so that if somebody asked us asks us why why or where is your authority you know you it's on there I don't I just think that makes sense same way with when this comes up you know frequently asked questions even just do you need to I know we have that but if you are just putting in flat work for a patio slash or a pool or basketball court. You do not need to do or you only need to do whatever the case may be. But we ought to highlight the ordinance and if we need to ask for the ordinance to be changed then then we need to ask for the ordinance to be changed.

So then the other two things on the the obstacles are related to our ordinance which is 2821 which is the trees. So, uh, if Carlos, if you would go to the next slide, I will just start talking about that, but I'm going to go grab my notes real quickly if I don't have them up here. So, the first thing, this is all um, you know, very early in the process. We're not asking for action on anything tonight. Just presenting this to you as this is still, you know, I'm still actively working on, you know, cleaning up the changes and working on the text and word smithing. But um for instance, we're just looking at changes for uh the arborist reportee inventory plan. Um those changes can be seen on it's not anything significant. Everything that you guys came up with and council came up with is all included within here as part of those standards. It's just now we're going to merge those two together. So Carlos, if you go to the next slide, it's kind of easier to see. So that's kind of this like the ideal ideal arburst report would be coming from into as a table. The ideal tree inventory report is what you're going to see on the right. And we're making sure that that tree inventory report includes all of the protection information that we want to see. The replacement plan, we've run into some complications and it's and it's been tricky in terms of what the commission as well. Um, our ordinance states that it has to be by a certified arborist. We have seen plans that have come in that have been by a certified landscape architect and it seems like the commission has been cognizant or you know for instance there is I'm thinking of like a few properties that have come in uh two for instance that had no tree really or one tree on the lot they submitted a land a letter that letter was by a landscape architect the commission all reviewed it but was cognizant and the information was all presented you know in the same way an arborist would so we're just kind of in a predicament when it comes to reviewing as like we have to hold them to the standard of a certification from

an arborist. So, we don't want to be in a position, you know, we approve something from a landscape architect, someone comes here, you know, my neighbor got this approved, they got it reviewed by a landscape architect. Why can't we do it? So, that's been a little predicament in terms of the review for the trees. It's definitely going to be an extra expense. Yeah. For the, you know, I'm looking at the landscape plan that's right there. You've paid somebody to do this lovely what I assume to be code compliant landscape plan including trees and technically they meet all the requirements. I'm I'm confused as to why we these terms are not these professions are not interchangeable for this purpose.

Yeah. I I don't know uh enough about the difference between the two. Does an arborist have scientific knowledge where it makes them a better person to evaluate the health of the tree when they're putting together the table and the architect is more design focused. Yeah. But the arborist is not going to draw you a plan like right. Yeah. So you're employ this is like a full employment act here with this tree thing you know

and I think that's where the the complexity came in because when we put this together it was specifically and I think it through through the discussions that it just require an arborist and while I think it is beneficial to have an arborist to do the assessment it's not necessarily beneficial to have the arborist do the design work right to replace for the replacement because we already are telling them by code what you can use and all that. But I do believe I would

I would have more faith in an arborist assessing the conditions of the trees than I would on on a landscape architect. But when we went through the process, it was made and I don't well I'm just going to say it was made specifically clear we it has to be an arborist and a certified or the tree inventory. Well, it was for the whole ordinance at the very top. The applicability was applied for all of those sections as certified by an arborist. So, with these changes that I'm working on, it would be the arborist in the tree inventory would be by an arborist and then we would allow

an arborist or a certified landscape architect to do the replacement plan, which would be designating the species for replacement. The the criteria that you guys all came up with with the native species, the 33% diversity, that all stays. It's just now it'll be applied to a landscape architect or or an arborist who are both within certification just for the replacement just for the replacement plan. The inventory will always be done by arburist. So this plan that we see in front of us this you know colorcoded technically they don't have to do this.

No this actually came in as a bonus submission for that project. The one on the left is the arborist report and the replacement plan that was submitted for the same property. These two are the same addresses. Um, per our code, I have to review the one by a certified arborist. So, the one on the right is very pretty has they hit all of their replacement quantities for trees related to our code. However, I have to review the one on the left where they didn't meet the standards and didn't the information doesn't match. So, that was where we were in a in a predicament and we're still working with that to get that smoothed out and clear. But hopefully with the text changes and the ordinance that will not put us in a position where we're getting two plans from the same petitioner. Exactly. Yep. Makes sense.

