any time. Sure. Welcome to the June 16th, 2025 meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call this meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I am the chair of the Weisetta Plan Commission. Uh, first on the agenda tonight is roll call. Uh, Director Sharp, would you please call roll? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Schwabby. Commissioner Ankeny here. Commissioner Planton here. Commissioner Severson here. Commissioner El here. Commissioner Vanly here. Chair Cameron present. Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, next on the next on the agenda tonight is approval of tonight's meeting agenda. Um, does anyone have any questions or proposed changes to the agenda? I'm hearing none. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. Can I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Aneny. Uh, further discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Say nay. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. Um, next on the agenda tonight is the approval of the consent agenda. Tonight's consent agenda consists of one item which is to approve the planning commission report and recommendation for 1022 and 1042 where Zetta Boulevard East the PUD concept plan. Um, does any commissioners have any questions or comments on that item or wish to pull the agenda item for further discussion? Director Sharp. Chair, if I may, uh, two additional public comment items did come in after the public, uh, packet was published last Thursday. These are on your table for review. They are in the official packet in the rear of the room, and they will be shared with with the city council uh, with your report and recommendation and entered into the public record. Perfect. And I um I would like to uh just pull um that um item real quick off and uh for further discussion and just move it down to um shift everything south one. So move it down to five and old business will become six. Um I don't need a motion for that. Do I? Um chair. No, I think you could just go I mean it's next on the agenda. So, I'm just gonna roll right into it. Single item. Yeah. So, go ahead and take it up with your colleagues and and and then ask for a motion after your discussion. For sure. So, um really all I wanted to do was I just wanted to correct my own record um from last meeting um where I incorrectly identified when I was summarizing the public comments, I incorrectly identified that um all of the comments were positive um when in fact two of them were positive and two of them were negative. And I just wanted the record to reflect that. Thank you, chair, for for noting that. And I would also note that I think at the next meeting you'll have the draft minutes from that meeting and you can make sure that your comments are accurately reflected in that. I always appreciate when you all read those minutes and make sure everything that's said is accurate to your recollection. Perfect. Um so uh so that was the only thing I had for that. So um may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? I'll make that motion. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner El. Uh, further discussion. All those in favor? I I opposed. Nay. The eyes have it and the motion P and the motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um, next on our agenda tonight, um, is old business, but seeing that there is none, we're going to roll right into our public hearing item. Um, tonight's public hearing item is uh a tree preservation ordinance amendment for to chapter 936 of the city code. We're going to lead off with Director Sharp with uh with the proposed changes from the city. Thank you, Chair. Apologies. Mic been turned off. As you stated, this is a ordinance amendment that the planning commission is reviewing this evening. However, it has a slightly different path than a traditional ordinance amendment would take. So, I will uh try to update you on what the history of this ordinance amendment has been. Uh, as a resource, we have our city forester Bennett present for questions to be able to uh answer specifics about the tree preservation ordinance that he ends up administering on a day-to-day basis. And additionally, he's been the primary staff member and liaison uh with our golf course uh users and owners here within our community. And so just wanted to make the commission aware that Bennett is a resource and uh we've asked him to sit into this meeting uh sit in on this meeting to offer his skills and uh provide us with a little bit more context where needed. Just to give you some background on the tree preservation ordinance as a whole. In October of 2022, you uh the city adopted the original tree preservation ordinance. Um I'm not going to go through every bullet on the slide, but there were a number of benefits and goals out of that tree preservation ordinance. As is common with significant new ordinances, there's tweaks to language that you learn once they are being administered. And until they are fully administered, they cannot be uh to the highest level that they otherwise would be. I've always referred to this more as a living ordinance or a living document as it grows with the community. And that is the case of what we saw here with the tree preservation ordinance. We came back in 2023 uh really hitting some of the nitty-gritty of uh standardization of interpretations. We'll have some additional ones that we may bring forward with a Davy tree study that's coming forward at a later date. So just understand that uh the cities when we adopt a significant ordinance like the tree preservation ordinance learns from its use and tries to make it better and understandable for all users as we bring it through. In the case of this ordinance amendment, uh I'm going to speak at an extremely high level to the history of the Woodhill Country Club request. We do have representatives present this evening that would be able to answer specific questions about it. And Bennett was, as I said, the closest staff liaison with what that process has been, what the goals have been, and what interpretations staff has attempted to make to allow this ordinance to work with multiple different kinds of users. So to start with, uh, pre-planning meetings occurred for Woodhill Country Club and a project that they are going to be proposing that I believe starts here sometime here in the summer of 2025. This project uh is pretty substantial and is a large capital outlay and a long-term plan for Woodhill Country Club. In moving forward, they met with, as you can see, uh, the city forester and other city staff numerous times to try to discuss how the ordinance would affect their site. Unfortunately, due to the nature of which the way the ordinance was written, which is pretty consistent with other communities and even within our own ordinance, an ordinance may not be as amendable to all sites and all types of uses. uh was largely developed for single family homes and the development of commercial sites. Uh large tracks of land, particularly golf courses uh which are a unique use but a substantial land mass within Weisetta u may present additional challenges to that ordinances but also additional opportunities. In uh May of 2025, the Woodhill Country Club was able to petition the Weisetta City Council at a workshop session to essentially try to explain their case for where the current ordinance is not meeting their needs or their expectations for a tree preservation plan. Notably, uh part of their plan was to remove significant numbers of trees potentially before they were becoming hazardous. uh by their definition, they might have already been hazardous. And because that determination is not is is not an exact science and as is an imprecise one, that can cause difficulties when administering the ordinance for both uh Woodhill Country Club and uh Weisetta Country Club here within the city. What city council found and directed staff to study and bring back before the planning commission is essentially the ordinance that we're going to be proposing before you this evening. Uh they cited unique land use of the golf course as a potential reason for why they would do this. Significant acreage within the community. uh particularly that that acorage tends to be heavily wooded with a large number of significant and heritage trees and also noted the fact that both of our golf courses in Weisetta happen across jurisdictional boundaries and the burdens that that may place on an operator trying to meet two different cities ordinances while they are trying to manage their site. With that, they really directed staff to come back with something very quickly that was understandable due to the timeline presented by Woodill. Thus, you're seeing the planning commission being asked to take action if you are willing within or on the same evening as the public hearing. You'll see that I have other actions that you're able to take as well. Uh, which would certainly allow the planning commission to ask to take additional time. So, I don't want to state in any way that the planning commission couldn't ask for additional study and slow things down. The directive that or the directive to staff from the council was that the study move along as promptly as we are able under the understanding that exemptions be carved out specifically for a golf course user and narrow that focus to a golf course user with the potential to expand that into larger institutional type properties in the future if needed and if presented. With that, the draft ordinance provision before you this evening essentially presents two paths for an a golf course user to seek an exemption uh just outright full exemption from the tree preservation ordinance. The first uh staff felt uh compelled to include an administrative path that would kind of incentivize a user to prepare a tree management plan. In other words, a large management plan for their entire site over the life of their site in a uh significant uh almost comprehensive plan like document for how they were going to manage their site in the future and have an aspect of that include a tree management plan. The second uh depending upon the timeline and what an applicant would seek would be for them to come directly to the city council and petition for an outright exemption from the tree preservation ordinance. That then would obviously require scheduling on a council agenda and would need to meet certain thresholds but would not go before the planning commission. One of the other provisions that staff ensured we included within this is that if the land use were to change from a golf course, uh the exemption would lapse and change in ownership would lapse and they would need to come back and present their case again in either instance. But again, one would be administrative and one would be through council direction and action. We can certainly go back and linger on any of these steps. Uh but I as you are evaluating uh the actions this evening essentially staff has presented three different actions that the planning commission could take to approve the draft planning commission report and recommendation as presented to approve it with minor amendments and specify what those minor amendments are and then to prepare staff to pro provide a revised uh report with significant amendments if needed. Additionally, if the planning commission commission so chose, they could direct staff to provide additional study, but we'd want very high level specifics on that due to the directive to make things move uh in accordance with the schedule outlined by Woodhill Country Club. And with that, Bennon and I would be available for questions. Uh, additionally, a representative from Woodhill Country Club is in the audience and would be able to answer specific questions about their intentions for their site. Thank you, Director Sharp. Commissioners, anybody have any questions? So, if you go back