City Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. GENERAL BUSINESS: • Review of Agenda • Approval of Minutes from November 13, 2019 • Election of Planning Commission Chair 4. DISCUSSIONS/PRESENTATIONS: • Efficient Irrigation & Landscape Design – BiJay Adams 5. WORKSHOPS: • Possible Amendments to City Landscaping Code 6. REPORTS: • Secretary’s Report • Planning Commissioner Reports • City Council Reporter of the Month 7. Citizens Comments 8. Adjournment Next Meeting: January 8, 2020 Non-hearing items scheduled, and their order, are only tentative and are subject to change. The Planning Commission may not address all items as listed and/or may continue certain items to a later session. The Commission reserves the right to take action on all items listed on the agenda. The Planning Commission provides at least 3 minutes for public comment and submission of written comments for inclusion into the public record and consideration by the Planning Commission is encouraged. For more information, please contact Planning & Engineering Services at 755-6708. The public is invited to attend. Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City at 755-6700 with 48-hours advance notice for special accommodations.  PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 Planning Commission Members Present: Phil Folyer, Jesse Fox, Richard Siler, Jamie Baird, Charles Matthews, Tom Sahlberg Adjunct Member(s) Present: Paul Brown, Joe Mann Absent: Kelsey Wright Staff Present: Lisa Key, Barbara Barker, Tait Hunter (filling in for Kelsey Wright) Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 4:01 PM. Roll Call: A quorum of members was present. General Business: Review of Agenda & Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Baird moved that the October 9th minutes be approved, seconded by Commissioner Brown. Minutes were approved with all ayes. Workshops: Possible Amendments to City Landscaping Code: Barbara Barker briefly reviewed the current landscaping code discussed during the previous commission meeting in October, summarized the 7 goals discussed previously. Barbara reviewed a number of potential action items identified in relation to the first three goals identified. The commission discussed the potential action items in detail. The Planning Commission, through the course of their discussion, identified a new goal: “Emphasize and enhance safety considerations in landscape design, with consideration given to: • Bicycle & pedestrian safety; • Ingress & Egress; and, • CPTED principles (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design). Discussion of potential action items related to the last four goals was deferred to the December meeting. Discussions/Presentations: Proposed 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan: Lisa Key briefly went over content of the Capital Facilities Plan, as well as the status and schedule for City Council review and adoption. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1|2 November 13, 2019 Secretary’s Report: Given Chairman Phil Folyer election to City Council, Lisa Key thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission. She indicated that it would be necessary to elect a new Chairman at the December meeting. Richard Siler was nominated as a candidate. Lisa indicated that nominations would remain open until the next Commission meeting, even anyone else would like to make a nomination (or nominate themselves). She will prepare a ballot for the next Commission meeting. Planning Commissioner Reports: No reports made at this meeting. City Council Reporter of the Month: Commissioner Folyer volunteered to report at the next City Council meeting. Citizens Comments: No citizen comments were made. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:52 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2|2 November 13, 2019  Possible GOALS to evaluate for any proposed revisions: (the previously noted 30 action items have been categorized to fall under each of the 7 identified goals) 1. Allow for more designer creativity rather than prescriptive methodology. Provide performance based guidelines with interactive worksheet for compliance 1.Required density of shrubs (prescribed number of shrubs per lineal feet) creates an overgrown condition that requires the owner to remove plantings as they mature. The current code does not address the size of the plant at maturity, rather is prescriptive by count of plants. Should we change from count-based prescriptive code to performance-based coverage code? 4.Should there be exceptions to buffers (none or narrower) if a fence is used 5.Need to further address how berms can replace perimeter planting. 2. Maintain the tree canopy in the City, but allow for different configurations 6.Should alternative method for interior parking be expanded to other zones 7.Should tree canopy in parking lots have same count (for heat island and shading) but allow for fewer planted islands, easier maintenance. Currently every island has a 6’ strip for planting and every row has an island every 90’ (10 spaces) for a density of 60’ x 90’ for tree density. Change to plantings every other island (leaving space for lighting/cameras) and every 6 spaces (120’x45’). Rather than prescriptive, forcing designer’s spacing, provide performance density of 1 tree per 950 sq.ft. and let designer decide where they go. Encourage use of fewer, but larger, consolidated landscape islands, particularly in larger parking lots  3. Maintain streetscape aesthetic, views from rights-of way 16.Do driveways interior to lot need landscape buffers? 18.For ROW aesthetic, how can we encourage use of plants at building entrances and facades facing rights-of-way 20.Should a short plat require full frontage improvement? 21.Should we require plantings in R/W with utility easements? 23.If commercial development abuts a R/W with street trees, is additional 10’ buffer with trees required? Maybe just shrubs instead?? 25.Do we need to have buffer around structures? Landscaping setbacks to promote safe ingress/egress NEW LANDSCAPING GOAL: Emphasize and enhance safety considerations in landscape design, with consideration given to: • Bicycle & pedestrian safety • Ingress & Egress • CPTED principles (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) END OF 11/13/19 PC Discussion 4. Reduce the amount of maintenance for owners (both for snow and plants) and reduce initial costs of construction 2.Should there be exceptions due to use? Other jurisdictions have exceptions for parking areas used for retail or storage. (RV campground was example) 3.Should there be an exception of landscape architect requirement for small lots? 8.Should there be fewer shrubs required on interior islands for easier maintenance, more space for swales and snow storage. 13.Should there be a minimum for interior island size for plant health? 14.Should there be exceptions for topography? 15.Should there be smaller buffers required with a small lot? 17.Should we require refresh landscape with a significant TI ? 19.How should we address Phased construction? 24.Do we need a prescribed landscape coverage %. If we define buffers and interior islands that should provide needed coverage. 26.Do we need section prescribing % allowance for hardscape within landscape zones? 28.Should we define a clear view triangle for entrances for trees and shrubs higher than 24” 5. Acknowledge adjacencies for required buffering (like zones/uses may not need buffering), maybe add buffers for other-than vehicular areas. 9.Should there be a required buffer for adjacent properties within the same zone and like uses? (ie at wake-up with 5’ buffer next to 5’ buffer (10’ total) for two commercial bldgs. adjacent) 10.Should there be a required buffer in parking lots with adjacent shared parking 11.Should we identify categories for how much buffering there ought to be based on use like used in other jurisdictions? (Eg.fully- obscuring (non compatibility adjacent use)/ partial-obscuring (similar use) / non-obscuring (same use)) 12.Should we have requirement for a headlight screen (30” minimum height, evergreen only) at property lines? 27.Should we require street tree plans for final plats? 6. Reduce water usage, incentivize the use of native plants and xeriscaping (consider the different aesthetic with less grass turf) 29.Should we incentivize low-water use plants and xeriscaping? 7. Incentivize the use of existing/mature trees rather than replacement (12” may be too large) 22.Is Heritage tree section necessary? Are there any? They are “significant trees” by definition 30.Should we incentivize the use of existing/ established trees (versus “save when practical”)