C can we go back a slide? Yes. I'm very quick. Okay. You tell me this is industry standard or whatever. The color coding for the preserve to be horrible. Makes no sense. I said the same thing. This is the industry standard. I would assume every front neck forestry plan we see is to that color coding. Okay. So that's all right. It's it's it was tricky. The first tree report I saw that came in and I was oh to be removed is in green. It was like kind of odd but everything I've seen I know it now because I've been looking at them all but right it's good news for them. Um workers. Hey go. No that was it. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't the ones setting it.

No no that's not set by us. That's how front neck sends them into us. I I think our city and what we're you know we had a discussion about the insulation and some other things that we are adding so much cost to these jobs that these people are coming into now you know you can't you got to use a certain arborist you got to or not certain but there's only so many that are going to do it in the city and now or you can use a landscape I would this is not where I'd put my fault in I would say any stamp would do for this thing And this is our requirement. That's my opinion. I don't I think for even the assessment

for even the assessment. Yeah. I would say we just want a stamp on the thing. I would be even okay with actually honestly an architect doing it as well. I just we want somebody to take responsibility for that that they're saying that it's right, not the homeowner.

I I don't know. I think there's a lot of people that might might be upset by that, but I'm I'm willing to discuss it, but I think there's going to be a lot of people that are going to say landscape architects is only going to do what the uh what the builder wants and it's it's going to be more about u it may not be looking at from the trees point of view. I know that sounds kind of funny, but um that that's just just my thought and I think I think we I I like the idea of giving the uh exception to uh to the replacement because that way we don't it's almost like the the contractor's doing the landscaping anyway. So it'll minimize the cost with the arrest which maybe is better

and we would be looking at it as now that that um replacement plan doesn't have to be submitted before the commission either. It can be submitted during the building process. For instance, if the homeowner hasn't, you know, the new homeowner is occupying the home wants to say in that the species of trees they have on their lot, then we'll give them the opportunity to have that, but they would not be given occupancy until approved and those replacement trees are planted. Yeah. Yeah. I I'm not And if anybody else feels the same way, I I just you want to talk about it. I mean, I think that's um I'm I'm more than willing to to discuss it, but I'm afraid that that's going to give us some problems down the road or some uh people are going to be upset.

Just another consultant that these guys have to put in. Yeah. I mean, it's a whole another deal to deal with. It's a lot. It's It's adding up. I mean, I could see it like, you know, you have a civil guy, you have now you have an arborist, you have a landscape designer, you have, you know, your MEP guy. I mean, you have 10 consultants to build the same house that they're building over and over again, basically. And it's that's a lot to put on these developers. Maybe they should just move into an existing home and not care what happened to build a new one. Patriot

just add up just just keep on going up with it. But are are other cities doing this? I think so. Wasn't that part of our Yeah, we did some research and I I think for for the most part the assessment component, majority of cities were requesting an an arborist. Now, for the replacement component, you know, that I I I couldn't tell you for sure. Yeah. I'd have to go back and I'd be glad to take a look at the communities around here. I don't think we need to do that for the replacement there. I'm just talking about the assessments. Yeah. I think the assessment Yes. for the arborist, but I don't think I mean a landscape architect can look up whether the tree that they are proposing is on our list.

Yeah. Right. Right. Correct. So, why do we why do we need that the arborist to continue to be involved? Definitely. Totally agree with that. Absolutely. Maybe that that's the compromise position and I'll come before with more tax changes. And I agree with you, Tim. I mean, I'm glad you brought it up because I do think, you know, we're all talking about affordability and stuff like that and also trying not to make it so restrictive. So, you know, bringing up those ideas from uh, you know, construction point of view, you it's good because we need to be careful, you know, that we don't over complicate something. So, you don't want to be that city. I'm telling you, there's a city by us and everybody knows there's a tax on that city when they go through it.