to the um a couple of pages, uh it says the um Woodhill's concerns were project cost, staff burden, tree risk, and tree planting. So is that part of the discussion that's going to happen after so we can get an understanding of what their concern is versus the current tree ordinance. Commissioner Vanly, if you're seeking some of those additional details, that is why we've asked Bennett to be able to participate in this discussion so that we could go into rather than a 30,000 foot view dive in a little bit deeper. I haven't been privy to two years worth of conversation and so I want to make sure that we have the resource available for you. Uh do you have any specific questions or Bennett? Would you like to provide a high level overview? Sure. Uh thanks commissioner. Could you would you mind providing the question once more? Yeah, I'm just um you know from let me say it this way. From 10,000 ft um uh the golf course has an awful lot of space, right? And an awful lot of trees. So, I'm not sure I understand what is getting in their way, right? And and and what they're really asking for in terms of a differential um versus what the the standard um uh tree preservation ordinance is. Sure. Sure. That Yeah, good question. Um I think the biggest obstacles that we've discussed with them um really are the project costs and by that we mean um things like tree replacement escrow. So the the ordinance requires that if the tree removal that's described in a proposal um crosses a certain threshold based on the amount of trees on the property, then there is a there's a certain amount of of replacement required on site and that's all calculated. Um there's various formulas and it's all based on the diameter inches of of each of these trunks and you get this number and and that number um needs to meet a number of conditions dealing with you know diversity of the planting and um appropriate species and stuff like that. Um but whatever that that final replacement plan is, it's backed by a replacement escrow. And that escrow is released over a three-year period um based on the condition of these newly planted trees with the goal of having them all, you know, become established and and contributing to the to the canopy. Um so that can get quite expensive um especially with a larger project. So right now um the fee schedule describes I think $330 per inch of replacement and that is it's released gradually but um you don't get it back entirely until 3 years after the project's been completed. So it's a big commitment financially. Um and if you're not doing any replacement then there's a fee in lie of replacement um which is similar. It's it's $300 an inch right now. Um, so the burden is about the same. Obviously, the main difference is that you're you're not getting that money back, right? Um, so that in terms of project costs, that's the big one. But also, you know, staff burden, it's it's um a different kind of cost, I guess. you know, if you're if you're committing um many hours to compiling a tree inventory or um getting risk assessments put together or or just pre-planning just generally with with city staff. Um so that that is a a cost for sure. Um and then they have had concerns about tree risk and and what constitutes a hazardous tree. uh our ordinance does define what that is and and a hazardous tree is not uh subject to a lot of these requirements. But um if it doesn't meet that standard, then it would be considered either a significant or heritage tree and and you would have to deal with those replacement requirements and and the burdens that go with with those. Um and then the planting, you know, there's obviously a especially for a bigger project, the tree planting can be a a whole separate undertaking, you know, a landscape plan. Um finding space for these trees. You know, if you have a big say a 30-in um oak tree, uh that would be a heritage tree. So, you're actually you would be required to plant 60 in of new trees. So each of those types of removals requires a lot of property to if you if you want to do all of your replacement onsite. So those I think have been the main sticking points. Um as as uh Mr. Sharp said there there's been a lot of back and forth and um and dialogue, but uh I would say those are the the main points and and there's there's probably others, but yeah. Chair Cameron, Commissioner Vanly, the other resource available within the room uh that might be able to help elaborate and explain in their own words would be appropriated during the public hearing to have uh Woodh Hill speak if you have specific questions for them. Just one note, they aren't the applicant within this. This was directed forward by city council. So, they would just be another member of the public speaking uh as this is a citywide ordinance. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah. Can I can I ask? So, I'm confused. Are we here to amend the ordinance or are we here to amend or give a specific request to an applicant? Uh, Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Severson, what staff what city council directed staff to prepare was essentially the study of an ordinance that would exempt golf courses from the tree preservation ordinance. the planning commission all together alto together whether that be a through an administrative process by preparation of a tree management plan that is then approved by the city forester or b not preparing that plan and simply going before the city council explaining their case concerns and seeking that exemption. It's an odd configuration in that way, but that is what was sought and what city council had discussed and direct uh directed staff study the preparation of. So then that would impact like you said there's two call courses in the city right now. Weisetta and Woodhill Country Clubs. That is correct. And I'm assuming there's no other land available to make another golf course in the city. So really would be exempting those two entities from this. Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson, that is correct. I don't know that it it doesn't exempt them though. It gives them a path to to it doesn't automatically exempt them. If they were to prepare either of the two alternatives, it would Right. And yes, go ahead. Um, chair and commissioner, I I just, you know, the the actual changes are pretty simple and straightforward. You can see them uh in the packet materials on page 19. They're highlighted in red. So, what Director Sharp has been describing is is right there, and it's pretty straightforward. Like you said, there's there would be two paths for a golf course to essentially request relief from some of the regulation of the ordinances. One is going to council. That's the first paragraph you see there on page um looks like 19 but page five of the draft report and recommendation where owner goes right to council makes their case as director sharp said and council can impose conditions on that um that are consistent with public health safety and welfare. So if they like yeah you get exemption but you got to follow a plan or you got to do AB and C that council can impose those things and presumably that would be part of a discussion that that the applicant has with council. Then the other path uh is is um highlighted below as a new number seven there. you see that and that's, you know, if if uh very they put together a tree preservation plan that's much like any other um land owner would and the city forester reviews that and says, "Yeah, this is a good long-term plan for this particular type of site, then they wouldn't have to pay those uh tree replacement uh requirements um do the escrow and that sort of thing." Does that make sense? Yes. Now both of these properties join with Orno, city of Orno. So what happens? Is it just like the parcel of the property that is on the Wisetta city grounds that we would care about? But what if what if they're doing like just cutting out a few trees on our property but or on our land, but the rest of or like everything else? Like I I guess are we looking at this as a whole or is it Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson, you're hitting on an excellent point that city council also noted during their discussions and I believe that Woodill was trying to note because their sites uh our golf course sites in the city of Weisetta fall into multiple jurisdictions. They are subject to Weisetta's tree preservation ordinances and any that Orono also create. They do not need to be the same. And that is one of the incumbrances or burdens that Woodhill was attempting to express as a reason for why they would like to prepare a plan so that both cities could essentially adopt those plans or seek exemption from these ordinances so that they would be and seek that directly from a city council. so that they would be able to manage their site without needing to consider where the more arbitrary line of the city boundary is in relation to their site. And chair, if I may, you know, I just interject to to be very clear, Wisetta doesn't have authority to regulate property in orno. So in other words, our ordinance would apply to the part of the golf courses that fall within our jurisdiction. But I think the larger point is if you're a golf course in two jurisdictions, it's more challenging, more burdensome to handle two sets of regulations. I think that was the point that was raised at the workshop. I guess my my question is do do we have line of sight to what Oro does? In other words, is it a tree preservation plan that they could um from an operational standpoint develop one that that could bring it forth to both cities or are we proposing something that would would be yet another thing that ORO is not doing? Chair Cameron, Commissioner Vanl, I don't want to speak completely out of turn. What I believe Oro has looked at is modeling some of their ordinance after us but less stringent. Ultimately I don't know that they are complete with their tree preservation ordinance at this time. Uh city forest you no knowledge at this time. No I they have consulted with me um regarding as they develop their own tree preservation ordinance. I don't know where they're at in that process and I don't know um how similar those okay standards will be. Their ordinance is not yet complete. So ours is years further along. Thank you. Is there Sorry, can I ask another question? Absolutely. Is there any concern that we should have that exempting these entities would mean that there aren't rules for them? like they would either have to have a plan with the um a tree management plan with our city forester or the city council and so therefore there really aren't a set of rules or requirements. Are we comfortable with that or is it something that we should be considering that it's a little bit more unclear? Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson. Um yes. Again, you're hitting on all the top points this evening. Um, yeah, I I personally as a staff member, I do believe that there could be some concerns there. However, we're starting to get to that line of where best practice and policy are grayer and when there's something very clear, I feel compelled to inform the commission and city council as to what staff has researched as best practices. In this instance, we are starting to go towards the policy aspect that council and planning commission provide staff with some of the direction. And that is a little bit of a gray spot we're in with this one. Um, this one went through a slightly unconventional means of going to city council at a workshop first before the planning commission saw it rather than an applicant applying to amend the code, bring it forward to the planning commission, which would see it before the city council in that instance. and then you would provide your report and recommendation on what they proposed and then city council would weigh on that weigh in on that. So this one is a little bit um unique in the way that it's come before you, which is why I've tried to provide you with some of that history and context. Um but ultimately the zoning ordinance which is where the tree preservation ordinance lives is under the purview of the planning commission and therefore you are within your full rights to express any concerns or express any reservations or express your uh heartfelt support. This is this is a a a understanding of the challenges, but it's also brought about slightly by time and the concern that there's significant projects that they're looking to undergo that are affected by the current ordinance. So that would be something that I would look to the parties that are present to be able to explain. question. Uh, chair and commissioner, if I could just sort of follow up on that too in in the point that Commissioner Severson's raising, I do think the administrative path that's described, the sort of lower change there, number seven, where a golf course would work with a forester still requires a lot of the same um process, review, a plan that any other land owner would. what what it exempts him from is the financial burden potentially associated with having so many trees on a property that they have, you know, atypical considerations as a golf course. It's recreational. It's, you know, that they're managing it differently than other types of property. So, the administrative path still requires a lot of uh regulation and review and the city council is more wide open. I would say that council has a prerogative to say, "Hey, we need to see a plan to know." Uh, but council doesn't need a plan. It's not required under the ordinance. And they could impose a condition, but that's not required either. So, I think it gives I think the way I would think about this is, you know, does it make sense from your perspective to give the city council that much discretion to make that call? Is that a good way to to handle this situation? question. So, I think I'm understanding based on what you just said and what I heard previously, the two areas in red, depending on which way we go with our recommendation, only one of those two statements will prevail or both will be there. No, no. Uh could both those would be an option to the applicant or it could be neither or it could be something else entirely. Okay, that's what this is the what's in red is what the um director sharp and his team have put together in terms of at the direction of council in terms of here's a solution because council directed them to put pull a solution together. Our job is to say we like this solution, both of them. Yes, we like one of them. We don't like either of them. We want to go totally off base and our recommendation is we do something entirely different. So, it's really just to assess what's been put in front of us and say, do we think this is really given the context of of of the ch of the case for change, right? Do we think this is um the advisable way that we would recommend city council um approach this? Does that make sense? Am I off base? Chair Cameron, you are correct. Okay. And I I would note uh I I owe thanks to the city attorney. The exemption presented where a tree preservation plan needs to be prepared and evaluated by the city's forester is essentially the best practice threading the needle that staff has tried to take of we've been directed to study an exemption. How would this go about happening? Well, there's blanket exemption that requires city council action. That requires making your case to them. We've tried to incentivize that tree preservation plan by bringing forward that best practice management of okay, if we were going to look at exemption, what would be staff's suggestion for how that could be achieved while still meeting the intent of the ordinance? So from a um one more question I have. So from a process standpoint if if um number seven becomes part of the ordinance ordinance. Is that did I say that right? Yeah. Um is there is there a process for a variance? In other words, if something uh doesn't come can't come to agreement, would there be a potential for a request for variance that would come come before first the planning commission and then the city council? Chair Cam Cameron, Commissioner Vanl, excellent point. Yes, because it's within the zoning ordinance, it would be subject to the same variance provisions that a setback variance would be or where a fence could be located. Chair, the city force would like to provide a clarifying. Sure. Yes. So, um I I think the So, there's these two different paths towards exemption here. And I think the second one that's shown as B7 um that written this way that is actually referring to an individual project um because it uses the language tree preservation plan. And I think probably it what we should if if I'm if we're all on the same page, I think it should read the tree management plan approved by the city forester and that would apply to um the property and its management as a whole, not not regarding a particular project. So this language as it's written would would apply to, you know, a permitted land disturbance project or something like that. Um, if it were to read tree management plan, that would that would apply to the property going forward. City journal. Yeah, chair, if I might just interject a little little staff discussion here. Uh, city forester. So, is the tree man like you're suggesting we should replace preservation with the word management and is that that a defined term in the ordinance and if so, where? Thank you. that is the tree management plan I do not believe is defined the tree preservation plan is um and it's basically defined as being something that complies with the standards that are described in 9367 maybe yeah right and you're saying it should be something more than that well um I guess it depends on on what what what's appropriate you know one one would apply to a particular project the other could uh act kind of in a similar way that I think that that council exemption would. Um kind of an an ongoing exemption that wouldn't be specific to a a specific project if that makes sense. Well, it I I guess what I'm reaching for chair and um city forester is is um trying to be clear whether whether staff would recommend changing that word uh preservation to management and if so how staff and applicants would know what the contents are for a tree management plan. Director Sharp, can I put this as a personal uh research project for you when you have a second over there to see if we have tree preservation plan defined? Well, we do have tree preservation plan defined. How it's defined? What we don't have management plan, right? I think that's clear, but but I think to Bennett's point, um the difference between management and preservation, there is a difference, right? But depending on how we have preservation defined, right, could matter when in terms of going in and and defining tree management plan as well. Uh so I'm curious about what how how what how tree preservation plan is defined. Yeah, I think chair as as um our city forester pointed out tree preservation plan is defined in the ordinance in the definition section and in ' 07 management is not and I would want it to be my point. Sure. I was just curious of how we have tree preservation plan defined though. That's my question and you'd like an explanation of that? Yeah, just a brief one or find the applicable section of code and throw it up on the screen. Yeah, there there's it's not a a huge list chair, but um I I would say it's a tree preservation plan is generally it's something that describes usually overlaid on a survey or sometimes a standalone document. Um it describes what tree protection measures will be put in place during a project. Um it describes what the removals are. Uh generally there's going to be an inventory of all the trees on the property. um some specifications regarding uh how damaged trees are are to be uh treated. Um and also uh the landscape plan is sometimes included in that. Uh sometimes that the landscape plan is a separate standalone document but oftentimes all these tree related items are included and um presented as as that tree preservation plan. um something like that would check all the boxes that you would see in 9367. Um there are certain areas for discretion in there and in in terms of what staff can approve, but generally speaking, those are the key points. Okay. So, under the definitions, it refers essentially to the 93607 section. And rather than read you a small paragraph, I'm going to provide that as a supplemental for you to review. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Well, isn't there an element of this, however, that would still want us to be concerned about tree preservation? Um, it seems that that word would be appropriate. We're just exempting them from the ordinance in an effort to make it more economically feasible or or are there other reasons? Yes. So, the tree preservation plan ordinance language that was in there uh apologies that I I I was under the belief that we'd had the correct language with that. Um so we're uh trying to like take a look at this as we're here the management side of it within the language we don't have addressed and without a definition of that it would likely include the word preservation and tree man tree preservation plan within the definition of a management plan is part of a tree management plan based upon the way that that the city forester is describing. So rather than be the project specific tree preservation plan, it would be a whole new term and a definition of a tree management plan at a higher level of which you would have multiple parts and one of those parts would be a tree preservation plan for a specific project if I understand the point and nuance that city forester is attempting to describe. Yeah. And director Sharp, if I could add, I I think a a probably the best example to show the distinction here would be um so the the club has Woodhill specifically has concerns about uh hazardous trees and and the definition of those how those are managed. if a tree preservation plan provided exemption specific to a project. Um if they felt the tree was had become hazardous outside of a project scope, they would still be subject to the other requirements and standards of the the ordinance as a whole. um a tree management plan that was approved and and uh approved as being consistent with the stuff that we're talking about. I I think would would definitely speak to that situation which uh you know they there would be some sort of protocol or or standard that we agree on and say you know if a tree meets this condition I think that would make sense to remove it. No need to involve the city. I think is a kind of a basic but I think easy to understand example for that distinction. Sheriff, for the basis of your action this evening, um we'll rely heavily on the city attorney for this, but if that is something that you would direct that staff prepare, it could be part of your report and finding recommendation this evening that we come up with a definition that fits what we've described there, includes the tree preservation plan or project specific items and we could still move forward if the commission sought to. Commission didn't, we wouldn't need to. We would just need to make sure that we included some of those specifics and uh are as deliberate about that action as possible and we would help you craft some of that uh depending upon your deliberations. Perfect. Thank you, Director Sharp, Commissioners. Anyone else before we turn the public hearing? All right. Um so um uh public hearing is a time for us to just listen to um members of the community um and their thoughts and concerns with um this ordinance specifically. Um any questions um during the public hearing will be held until the end um and addressed by staff at that po at