Right. Right. Right. So then just some other changes was um in terms of like the way that they get their credit for their replace or not replace the credit towards their existing stock of trees that they're preserving. Um I just added a tidbit on there that was like you know trees whose trunks are not fully on the property. Sometimes we see those they give us the inventory the trunk is halfway between two people's properties. Um, I'm just putting it as that that they would not be credited for that tree for preserving it because it's, you know, a shared tree or, you know, how I I don't know how to designate from my review stance, you know, if it's one I don't know if it would be one to one.

I think it should. I agree with you. I mean, if it's on the fence line and they have to protect it, I think it counts. You would think if it is like half and half, tie goes to the runner. Yeah. They have to protect it all. I'm all for the protection of it. I have that. I'm saying that they wouldn't get credit towards their they wouldn't like doc if they have eight replacement trees required that tree will be protected, but that's not lowering their eight to seven is what I'm saying. I'd give them credit for that. You give them credit because that's just going to I think it's just going to make our but

asking people now to put trees in between houses instead of in the front yards. So to then down the road not give them credit for the berry tree we asked them to plant and where we asked them to plant it doesn't make any sense to me. I mean if it's you know I have a big tree in my yard and I know that my roots are underneath the driveway next door. I'm I'm I'm talking about when the surveyor submits it and the circle is on the property line split in half. Yeah. The circle is the circle is the circle. No, the circle the the DBH. So the trunk give them credit. Okay, let me ask you a question. Why don't you want to take credit? Give them credit for that.

I would think that we would I was under the impression we were surveying all the trees on, you know, fully on the lot and going from there. I mean, if how I don't understand how you can have a situation where an, you know, a developer comes in and says, "Oh, I want to remove that tree, but that tree is half on two people's properties." And, you know, they're already doing the effort to protect it. Well, then maybe if they are putting the protection methods, but it comes down to like I don't know. I'm trying to think of how it would work within the calculation stance too. It shouldn't be complicated, but why don't you look at that?

Yeah. Yeah, I'll look into what the impact cuz if there is some reservation that you have. Well, I also presented that in front of the commission about a property earlier and stated that they would not get credit for the ones that were this and we approved it that and I know we need to look into it and then go from there, but I was under the impression that that was the direction. Sorry. So, if the tree is on the property line and it falls, then whose is it? wherever I can. Very complicatedly. Yeah, I can tell you that. I'm just both my neighbors my neighbor's house the neighbor's homeowner insurance has to pay for it.

But then what if they say, "Well, no, that's their tree." That's not true. They I mean, whatever falls on your property, you're responsible for. Well, I know. I've seen it. I've seen it go both ways. People argue it, but your go for your neighbor's house in in insurance clauses. I've seen it. So, at my mom's house in the northeast quadrant, the neighbor's tree fell and took out her fence and part of the deck. And they said, "Well, no, that was the neighbor's tree. That's not our problem." And my mom had to pay to have those repaired. She should have sued them.

Yeah. So, I mean, but I'm saying that that I mean, so that's but it was right on the property line. But it's like if you were trimming the tree, you can trim everything on your side. That's what I've always heard. And so I mean I've never heard of where you don't you're not responsible for whatever faults on your property. I mean like I I've heard that same thing that Petri says, but I to point to Tim's point, it is a gray area where people like to fight it, you know? So

I like Petri like you mentioned there's a certain it just offends fairness a little bit here like if you have a whole row of trees that you think of as being part of your yard and they happen to be on the property line and we said no none of those count like I think most people would say that's not equitable so I mean not after we actually asked them to put the tree right yes so I mean I would suggest that we should count those.

See what it looks like to your calculations and then if you see some things that are problematic, bring it back and then we can kind of, you know, revisit or counterpoint. Um, then the other things related to are just in progress is like we're figuring out how this does this ordinance apply to a lot that's already clear-cut. There's nothing in the ordinance that, you know, implies or forces the developer to actually implement those replacement trees. We're gonna we want to make sure that, you know, we have a notation in there that if the lot's already clearcut, you're subject to, you know, your lots this size, you're subject to establish those replacement trees back on the property. We don't have that already. I don't think that's specifically noted in the ordinance.

Oh, I I thought we did. How do you know what trees were there?

We don't Well, so per Yeah. and all of it, you know, you can just remove it. Yeah. So, if you know the house was 10,000 on a 12,000 foot lot and the whole lot's clearcut, they'd be subject to just installing five replacements. And then if they don't, you know, it doesn't fit, we still have the ability for them to come and vouch before the commission like, hey, I'm going to do this sort of planting or this native, you know, as a response to not being able to fit all five trees on my property. Um, so it was just trying to that's going to be in progress and we're words smmithing that. And then um we're we're also working on addressing the removal of trees that were deemed to be protected but then that were later removed due to construction. Um we've had certain uh properties who have had you know valid reasons of why those trees had to be removed later within the process but then how does that work in terms of like one instance was a 9500 old bottom had some trees in the corner. Those trees were gone. However, they did place replacement trees as a response to those three being removed. So, we just want to make sure that we get something in the ordinance, you know, concrete into this so that that information is there if someone was to ask, you know, or we run into an instance that, you know, someone sees this giant tree that's deemed to be protected and then we come back in the after framing and it's gone.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Makes sense. So, that's just what we're doing. I will work on looking at the how that fits within the calculations and how we can work with that. um and then go from there. But that I'll come before the commission next meeting with more concrete changes and some more edits and then we can go through the discussion related to that if we aren't flooded with items.

Just to play the devil's advocate on this on should there be a penalty imposed if something happens to the tree where somebody takes it down, they know they were going to take it down. I'm just throwing that out there. you know, ver, you know, like they come to the commission, we we tell them, we think you need to keep that tree and then all of a sudden magically that tree gets knocked down and then it's just a replacement tree. Something to think about. You mean a penalty beyond having to add a replacement tree?

Yeah. But I mean we have a matter I mean existing houses have the matter of right to tear down as many trees as clear cut the entire yard and never plant a replacement tree. So I mean it's within so many months of the approval of plan. I get the impulse. The trouble is like intent like how are we going to prove that someone maliciously removed a tree they said they were going to keep? Like that's impossible for us to do. I don't think we I think it's just that hey we said they said they were going to protect these trees they didn't. Maybe that they get double the trees. Maybe instead of one tree now you have to replace it double just to make we want more. Right. Keep them honest and make it better for our community. That's what we're looking for.

Yeah. Cool. It's just a thought. Okay. I wanted to come before the commission to have those discussions so that we get that going. Yep. You know, I I just run this scenario in my head where we're arguing over this contractor to keep that tree. We finally agreed to well, I'm repeating myself. Sorry. Baking this longer.

So, that's everything. Just be next meeting, I'll come back with some changes. I'll look into, you know, how we would apply the credit then for, you know, shared trees or going that direction. If that's, you know, we want to do that, then I want to make sure that we have um something in our uh inventory that's noted. I know we do see it occasionally if whether it's shared or not, it is noted on there. However, we'll just make that as part of the table requirement then so that it's always comes in on every arburst report. Okay. Right. I think that's everything I have related to trees in the review. So, thank you. Thanks, Jack. That was great. Good job.

Okay, we'll move on to item five, 2024 comprehensive plan update implementation discussion. Chairman, the first thing uh part of the comprehensive plan. So, we did uh adopt uh uh we forwarded recommendations to the council regarding data centers and and and such. At the last meeting, there was discussions about the buffer and we're trying to get some maps put together. We told the commission we would bring these uh forward you tonight. So, on the upper leftand corner is a 300t buffer from property zone, residential, and public activity. uh public activity includes most of our parks, schools, and government facilities uh in there. And you can see on there, again, looking at the the map on the upper left corner, if you look at the upper left corner of that map, you would see the areas um in um with the crosshairs that that show uh what would be outside of that 300 ft. And on the right side of that upper left corner map, you'll see in the Deman industrial price uh the properties that would be uh uh meet the conditions of 80 or 120,000 square ft to to pursue a data center if they wanted to. Now the lower right corner map, we increase that buffer to 500 ft. And then you can see the changes uh that would happen measuring again from parks uh or anything zone PA and residential properties. Uh so up on the upper leftand corner of that map uh that's what we call Bor Warson Bower you'll see one property uh that would have the availability ability and on the right hand side in DMAN price uh you would see that that narrows down to three properties. Wow.