this at that point. Um I think that's it. Um so with that said um I will now open the public hearing. Um, if you'd like to speak, um, please, uh, come forward to the podium, um, and state your name and address for the record and let us know if you are affiliated with, um, I guess that part doesn't really matter. Um, but if you're with Woodhill, I would it would be great if you would identify yourself as such. Uh good evening. My name is Brian Edmonston and I am with Woodhill Country Club. Um thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all uh this evening and this has been an ongoing uh not problem but situation we've been dealing with with our golf course project coming online. There's been a lot of time, energy, and effort with our group in partnership with Forester Bennett and the city team. So, we just thank everyone's partnership um in getting to this point. A lot of what I'm going to share has been discussed already, but at a high level, uh we're seeking this exemption for three major issues. One, and probably the most important to me, is the the safety issue. There's a risk factors to some of our trees, and then also the administrative and financial burden. Uh those three all combined are the reason we're we're in front of you today. Uh the other part of this is this exemption is not unique just to Woodhill. This does impact, as we mentioned, other golf courses in Weisetta, Weisetta Country Club, but also other large land institutional land owners, Excel Energy, Weisetta City Schools. There's some other areas that may, if not already, come into this problem that we're dealing with. So, um, just to specify, this is not Woodhill alone. This is a a potential issue with other similar land owners. And to speak on some of the other questions that came up, uh, Woodhill has been around for 110 years. And in that time, it's been a a responsible land steward. Um, it's a certified Ottabon cooperative sanctuary since 1994. It has member-ledd environmental committee advancing sustainability initiatives such as reducing plastics, energy audits, birdhouse maintenance, hiking trails, groundwater improvements. We have with our project $75,000 allocated to replant trees. So this is I think the bold underline of this is we're not removing trees to replace with hardcapes, concrete and buildings. We're removing trees for safety concerns and to replace them with grasses. It's it's green space to green space is what we're trying to do. And we also have uh in addition to our stewardship record, pollinator meadows, natural wetlands, and a natural lowmaintenance no m areas implemented on our golf course for for better sustainability. So to quickly touch on just the three big factors, the safety risk is is one that's again the most concerning to me and and unfortunately at Woodhill, there's been an on-site tragedy due to a tree falling on a member and that member passing away. Additionally, in my recent time at Woodhill, we had two young girls acting as spotters for a golf tournament and a a gust of wind came up and the tree uprooted and landed very near them. The the situation did not become worse than that. It scared them, but it could have been a lot worse under under different circumstances. We also have large trees with branches falling near seating areas and near members, and they're just they're they're concerning when we have to bear the liability of that as as uh club operators. And with the the current assessment that that Forester Bennett mentioned, these have to pass an occupancy rate that we just it's really hard for a golf course to to achieve that mark due to its seasonality and no nights. Uh you know, it's people golf during the day and the summer in Minnesota. So the seasonality of that is also plays a factor. So we have some trees that over uh go over our putting green surface and it has some dead and dying branches and it likely is on its way out soon. We had an arborist do the safety risk factor to that tree and due to the occupancy rate, it was not deemed exempt in this code. So, we'd have to basically pay up to $36,000 for the removal of that tree. However, it was deemed unsafe. It just didn't meet the occupancy code, which is challenging when we can't take it down without paying a fee. Yet, it's the safety risk was identified in the risk factor. It just didn't have enough people under it at all times to uh rise to that occasion of a safety risk. So these are concerns we get as operators um our grounds team, our buildings team, uh myself as a general manager that we get from members concerns from some of the trees on property. Lastly, I'll touch on the other two administrative and financial burden. Again, our property in Weisetta is over 70 acres. That's over 5,000 trees in this tree preservation plan. We'd have to document, record, and with this replanting, that's over 200 trees we'd have to plant, grow, make sure they mature. that that's a full-time job. And to have an arburist on site is something we don't have on staff currently. So that's an additional payroll expense of up to $70,000 to manage this tree preservation plan in the current ordinance. It it's it's it's pretty intense for a property of our size. And this this ordinance makes sense for residential properties, but it challenges large residential or large institutional land owners, I should say. And lastly, it would take away from some of our staff, our current staff's duties of uh responsible manage the building and grounds of our golf course. They'd take away to to manage the trees on property with this amount of replantings. So again, I think the big thing we see is we are not alone in this exemption. We've looked at other city codes and how they handle this and Edina is one we've looked at frequently. They they exempt golf courses for this reason. There's some other cities in the area that also have exemptions for different different ways of green space to green space like I mentioned or for other uh aronomy uses. So there there's some things we've touched on that it's not unique. It's not a unique request. This is one we've just it's come to challenge us in a way with our our project oncoming and um but open any questions and and thank you for the time this evening. Thank you Brian. Director Sharp, do we have anybody online? Chair Cameron, at this time there is no one online wishing to speak. Perfect. Anyone else like to speak? All right. Uh, with that said, then I will um close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. I have a question. May I? Absolutely. Commissioner Severson. So, if I if I recall back when we were putting this tree preservation ordinance together, I thought there was a part in there about disease dead and dying trees that they don't count. Can you elaborate on that? And and why why does it matter how many people walk under it and only takes one person to walk under it one time to fall and have a tragic situation? Uh Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson, you are correct. They're they uh dead disease dying trees are exempt from tree replacement. However, getting into the nuance of when that uh meets whether they're des dead dead disease or dying. Um, sorry I'm mixing that up still. I'm going to defer to the city forester uh as I'm trying to bring in some additional language. I'm actually going to read it right here. Says dead, disease, dying, or hazard trees as determined by the city forester prior to removal. Yeah, that would require Bennett to go out there and and deem it dead, diseased, or dying. Sometimes they they require inspection. um sometimes a picture, sometimes every situation is a little bit different. But um to answer the question about um occupancy rate and how a hazardous tree is defined, um I'm not sure where that would you'd find that in the chapter currently. Um but we do defer to something called the tree risk assessment which is a a standardized risk assessment process developed by the international society of aborulture um that it's it's a tool that the industry um and insurance companies and um big agencies use uh to um assess risk with trees and and try to come up with an objective way to define that. um which can be really hard to do. Um so we wanted to incorporate that that tool um because it it our hope is that it helps um alleviate some of the the disagreement that does come about not not with golf courses specifically but just in general, you know. Um because sometimes especially the bigger trees if it if it were hazardous doesn't require replacement versus if the other way I mean it can be a big financial difference and so we we kind of wanted to um simplify that a little bit. So the you asked about occupancy rate that that's one um piece of this matrix uh that you know you have occupancy rate you have the condition of the tree and all these other things that are are combined and it it spits out this this risk level for the tree share one additional point of clarification um as I know that it had an item that had been on planning commission discussion. At this time, the city council directed staff to only bring forward amendment that would apply to golf course. So, as you can see through the red underlined text on this, golf courses are explicitly noted. additional land uh large land owners may be studied in the future and this may act as a model for future ordinances in that living document that I had referred to earlier. But at this time in the interest of expediting the request, the only land use that is identified as a golf course. Additionally, what staff just uh with the help of the city attorney were was able to draft and I would note that this applies to any of the three conditions. I've just placed it under the first one for expediency is with the additional recommendation that a tree management plan as defined by the city forester be added to the administrative option. Again, with amendments, you could place that under any of three. Yeah. And chair and and commissioners, I just clarify that, you know, if if I think your conversation around that and what the city forester brought to light too as he was looking at this with you, I think that's a helpful thing that we unearthed. And so, you know, if you agree that it is, then you can whenever you make a motion, you can just say you'd have that additional recommendation of adding that terminology of tree management plan to that administrative option. And then what we would do between now and the time it goes to council is work with the city forester on getting that language in. Be very very much consistent with what that discussion was if if you decide to make that recommendation if you feel that makes sense. That's an additional recommendation not a recommended one based upon the discussion this evening. Um hey Bennett question for you. Um are you aware of anything that Weisetta Country Club is doing with the trees on their property as part of their um remodel? Yes. Yes. Uh so their timeline um goes back a little bit further. Um and it does involve, you know, quite a bit of grading as you can see driving by, but much of what you're seeing there is in Orno. Um, a lot of the work that we worked with was Wisetta Country Club on, uh, involved, uh, Jesse Truchka is actually here. He's from Wisetta Country Club. Um, he and I were looking at, um, some work with the parking lot, um, reconfiguring some of the that stuff up by the tennis courts. Uh so yes, there there was some tree replacement um discussed there and some some plantings that they've done um across the street primarily along the practice area and stuff like that. I'm not a golfer. Is that a practice area? Um so yes uh to a lesser extent. Okay. We have been involved. Yeah. Okay. Um and Brian, question for you. Um, just in terms of um, I assume what you guys are proposing is kind of something similar to what Weisette is doing where you're going to do some reprofiling of of the course