What's going to happen when that uh bike trail

depends on what we decide what the city decides to to zone it as in the past. Uh and I'm not exactly sure how it was initiated. Uh the bike trail on the south side of Olive I think is zone PA public activity uh in there, but that does not necessarily reflect it on the north side as much. And you can see uh uh you know the railroad on the far north end, they had it zoned industrial. So it could stay unzoneed. Uh we can create a new zoning designation uh for trails. Um or we can deal with with that at that time. Again, there would still be at least one parcel uh if the man industrial and price were completely eliminated of the opportunity. There would be one up at Warren Price, excuse me, Warren Bower. Um go ahead.

Hi. Um I just wanted to kind of call out some specifics. the uh taking into consideration the language of the um of the proposed legislation. It is any residential prop anything zoned residential. Uh and it's in that description there. Uh so it had it broke down the LI or light industrial properties into three basic sections 80 uh,000 square feet and over and 120,000 square feet and over. and then drawing the uh 300T boundary and a 500t boundary from all of those green parcels. That's the, you know, the combined ones that are considered those residential. The ones that are gray are going to be things like your uh CO and um uh office the the planned office retail. Uh so there are some that don't you know qualify in that green but drawing from that green um and uh those properties that are over those uh that size or sorry the lots that are over that size that are still kind of left over are the ones that are hatched. I tried to make it a hatching that was large but looking at it on the screen you can't really tell one blue from another. Um, if there's any question though, uh, as to which ones are 80,000 square feet and which ones are 120,000 square feet, that's not, um, I mean, uh, it it certainly knocks it down quite a bit if you're at the 500. Uh, but, you know, um, you can still kind of delineate on the, uh, 300 foot buffer as well. Any questions? So, so essentially the 500 ft reduces

down the number of parcels that can have a data center. Correct. Down to four. Down to four. Better than we'll go through that. Uh this one here is the uh uh art uh art frame or what is it? Uh uh I believe that is They do frame frames for for u for artwork and some signage. They did the signage for uh Irvington Place which was nice to see that they were using a local business. Uh this one here is a multi-tenant warehouse that includes the Shnooks Floral that I know.

And then this one here is a multi-tenant more commercial. Uh you have a net uh the artery uh floral by design the USGS facility. So they kind of have more of a customer not they're not retail but more of a customer type of facility than manufacturing and such. Uh and then this right here is Highspe. They had just bought the building relocated from Maryland Heights uh in here and they sell I'm just going to use widgets variety of different type of widgets. What do you think the noise is going to be like from a a site that's 1,200 square 1,200 square feet or or bigger versus 80 square ft?

It'd be a couple of different things because again we define the size of a data data center within a structure and then this is the parcel the the lots. So we have uh the the minor data centers which go up to 20,000 square ft um data centers or you know mid data centers which go up to 99,999 uh in there and then the mega data centers anything over 100,000 square feet is prohibited. So even a mega data center would be hard to fit 999,000 uh in here is going to be difficult to fit and meet all the criteria. It is possible when they could do structure parking.

I wouldn't think so. In the 80,000 I, you know, I believe you would have to have the 120 and um have a building that size, you know. Um so it would depend on the building that they have on site um and what kind of sound mitigation methods they employ. Um but truly the the these are from the parcel boundaries and don't uh reflect the um main buildings surfaces that are existing. It's my understanding from news reports and it's just news reports. I don't have any documentation is that you know the the the buzz sound that comes from these if we're talking about the places that are the hot topic now is a thousand feet or more um 247 a buzzing sound is heard. The noise pollution is dramatic. 1,000

1,000 and that I brought that up to and and that would eliminate any really probably any partial here. But I think if we're serious about not creating a place for these massive centers that create noise, major noise issues and you know the impact on water and electricity and I I just I mean, I think a lot of people you'll have people coming out of the woodwork because of the noise issue alone at night. Huh. Especially at night. Yeah. It's 24/7. No, but it's more pronounced.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, good. With all the other noises that are gone, street traffic.

I mean, noise travels differently. Sometimes I can hear 170, sometimes I can't hear, you know, depends. Winter is different. But but I've I've seen several news reports that have interviewed people that live more than a thousand feet and it's all night, day and night. That's why in in the process, I mean, because recognizing that we made sure to eliminate any sizable parcel that could get even past 100,000 square foot threshold, the ones that you hear about right now are are I mean close to in the millions in square footage. It's not

then they have turned the mega mega centers and we're we we those are just incompatible with our neighborhood character and our values. We're not going to allow those at all. Right. Uh you know what we're doing is you know looking at this this midsize range to smaller ones and then establishing and requiring performance standards to be applied uh in addition to that and restricting it through through those set buffer setbacks um in there. So

but I'm wondering is if we should do like just like a hybrid approach. You do a 300 if it's a smaller data center or smaller lot size. I'm not sure exactly if that would coincide together and then the 500 or you know the the larger one that would still be allowed. It's possible. Um in there we went just to keep the the the writing of the ordinance easier because we created a tier system for the data centers uh in there but we just kept the buffer at 500 regardless.

Right. But like I said, that's what I'm wondering. If if the noise between those different sizes is going to be different, then maybe you offer 300 for, you know, the smaller ones and 500 for the larger ones, thinking that the noise is going to be greater, you know, than that. And I'm hoping that what Petri brought up, the thousand, was for the megas that aren't allowed, right? you know how however if there's something way we could somehow quantify that be curious of that article you know yeah because I'll try I'll try yeah that would be great because there is nothing more annoying than

yes it's a very good point do we have standards for mitigating the sound if they were to come yes what would that be

let me pull up While he's pulling it up, I think one of the things that's tough from a council perspective is, you know, and Carlos has called this out, we can't put regulations in place that basically just outlaw it because if we do, then you can be sued or you're not allowed at that point. Similar to what we had for marijuana. Um, on the flip side, if we put these and then a data set comes and submits and they've hit all the criteria, we're not going to have really much lay ground to stand on to say no on those kind of things, too. But it's a balance, I think, because I thought the recent creep case makes it such that we can say no for any reason,

any reason, and not get but it just comes down to I think riskation is actually explained the creep case. I didn't I didn't heard bits of it. Yeah. No, it's it the council rejected even though they technically met all the requirements and the Supreme Court ruled that they can reject them for any reason. It went to the Supreme Court. It went to the Supreme Court of Missouri. This is the Quick Trip. It's the Quick Trip. Oh, you're talking about the Quick Trip. Sorry. Yeah, the Creek Court I mean that was that was like years ago. Yeah, it wasn't that many years ago. That's relatively recent. Yeah, actually within five years.

Yeah. My parents live off in great I mean it was a stunning decision because they have technically met all the requirements but there's still always the right of council to reject and they don't really have to even explain why in Missouri is true in other states and again and that's why under this ordinance draft we we are changing it from a permitted use by right to a special permit which requires the council

uh in that process Uh going back to addressing the the question regarding the the noise standards here. So we created a a little website page here that has information from 1STL. They've been uh uh consolidating a lot of information. They they they're kind of a sub of East West Gateway and then other data that we've collected and from the other communities that have been doing work uh on there and then making sure that our information is accessible to the public. Uh the standards for the the noise mitigation um that we had was uh here

uh they have to provide existing no noise levels, predict future noise impacts, identify uh noise sensitive areas. Uh compare them to the federal highways um you know noise noise scale and uh try to keep them below 65 I believe. uh is how it's set. Uh and then yeah and then the generators are restricted from certain times and usages. Okay. Okay. So was everybody's thoughts on the 300 versus 500?

I don't know. I've got a strong preference between the two to be honest. I I think if our goal is to be restrictive, let's just go with 500. I don't disagree. Does anyone feel strongly the other way? I think let's go 500. That's how it said.

All right. I raised this with Carlos the other day because of the data center, but the other looming issue is um warehousing um of um immigrants and whether or not they can you that the government can come in and just take one of our manufacturing facilities and turn it into an ICE facility. And I'd like to know more about what we would do in that that instance through our zoning process. Um, if the federal government just decides like they're doing all over the country, just we're buying that and we're housing people there and we don't have to go through anything else.

That concerns me probably more even than the data center.