itself. Yeah, you can go over that. That's fine. Um, and then, you know, so like when I think about when I think about it, right, I think about I, you know, in my own mind, right, it goes to um, it's probably like a longer range plan that you guys have been working towards and working, you know, putting together, right? This isn't something you decide suddenly one week you're going to do this, right? So, um maybe can you talk a little bit about like what that long range plan is and when you talk and time horizon for that long range plan too? Sure. Yeah. So, the long-range plan is actually uh what's very interesting about uh our club. We have the original 1915 when the club was originated. We have those original Donald Ross was the architect of the golf course. gave his original drawings. So you can see what the property was way back in 1915 when Woodhill was established and there's aerials at that time there's no trees on the property. So those trees we're looking to remove now because they've had their they've had their good life. They lived their life and now they're starting to be dead or dying. Woodhill planted them and now Woodhill is looking to take them away because they've just outgrown what their purpose was. So our intent is to bring the golf course back to that original 1915 drawing. Um, that's the intent of this. And some of these trees are actually safety concerns, the ones the putting green I mentioned, but also because they visually block where golfers can see where they're driving the ball and where another hole connects, they can't see golfers behind it potentially, and they might hit the ball over not knowing there's golfers there. So these are other safety risk of just the sport of golf that also helps with some of these tree removals and where we're looking to position also some tea box to relocate because drivers have hit the ball further. Uh technology and sport has gotten they can drive the ball longer and now they get close to some more populated areas. Our pool and our golf pro shop heavily used by families and kids. So there's a lot of different reasons for some of these safety risks. not just the tree that are dying, but what they're doing to block us from advancing or moving a T- box back or having uh cleaner lines of sight for golfers. Okay. And and so like time like timelines in terms of like when you guys think about long range plan, are we talking like 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Like what is that? Yes, thanks. This this project will commence uh next month. So July, we're looking to start this project. It's about a year-long project, this golf restoration uh to go back But the the the tree plan on our property is going to be ongoing. We're going to look at new places strategically where we can replant and have a a plan with our our building and grounds team as well as the uh uh our board of directors, board of trustees to develop where the trees can go um in a way that advances Woodhill. The the members at Woodhill love the tree canopy. They want they don't want that to go away. Removing trees for this reason was uh we had a lot of discussions on that and we we want to grow that canopy back. That's why we've allocated such funds, $75,000 to replant trees on campus. It's just we would like the freedom to to choose where those get planted. For sure. Um and so la last question for you then. Um you obviously have I think a lot more property in the city of Weisetta than Weisetta Country Club does. Um but how are you navigating that relationship cross jurisdiction with Orno or does Orno just doesn't flat out doesn't have anything that restrictions on your that part of your property? Currently, Orno does not have a tree management plan. Okay, got it. Cool. Thank you. I guess before Brian leaves, anybody else have anything for Brian? All right. Thanks, Brian. Can I ask another general question? For sure. Commissioner Severson. So what's the threshold or what triggers having to come to this one tree, 30 trees, a percentage of trees, so they have one or a country club or someone has a tree that they need to take care of. Is it just like it's okay to do that or what's what's going to like put them into this process? Chair Cameron and Commissioner Severson, I'll defer to the city forester on this and ordinance already currently defines that. Yes, thank you. Um, so there are there are a few different thresholds I suppose. Um, there's at the most basic level uh city's involvement with with a project or a tree removal uh is at the permitting level. So a tree removal permit is for one tree even for one for one tree. Yeah. if it um is a standard growth tree at least 6 inches in diameter um and it's not um dead design dead dying diseased hazardous um there are other exceptions. Uh right now we have an open-ended permitting process for ash removals with certain contractors because that's basically all they're doing right now. Um, there's other nuances, but that's kind of the most basic level of of our involvement. But then once we start talking about replacement requirements in two scenarios, um, one is if any heritage tree is removed, um, so a heritage tree is by definition a healthy tree of a certain size and species. When those are removed, um regardless of anything else that's going on with the property, trees, the project, anything, um we're really just looking at the removal of that tree and assessing the replacement requirements accordingly. Um and then beyond that, uh some of the smaller trees, which would be considered significant if if they're healthy, um those are trees generally 6 to 25 inches in diameter. those require a certain amount of replacement if they the applicant crosses a a a removal allowance. So that is basically 25 or 10% depending on the project of the total tree inventory on the property is is there removal allowance uh for that project. So 10 or 25% can be removed according to the plan um without any replacement requirement. Anything beyond that um does require some amount of replacement that again is is backed by a an escrow or needs to be mitigated by a fee in lie of tree replacement. So, I'm just gonna I'm going to throw this out here. I think, you know, just based on and I I I recognize that what we're talking about tonight is and the language specifically revolves around golf courses, right? But um I think you know the intent was obviously to be open-ended enough and flexible enough that this framework could be adopted for other larger parcels in the city as well. Um but specifically right what's what in front of us this evening is is language around golf courses. Um I think um hearing um and learning some some about this, you know, I think my like my initial reaction is um I don't know that I'm totally comfortable was to grant allowing city council the um uh just that they can freely grant an exemption at their whim. think I would be much more comfortable that um there would that the city forester would be involved in any kind of discussion with with an entity right in this course golf courses right um so whether it's a tree preservation a tree management plan right and I think language is important so when I think about preservation versus management the way we've got preservation defined I think of preservation plan as a short-term plan, right, based around kind of a development. Whereas a man tree management plan to me says it's more of a long-term plan, right? It's like this is kind of where we're going and and what we're doing and this is our vision for um for our trees and our property, right? And and our land use. Um so I think like pulling pulling that back and pull pulling that back together, right? I think that I'm okay with city council having the power to um to grant an exemption, but I think it needs to be done in consultation with the forester rather than just blanket. Um right. So that's my personal thoughts in terms of um the second piece number uh 936067. Right. Trees on golf courses are that are removed pursuant to a tree management plan approved by the city forester. So I changed that language to say management. Um and then I would obviously I think we'd have to have a definition of what a tree management plan is is as well. So those are my thoughts. So I I just wanted to lead us off and open the discussion. Love to hear your thoughts. Yeah, I think I'm I'm kind of in the same in the same line which is why I asked the question about variance, right? because you know if the if if if it's set and they find out that it's not workable in a situation there's a way in which to uh to mitigate that by coming here and then ultimately to the city council right but but it keeps the city forester involved uh and and the knowledge involved um as we as we look forward Joe's two cents whatever that's worth that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at a coffee shop Um I look at golf courses very different than most of the institutional other institutionals. I mean they're their job is to keep a very beautiful landscape and uh that's what they sell as as a big part of of what they do right which may not necessarily be the true the case for many other large institutional uh organizations. So, as we look at this for a golf course, I think it I think it makes great sense. I think when you when we when we um come up with the the terminology around a management plan, some of the considerations uh uh that this gentleman was talking about in terms of of of tree removal that that maybe doesn't meet the occupancy uh or safety of the golfers, which isn't going to be in a normal plan. um uh so on and so forth, right? I think I think that can very well be crafted within the management plan where it uh where it makes sense to look at the way they use trees and landscaping slightly different given given what they do. Um so my my view is would be to um have the the tree management plan as it as uh as we define it include some of those items considering it's for golf courses. And I would personally say to strike the uh the other one that kind of goes to the to the city council without going through process. Thank you, Commissioner Vanley. Sure. Commissioner Bl. Um I think staff and council did a great job of putting this all together and I actually like having both of the exceptions in there. I think it's a little bit of a checks and a balance. Um certainly with um item number seven, um we rely heavily on our staff and our ordinances that we have. And then also having, you know, the ability to go between um to council gives us a chance for any other consideration um or any other public hearing. So I think they both um I'd like to include both um as a checks and balance. Um, I do believe it aligns with the goals and intentions of, you know, our city tree preservation ordinances, um, aligns with our comp plan, um, and applies only to our golf courses. So, um, I'm in support of this, but I would like to see both of them on there again with the language that we're identifying of the definition of tree management. So, just for clarity, when you say both, do you mean there's there's two separate paths or I that I have to go through both of those steps? No, one or the other. One or the other. Okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I just wanted to be clear. Yep. So, I would have both um in section A and in section B. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Pl. I agree. Um, I think Woodhill's been uh proactive in working with the city forester and I think it makes sense to have both on there and continue that good working relationship. Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. I'm not so much an either or, I'm a one or the other, and I think the one that I would lean towards is section 7 under 936.06. Um, if I had to pick one, I guess I'm trying to think of the ease from an applicant standpoint. Also, what I think is probably the more appropriate path would be going to the forester and having a tree management plan versus getting an exemption or getting an approval from the city council. Um, I feel like kind of like what you had said, but the city council, I don't know that they are experts in tree management or in um in the dead disease dying. like I I just that's a lot to put on them to make that decision. So I would I I don't I don't think it's an either or. I think it's for sure seven and if we want to add on then also you have to get approval from the city council with that. I would be okay with that but I don't want to see a path to just go to city council. I think they have to go through the city forester and have some kind of tree management plan if we are going to ask them to go to city council. I would ra rather not than them city council make that decision without input from um from the city forester. Thank you commissioner Stevenson. Yes chair. I and commissioner I don't want to over complicate your discussions um but I I just think it's good for us to think about all the options and you're doing that now. And you know, um I I've almost heard this said by various commissioners, I think even you, Commissioner Severson, just now, is that that if council does have that option that they have to essentially consult uh or get the recommendation or have the city forester review it. I mean, we could you could recommend that, you know, if there is a council option that council after consulting with the city forester blah blah blah, you know, so that staff isn't cut out of that um decision by council. They're not bound by it. Their staff is not making the decision like the administrative option, but council gets that input. I suspect they will anyways. That's the way council works. That's what we would tell them to do. Today works, but right you still want to protect. No, but but you could you could actually hardwired that into the ordinance if if that was a concern. Just thought I'd point that out. We we actually talked about that as staff as an option. So, it's it's there. Bennett, are you all right with that increased workload? with the two golf courses in town, right? Yeah. Anyone else? I'd be fine with that adding that language into um section A. Okay, perfect. Sounds like we may at least have some semblance of a um majority. Yeah, no idea what that sounds like. Um I I'll take I can take a stab at it because I think that that's kind of where I was sort of leaning, right? Like um and I so I think I would say um the motion to um approve um the draft um to take the draft planning commission report recommendation um with the f with the following modifications. Right. So number one would be um uh create and define a tree man what a tree management plan is. Number two change the language in um number seven to be tree management plan instead of tree preservation plan. And number three would be the inclusion of um the city forester um in the administrative option um with the city council. Right. So the city forers's participation and um insight into any administrative action city council would take. Yes. Yeah. And chair, if I could just offer some clarifications and maybe some questions. So So the council option would be a council option. The staff would be the administrative option. I I hear you say that that council option should include the Sorry. Yeah, I got it. I got it backwards. That's fine. I just want to make that clear for the record. That That's what I I assumed. The other thing is um and this might be a question good question for the city forester but I think or I would suspect that we would want both a tree preservation plan and a longer term tree management plan when uh the forester is evaluating a project for a golf course. Um so in other words I don't think we need to change the language of seven to tree management plan and take out tree preservation. I think it can be both. one being while, you know, while the project is being done, while the trees are taken out and installed, we've got that preservation plan, you know, with the parking lots being modified or whatever, tea boxes are being moved, but then that'll be done when everything's installed and then there's a longer tree management plan over the life of these uh of the plantings. Is that fair to say? I think so. And I will say to and and I don't want to insert any definitions here and now, but um you know in general the tree preservation plan applies to projects where a building a building permit or land disturbance permit is being pursued by the applicant. And no matter what the requirements are here um with with chapter 936, those types of plans are going to go through Director Sharp and his staff and myself. And so if there's ever any uh concerns that require special considerations from staff and um any project specific stuff, I mean that'll come out on a case- by case basis regardless of what is included in their um their management plan. I mean those are conversations that are are going to be had. So I don't know if the motion's open, but I I want one one clarification. Um so if we include both the item in uh A and B does that mean that a tree management plan is not required? Uh chair and commissioner I think it's required for the administrative path um but not the city council path. I think what I heard in that motion was that council needs to consult with the city forester who may recommend a plan or plans, but council doesn't is not bound by the ordinance if if the case is otherwise made. Thank you. Did I misstate that? No, I don't know that you misstated. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Okay. I'm going to withdraw the motion just so we can start over and and be clear on it all since we've had I mean, good discussion, right? Um but just be clear. So um bringing it back to discussion then um are we saying we want to have a tree management plan as part of any council action as well? My my opinion would be you have one path which is one I mean so I would say it would be the either a tree preservation or management plan done by the city forester or that plus then approval by the city council. That's what I would say. Okay. versus giving council the option to do something and maybe include staff and maybe include the city forester. I could Okay. And I because I think what one of the things we had talked about was um creating a path where council could do something. Um but that would also require a man would require some sort of tree plan, right? Would does anyone I guess I I would ask would anybody feel comfortable having a a council option where they don't seek a tree management plan and they make that decision on their own. That was my point. I I I think there should be a plan in place independent of of whatever path goes forward. Commissioner plan. Yeah. I had a question for staff then. I thought that was part of the application process. Uh, Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Plantin for the council exemption or as they're reviewing the project that it does what um, Bennett said. So, the tree management, sorry to confuse things, but maybe I can help with a quick summary. The tree management plan is not yet defined. It's the higher level total site impact not project specific. It is lifetime of site. There's the tree preservation plan that is already required. That is the terminology that for a specific project has a finite life. It is that project that you are doing for that time frame and its close out and then it's three years of return. So two different timelines, two different definitions. The tree preservation plan would be required. But if council were to provide an exemption from the entire tree preservation ordinance to a specific site, then that would exempt them from all of the tree preservation ordinance requirements. That's what uh item the item under section A would propose. The commission has discussed adding the consideration of the city forester in that review process, but to commissioner Severson's point has not stated that a specific tree preservation plan would then also be required because that's what's currently required by the ordinance and what they are part and part of what the ordinance exemption is seeking to exempt them from because that tree preservation plan is part of the identification the escrow s etc. Does that help provide a little additional clarity? So, by adding the tree management plan to the council uh section A is bringing us right back to number seven to doing section seven. That that could be an understanding from the definitions that we are proceeding on. Okay. And if a another way to to to put it if you know if you add a plan into the council path um you're just actually kind of making it harder for an applicant I think because then they also you know instead of getting the city forers approval they can go straight to council but they they still have to do all the same stuff they still have to pay all the same stuff um so the idea as council directed staff was well look we we want applicants to be able to come straight to us, make their case, and if they make it, then they're exempt from all the financial and other administrative requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. And and they they also said, "Yeah, and having but having an administrative path, which might be less burdensome because it could be quicker if they present a plan and you know, under our clarification from the city forester would be a tree management plan, not just preservation plan. they wouldn't have to pay uh or provide the replacement requirements that the ordinance requires. They'd have to do some other paperwork. They'd have to present a a good plan, a good management plan, but they wouldn't have to pay all that money. Um and there might be more ability to deal with the safety issues too that were raised in the the discussion. Is that fair, colleagues on staff? Yeah. I lost the thought. Sorry. So then I might be persuaded to cut council out of it all together and just have item number seven and take the a red line out. by the face. Um, chair and fisher, you know, I I I appreciate No, I I hear you on that. Um, you're in the uncomfortable position of having a council that's directed you to consider this. So, you know, I think if if you and your colleagues feel that way, I think council will want to know why, you know, um so, uh you know, what your concerns would be about giving council that authority and that discretion because again, I think they're reacting to what what you heard from from one of our uh public comments from Woodhill, you know, the those all those things that they're concerned about, the the safety issues, the financial issues, and and I think council heard those things, and they they want to make it happen quickly, and that that was I think their feeling. Is that fair to say, Alex? Uh, yes, city attorney. That is a a fair characterization from my understanding of being present at the workshop. At the same time, they did direct you to study this. So, this study is, I think, going to be useful for them to be able to determine how they evaluate this as they move forward. So long as you are clear, I I believe that that is a useful discussion point for council. I Yeah. So I think and I I when I kind of let off the discussion, I I I think my my my discomfort with council um is and not involving the city forester. I I hear the expediency piece. Um but I think my discomfort with council and not involving the city forester really revolves around um I think Jen, you said it right, like that's not their job. um you know their job isn't to manage trees and manage forests and know trees right their job is to um be an elected politician for better or worse right and that's kind of a side job right for and they have a day job too but you know they don't and council changes right so people on council will change and um who's on council today is may not be on council