And there's two components on that. one only if the the government's up front. The federal government is going to have some exemptions that are things that we are not going to be relayed. Uh and uh government entities are exempt from zoning in there. What would be the main caveat would is the building codes and ultimately especially like the structures that are located here. I mean they you you for something like that not knowing enough of this I mean you start getting into an assembly use which then leads to specific fire requirements bathroom requirements and things that a lot of these warehouses are not designed and set up to. So it's not to say that it isn't impossible to do um in there but the building code would address those issues. Um and there the key part of what we need to find out is like h how much information is going to be provided to us as a municipal government and what some of these other communities have kind of faced. It was like we're doing it's us and we're doing it no matter what uh or or so. But I think our code the building codes are pretty good uh in terms of you know of overseeing that type of conversion. But ultimately the zone you know we won't be allowed to zone another government type of entity and we ran we run this you know continuously with Obanum school or and other government organizations like that because logos Emanuel and Emanuel being somewhat unique because again now we're it's a church uh in there they always lead to to some type of of issues u but you know we have the federal government data center right across the creek uh on Hilltop and Arrowhead uh in there.

So, it's not that far out. But, uh we'll we'll take a look. The key would be like finding a community that's just experienced had that experience uh in there and see how much information they were even given prior to that type of use. Wow. That's that is never honestly I didn't should have thought of it but I did

right yeah yeah right okay um any more disc I don't think we discuss that anymore

just a little bit uh in here because we we we didn't have a we didn't spend a lot of time on on the comprehensive plan update, but there's a couple of you that were not here at the last meeting. So, we we've we've set up this table and we we're identifying each of the comprehensive plan goals and then the different types of actions that can take place. We've kind of categorized this uh in terms of reflecting what uh council's priorities were and what things we can kind of hit right away and start looking at. The intent of the the section up here on top was deal dealing with residential affordability and things that we can start looking at new residential districts, height and bulk standards, green construction, short-term rentals, accessory structures, ADUs, and updating our land use code. That's where we're focused in there. Uh Don was going to be putting together some some maps uh excuse me for us to use and uh that will be somewhat similar to this one. I actually got Indian Meadows. It wasn't the Northeast. So, we're going to kind of focus on the northeast quadrant first uh because it's a little bit more manageable and there's about five different uh residential housing types that are located here. Uh and see what opportunities we could create to create indiv, you know, more customized zoning districts for those. Like here you have 50 foot to 75t wide lots. Here you have 75 to 100 foot wide lots. and then kind of create what we the term is been used like pattern language uh where you can have you can show somebody okay this is your lot this is your your house here and if you wanted to get to a two-car garage these are different patterns you could try to follow and and and to try to achieve that on there so uh we'll try to get those uh more specific uh for our next

meeting in April can sorry Carlos can you clarify we'd always talked about not one thing about all of that is we have one kind of resial zone. Correct. Right. And I thought generally, you know, again, this gets to an equity issue or class issue too in the sense of like other cities who have had like 10 of them or something like that. Then you might be like, okay, well this district can have the small ones and this can have this and no brick and things like that where these have this and you get the richer area or things like that. We're hopefully trying to avoid that was the thought. Well, there'll be two things. One, we're looking at it in the terms of of lot sizes as opposed to trying to if it's by lot size. Yeah, it wouldn't we wouldn't the the general character and design it's a good question

and something we'll be we'll try to stay cognizant is because if I was to build a house the general design standards are going to be based on you know the the residential redevelopment design manual and they're going to be coming through through this commission the district itself isn't going to give any leeway to say all brick or okay that was my concern is I didn't because even if we did by lot size north of all of lot size are smaller. So I I want to be very careful. We're not again I'm not I'm not I'm not as deep into it yet, but I'm generally very reserved on but we have smaller lots south of Correct. We do, but but yeah, so I'm I'm very hesitant, but it sounds like you're not that's not where you're headed.

Correct. And I think like what I envision is and and again we're I'm using the northeast quadrant because of its size and and it's something you know it's a good good case study area you know but you know lots that are here you know along Alice and south of Alice are not very different than the lots within Chevy Chase and looking at at the setbacks the the lot west lot areas but not necessarily design con I think once you have them see it. So, okay. Okay. Good question. I appreciate that outlook. All right. So, we'll get those for the April 2nd meeting and let me get back to to that. So, that's all I have, chairman.