in two years um and so I think that that um you know my my goal goal right would be to without putting undue burden on you Bennett or you know my vision at least would be that whatever happens needs needs to involve the city forester um or you know some element of that because that is their job right that is their profession and they're good at it and they're not and they they have a deep pool of knowledge around it at least I assume you do take your word um right but that so you know I think when I think about that right like that's where I would want to have um the city forester involved in anything that's going on. Um, and and I totally understand the burden on you guys, right, the golf courses with some of this um because it's an additional step, but I think um it sounds like there's been, you know, there's been a good partnership established already um with some of that. So from from my standpoint, I think it's it's good good process, good good policy for the golf courses to put down a plan that indicates when they think they should when a tree should be coming down because of what criteria, which may be different than the criteria that's currently in the tree preservation. um whether that's for safety, whether that's for um um uh due to line of sight or due to distance, uh uh whatever the case may be, I don't think it has to be burdensome in terms of what that plan lays out and why. And if there are and if there's something that doesn't fit into that plan, there's still a variance process that would get the city council involved and the city council could make a decision uh based on that. So for me, it feels like it's uh it lays out very well um uh with the with the city forers's view of of what should be in a management plan. And I would think the golf course um probably has some of those things today. They they may or may not be written down, but when they're looking at the trees and thinking about those things, they uh they probably have that knowledge uh uh within their within their four walls. Um um so that that's that's why I looked at it the way I did. Anyone else? I'm just wondering if if uh sentence two of that uh two sentence paragraph on top would then be amended to say council will require a tree management plan as part of the process. Chair Cameron, Commissioner Alg, is that a question for staff? I'm asking the my colleagues would that would that be an appropriate place for that or I think it become it it becomes a circular reference then at that point though because if you say so if I'm a if I'm Brian and I come before city council and I say hey um we want an exemption here's our tree management plan if you look at what number seven says trees on golf seven trees on golf courses are removed pursuant to a tree management plan so that would just I I could have a tree management plan and just completely bypass city council at that point. Um, or are you saying that we take seven out of that and it has to go through city council? That's what I was suggesting or so they would have to go to city council with a tree management plan. The applicant would have to go to the city council with a tree management plan. they would have the exemption, but and you know, they've got it. It's certainly written in their plan where they plan to remove trees, replace trees. I mean, it's all there, I'm sure. Um, it just should be part of what is presented. I mean, otherwise, they could come for an exemption and just strip the the land barren. I mean, Couldn't they? I mean, well, they'd have to get they if they had a tree management plan, it would still have to be approved by the city forester, right? So, you're saying it would be a checks and balance. It would be the city council and the city forester, not just the city forester. Puts a little more burden on the um on the applicant course though, right? I don't think it's an unreasonable burden. I mean, they're being exempted from a huge, you know, cash burden. And what you, like I said, they've already got the plan. They they know exactly where stuff's going to be removed. Stuff's going to be planted. I mean, wouldn't they wouldn't the city want to be privy to those to that plan? Yeah, that certainly would give city council oversight onto that if that's their concern is they want to have they still want a path where it comes before council. Am I making any sense or goofy? I don't No, I mean I think I think I'm with you. I think either way there needs to be a tree management plan. So whether than that it goes right to approval and you don't have to get city council or you have to then take that management plan to city council. Those I guess th those are the two path options for me. Not option one to go to city council or option two to have a tree management plan. So I think either way I'd want to see some kind of tree plan in there. I mean if the goal is to provide an exemption of tree preservation plan for golf courses that's that's a pretty blanket statement. It's an exemption. I don't know why it would need to come to us unless a variance were involved, but if it's just a flatout exemption and it can be um handled by the council, why wouldn't we just do that requiring a tree management plan? I mean, I worry about the process getting long. it gets here in front of this group and then people are nitpicking about where trees land or don't. It's like that's not our job either. Um but it happens and um no and for sure though I think the way that the way that it's written today, right, it's written more for individual land owners um and developers on a much smaller scale, right? When you're talking about thousands of trees, it's a totally different mag order of magnitude. Should I take a stab at a No, sorry. I was going to ask um our city attorney, is there a different way to write um the exception on part A? Um or council may impose any condition on such exemption that it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or as directed by um Well, chair and yeah, chair and commissioner, you know, I I think um I think to capture what we were talking about earlier there, you know, the edit I might do is just um you know, add in something about council, you know, may grant after consulting with the city forester an exemption for such property. so that they're required to get input and consultation from the city of Forester who would presumably say, "Oh, they've got a great plan. I think it's great or they don't have any plan. They're going to clearcut stuff." So, it would require another step there. Um, that's probably the tweak I would do there because I think so when by giving council the ability to impose any condition necessary to protect health, safety, welfare, they could say, well, one of these conditions is this plan you brought to us and we think is great. So as long as you follow this plan, that's the condition because that will address safety of your golfers and people on the property will, you know, preserve the welfare of the city by this lovely land you've been managing so well for 100 years. You know, that's what I think we at least I was contemplating with that condition and that's throughout our zoning code council when it has the ability to impose reasonable conditions. It's usually tied to things that go to health, safety, welfare, or the effects of what they're granting. So that's the logic behind that piece. I think the I think the other thing I think about um management plan, right? Um consultation with with the forest or whatever, right? But how do we like when I think about a golf course and all the trees on there, how do they how do we make it so that they don't have to come get a permit or whatever every year, every winter when they're if they have dead trees or dying trees or trees that are falling down or whatever, right? Like reduce that burden because that I think when you think of when I think of personally when I think about scale of it, right? Like that would be the tough part. It's not, hey, we want to remodel, but it's the ongoing every day, every year annual maintenance part that, you know, there's there's a huge burden there for them today. Yeah, Chair Cameron, if I could, I I I would say uh I know we don't have a definition included here for a management plan, but to me um I think a very important piece of a management plan would be addressing what we would normally be looking for through the permitting process. So, a management plan would uh serve as as a replacement of those permitting requirements. Yeah. Okay. I do too. I like that because you're right to Commissioner Van Loy's point earlier and we have two premier clubs in our city that it is in their best interest to have beautiful grounds and it is in their best interest to keep those grounds nice and tidy and attracting the caliber of member that well certainly we don't want to have. So, there's a bit of a trust factor that we have with your clubs that we want to make sure that, you know, we're also supporting you and taking down some of those barriers. But, I I like what you said. If if we're already going to if we're going to give you an exemption, then I don't think these are overdue burdens or overly um restrictive burdens, hurdles to clear to get, you know, to get that exemption from the overall tree preservation ordinance. So the real open question, right, is whether or not they just go through a plan on on seven or whether they uh we have the language described enough in section A so that they go to the city uh with the um with the advice and and uh of the city forester and city council doesn't necessarily require them to have a plan in order to relieve them of the the tree preservation ordinance requirements, right? And and from my standpoint, given the size and scale of of those uh property owners, I think a plan would be uh should should be effective, should should be in place that that we would take a look at in order to relieve them of the tree preservation. uh everything from permitting uh when taking down trees to um uh having different definitions of what risk stands for. So I wonder if we in that language in that first section where it says the owner of the property may seek and council may grant an exemption from such property from the rules and regulations of this charter pursuant to a true management plan. If you add th those four words in that and then you don't need to have a seven, then it's baked in that you're coming to council with the tree management plan. Right. That would be the council is the one that approve correct gives them the exemption as opposed to it just being administrative. Then it doesn't mean that council's approving something without a tree management plan. Correct. and council then is also approving it. So then that puts them together. Yep. So I think I just heard you guys say that you want it you want it to come through council. They have to have a tree management plan and it has to be approved by council. Is that correct? I think that's what she said. Okay. You okay with that? City forestry. Tree management plan is with the city forestry. Y so that would be built in consultation with the city forester yet to be defined what exactly it is but I think okay roundly it feels like he's got a pretty good idea of what he wants it to be. Yes, chair. I would just, you know, make the observation that if you if you keep the first path, the council path, and you add in a tree management plan, and that's presumably maybe approved by the city forester, then I'm not sure what you get with the second one down there. You wouldn't get anything. Yeah, I mean, you don't have to go to council. Um, that's not nothing. um because some councils might be no, we don't like your plan and that would be tough, but the city of Forester thinks it's great. So, I suppose, you know, there would be some reason to save it. Um, you know, if we added the long-term plan to that, too. Um, that would that in my mind, I'm just trying to help you understand all the nuances and permutations of the options you're talking about. I think leaving that administrative option just means like they could potentially not have to go to council I guess would be the the added benefit of that or the less burden less time if the city forester sees the plans and they're good they're done. So, and I think that's what we're saying we don't want to happen, right? We want them to go to council also, right? That that was my point. That was my why the question I asked, right? Because I I think what I heard you guys say or you say specifically and I think Commissioner Van Loy, you agreed with her, right? But I you heard you say that you wanted them to have a tree management plan and then also have it be approved by city council. I think I my my point is I believe they should have a tree management plan that's approved by the uh the the city forester which would be number seven. If if the rest of the council believes that a tree management plan should always go in front of the council, I would be okay with that. It's only a couple of it's only a couple of organizations that this would apply to. I wouldn't be a big huge burden to the city council to look take a look at it. I feel like we need to leave number seven in in case we have an applicant that or or two applicants do not want to go in front of council or do not need to go to council. It gives the applicant two avenues to get this done. One is through city council and we would like to add something about a tree management or preservation plan or the eyes of our city forester on it or they can go through the um replacement requirements and what trees and entities and land uses are exempt from that um and we're clearly saying number seven. I mean, so then my no one's going to go to city council of the the option to not to, right? I mean, I they still have to meet the obligations under number seven, right? Right. I think what we were saying is up top is that if they're going to council, they have to get a tree management plan. So then now the two options are council with the tree management plan or just the tree management plan. In which case, I don't know why an applicant would ever go to the city council if they had a tree, you know what I mean? So like, do we want them to have to go to council or not? I don't think they you don't think I mean I I don't I don't I don't know like I feel like Oh, I was just say in my viewpoint I wouldn't think that they would need to have the plans in place if all the plans are being reviewed by our city forester um and advising under protect the public health safety and welfare. They can go that route or they have to go through the route of number seven. I think what we were talking about earlier was if they're going to council, we don't want council to have to approve something without them having a city or a tree tree plan. So then the question is, do we want them to be able to go without going getting council approval or do they have to do they have to do that? I don't have a strong opinion either way. Yeah, I guess I'm not I'm not understanding how they would How is it determined whether they go through the administrative process or through the council? Is there something that is lacking in, you know, in one approach and they're directed this way or chair and um commissioner, it would be up to the way it's drafted now and even with the the tweaks you're talking about, the applicant would have the choice um well actually three choices. They just golf course could comply with the ordinance the way it is or they could seek uh council approval or administrative approval. The administrative approval would involve the tree preservation or tree management plan and the approval of the city forester would be the decision maker there. If the applicant went to council the way it's drafted, the city of Forester wouldn't have to be involved, but in all likelihood would be involved because council would want staff's recommendation on that. That's the way almost every council decision has input from staff and sometimes a staff recommendation. So likely, but not required, the city forester would weigh in and he may recommend a tree preservation plan. But again, the way it's drafted, that wouldn't be required either. But then council would be the decision maker, not the city forester. And they would have the authority to approve it or not um under a different standard than the city forester. So there would be a difference there would be difference. Can I make a motion? Sure. Sure. Okay. So I would say then let's take the decisions out of it. Let's just say if an applicant wants to come with an a change to the tree preservation ordinance, they have to go to the tree preservation plan and then that gets approved by city council. So I would make a motion to do that. So I guess revise that language up in this upper paragraph. So the motion would be to say council may grant an exemption for such property for the rules and regulations of this charter pursuant to a tree preservation plan approved by the city forester under section 936. Chair, one piece of clarity. I believe you're meaning management plan, not preservation. Sorry, manage a tree management plan. Yes. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah. So then that would be the way for a golf course to get exemption from the tree preservation ordinance and then stripping out that number seven. Is that an appropriate acceptable motion? Councelor, um chair and commissioner, I would just clarify, you know, your your the your motion would uh be to adopt the draft report and recommendation that staff's prepared with with the changes uh that you articulated, I think. But that's assumed. Yes. Uh if that sounds good. Yep. And that's part of your motion. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Alec. Further discussion. Further discussion. Chair. I'd just like to clarify that what would be changing there is we would be adding we'd be striking the language in the draft ordinance uh in number seven under B. that would go away and we would be adding language to that uh section A at the end, the the the addition language there to add um that um you know the the property owner must include a tree management plan that's been reviewed and approved by the city forester. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure that's what we heard. So, and so the intent of what I hear you say, what you just proposed, just so we're all clear, right, is that they would have to have a tree management plan and it would have to be approved by city council. Yes. And then they would have an exemption such that follows allows them to follow Oops. allows them to follow along their management plan um for the duration of that management plan. Yes. And chair, just so I I I want to make sure I heard you correctly. Um, it would be a tree management plan that's been reviewed and approved by the city forester. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, process is create tree management plan in consultation with city forester. City forester approves it. Get on the docket for city council. City council approves it. Yes, that makes sense. That makes sense. Okay. Further discussion. Were you agreeable to seconding that motion? Yeah. Okay. With all of the clarification. Yeah, that's exactly. Chair, you might want to take a roll call vote on this. I just want to make sure we're accurately tracking everybody here. Yeah. Yep. Um, Director Sharp, would you please take a roll call? No. Commissioner, Commissioner Ankeny, I agree. Commissioner Planton, nay. Chair Cameron, nay. Commissioner Severson, I. Commissioner Elg I. Commissioner Vanly, I. Eyes have it. The motion passes. Um, and the uh draft report and recommendation will be on the consent agenda. Um, actually, chair, this will go straight to council now. This will go straight to council. So, this doesn't go to consent, right? I suppose because it's not it's you adopted the report and commission uh report and recommendation. So, for the benefit of uh the viewers and those in the audience, this will be on the next city council meeting along with the uh well, I don't know if we'll have the minutes, but staff will convey the substance of this conversation. Not the council meeting tomorrow, though. No. Okay. No. So, two weeks or whatever the one after that is. Okay. So, I'm curious. Do you either of you want your nay comments added to the record? Um I think I said them. Yeah, I think it's um more so just on the replacement requirements. you know, up above talks about other things um from the rules and regulations of the entire chapter, whereas number seven really is just truly under section D, which is replacement requirements. So, and I think for me it was, you know, I was really just um I don't know that city council needs to be involved in it. Um, I was totally comfortable just having the city forester approved the plan and going from there. So, all right. Um, moving on then, uh, next on the agenda tonight is other items. Director Sharp. Thank you, Chair Cameron. In the review of development activities, um, we've hit the traditional summer low. Uh we haven't received a significant number of new building permits. There are a few house permits underway right now. We are still looking at 641 Lake and different steps that can Can I interrupt you for one second? Members of the public, I just wanted to thank you all for coming tonight um for taking the time out of your evenings um and uh for your contributions. Sorry. Great comments, chair. Thank you very much. uh still working with 641 Lake. There are additional steps that are being taken to provide additional pedestrian connectivity in that area. Um it is a a project that's underway. We've got our building official working with the applicant on that on a regular basis. You may see something on an upcoming council agenda. uh whether that is direct financial pieces to make that uh pedestrian area open again or whether that is just through staff resources is still being evaluated and worked on actively with the applicant of the property planning commission meeting schedule uh at this time uh your um next meeting is July 7th I don't have set items for that meeting so you may be able to go on your long holiday um but we will see what comes forward forward. There are some items that have really uh tried to bring uh kind of compile a project and bring it forward. So, we'll see whether we're able to do that, but by this Thursday, we are hitting our public hearing deadline. And so, we we'll know by the end of the week. Uh your next uh city council meeting is June 17th, so tomorrow evening. Um and we have a fairly full agenda on that one. Understood. So, uh, Chair Cameron, Chris Planton, our planning commissioner will be attending as the council liaison, uh, tomorrow evening instead of Bonnie. Uh, we do uh, one of the fun items that we will have on that one for other committees that the planning commission may be interested in is we'll be awarding our centennial homes tomorrow night. uh which are homes within Weisetta that have been retained and I should say or commercial properties that have been retained for 100 years. And so we've got uh several of the property owners that have stated their intent to attend the meeting and we will be doing that in that public forum section towards the beginning of the meeting. So you are all welcome to attend with that. No additional development activity updates. New police chief sworn in tomorrow night too. Excellent point. Thank you chair. All right. Uh, anything else from anybody? May I have a motion to adjurnn then? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Blandon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Ankeny. All those in favor? I I I opposed. The motion carries and the June 16th, 2025 meeting of the Wise Plan Commission is adjourned.