Okay. On that. Good. Good. Good. All right. That sounds great. Um, I guess we'll move on to There's no still nobody in attendance, right? No, sir. Is anybody have any public comments that they would like to make? Okay, we'll move on. We'll go on to other business meeting minutes. And before us, I see the February 19th meeting minutes. Are are we all caught up? Getting closer. Getting closer. All right. Fantastic. If anybody has uh any questions or clarifications, please contact Jack. All right, we'll move on to reports. Carlos,

uh just a couple of things. There's the events that are that are listed on the the slideshow. Um uh just remember our next meeting on March 19th will be cancelled um in there and so our first meeting will be April 2nd. Uh and there right now uh Mr. Carz was working with two petitioners on pools and against I think within the code uh we've managed to find and work with them in an effort that they may not have to come to the commission further review uh in there um uh which will give us more time to focus on the on the comprehensive plan the council will be considering uh we'll have public hearings next Tuesday uh one for the data centers the other one for the rooftop solar panels residential rooftop solar panels uh on their agenda. Uh uh outside of that, the brass tap has opened. Uh they opened on Monday uh in there if you get the opportunity. Their grand opening date though is going to be in April, I believe. So they still haven't had their their ribbon cutting ceremony uh in there. Um Paris Baguette, I'm anticipating probably late April or May. uh not specifically for building construction, but they last I talked to her, you know, they sent everybody to uh DC to go get training and and and and all that. So, I'm assuming all that does take time uh uh in the process. Uh Irvington Place Apartments, uh they're doing final inspections, uh I think tomorrow and probably look about two weeks before uh probably occupancies come in. uh sidewalk looks great. You ever get a chance to to walk there? Uh the that neighborhood is now fully interconnected within the the sidewalk grid of the city and so that's been a a long time coming. Glad to answer any other questions.

I don't have any anybody else. All right. Thanks, Brian. Uh Carlos mentioned the brass tap which is exciting. So get a chance. And then the Holly Festival this weekend. just a call out is they are not allowing parking at Sty Park this year. Um, and they're definitely not encouraging it on the streets, but there is a shuttle, a free shuttle that has been worked out with the community and it's actually going to park up here on Olive. What's the behind um which

I think the the US Bank. Yeah, the old US Bank in the back parking lot. So, a lot of parking lot, but yeah, future Mercy. And then there's going to be shuttles running. I asked if they're going to have trash bags on the seats because it's gonna be If you done Holly Festival, it's awesome. But you get dirty like with the colors. It's amazing. It's fun. I'm excited to be able to walk to it and make my and make the family like, you know, kind of get rid of stuff in the in the mud room. But um uh it's a great place. Hopefully the weather will be good and not too rainy or anything like that. It's but yeah, they didn't want parking in that that situation. So that's just something to call out. Um and then understanding traffic stops just a community program with the police um just for new drivers especially if you want to understand what happens on the traffic stop be April 23rd you can sign up why as well so that's what I have

good thanks Brian anyone else have anything they'd like to add I think one more thing I'll let Don kind of talk about it but she has on on the website uh to vote for your uh to nominate your b uh favorite businesses uh for this here uh can easily get to the directory a dining guide and then go and take your survey.

And if you need to confirm that the restaurant is in all of that, there is a handy dandy map right there too, which is usually not a problem, but it is open. Please vote. uh you have up uh per form or per uh survey, you can submit three businesses or up to three businesses and up to three restaurants. So, I know you guys all shop and eat here as much as I do, if not more. If the restaurants on the border of city, can we still vote for it? There are trying to bring back to trees, but

yeah, you're getting a lot of submissions. Uh, you know what? I actually just got back um from vacation, so I have I prioritized this meeting and I have not checked it. Okay, good. All right. Um, well, I appreciate your voting. Thank you. Okay. If nothing else further, we will adjourn at 8:12. Thanks. 8:15. I'm not saying one word this evening. You can see I I break my own. Can't help yourself. Well, I just It was a good discussion. I just Yeah. I just want to be more efficient and that's built.