Planning Comm PKT 01-16-2008
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2008
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLLCALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 7, 2007
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. STUDY SESSION
Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Hope Elder, Chair
Merle Pfeifer
Wayne Carlson
Kevin King (Alternate)
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
City Staff
Greg Fewins, Interim CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
www.cit...olfedera/wav.com
K:\Planning Commissionl2008\Agenda OI-16-08.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7,2007
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, Wayne Carlson, Bill Drake, and Lawson Bronson.
Commissioners absent: Dave Osaki, (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners
absent: None. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, and
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved (and it was seconded) to approve the minutes of April 18, 2007, September 19, 2007, and October 17,
2007, as presented. The motion passed; no nays.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT
Ms. Clark introduced Associate Planner Matt Herrera.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was decided to delay the election of officers to the next Planning Commission meeting.
STUDY SESSION - Clearing & GradinglTree Retention Code Amendment
Ms. Clark and Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. They discussed existing code regulations and noted that
significant trees are dealt with in different sections of the code. One of the intents of this code amendment is to
consolidate the regulations.
Chair Elder commented that clearing a site can have a detrimental effect (due to erosion, etc.) on nearby property.
Mr. Carlson commented that he has noticed that one or two large trees may not be the best solution. A number of
medium sized trees (especially of various sizes) work better to mitigate detrimental effects. He also commented that
the City may have particular species of trees that they would want to preserve. Mr. Bronson commented that
definitions are needed for large trees, medium trees, and heritage trees. Ms. Duclos commented that she would like
to have incentives to preserve a greater percentage of trees. It was stated that it would be a good idea to identify
trees on adjacent properties that might be affected by development. Mr. Bronson commented that Google provides
aerial surveys and asked if the City uses them. Ms. Clark replied that the City does use aerial surveys. Ms. Duclos
asked how a homeowner would know if a tree is protected or significant. Mr. Bronson asked is there a penalty for
cutting a tree that is blocking view and planting smaller ones in its place. Ms. Shull commented that these are
excellent points that the City will consider.
K:IPlanning Commissionl2007IMeeting Sunnnary II-07-07.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
November 7, 2007
Public Comment
John Norris, Norris Homes - He commented that he is passionate about building houses that people can
afford. He feels that the current proposal has nothing in it that would make houses affordable. He urged the
Commission to understand that the regulations cost money and price homes out of the reach of families.
Allowing flexibility is very important. Trees are a renewable resource. There are a number of older
neighborhoods that had been mass graded that now have large, beautiful trees. More restrictive regulations
are making the building of homes more expensive, which in turn, drives up the cost to potential buyers.
Mr. Bronson commented that we need to decide what we want Federal Way to look like. Do we want to look like
San Francisco, with no trees and small yards, or do we want neighborhoods with lots of trees and large yards?
The Commission would like additional study sessions on this topic with "experts" on these issues. Ms. Clark
replied that staff will invite agency representatives, developers, and other interested parties to a future study
seSSiOn.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Bronson announced that the November 29th Terrorism Awareness Presentation needs participants and
encouraged Commissioners to attend.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
K\Planning Connnissionl20071Meeting Sunnnary II-07-07.doc
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
January 9, 2008
To: Hope Elder, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AlCP, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, AlCP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
MEETING DATE: January 16,2008
I. BACKGROUND
This staff report is the third in a series of reports to be provided to the Planning Commission for study
session purposes on potential code amendments related to retention of significant trees and clearing
and grading associated with the development of a site. Previous study sessions were held on
September 19 and November 7,2007. We are providing the staff reports prepared for the two
previous meetings as well as the minutes for your review. We have also included citizen comment
letters or e-mail received on this topic.
n. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY SESSION
The previous two study sessions were intended to brief the Planning Commission on how the existing
regulations work and point out to them problems that are being encountered by both staff and
developers as a result of implementation of the regulations during the development process. The
purpose of this study session is to hear from developers, utility companies, and interested members of
the public as to how we may improve the regulations in order to make them easier to use, while still
balancing the protection of the environment with developer interests and economic development.
ID. DISCUSSION POINTS
1. Regulations should be reorganized in one section to make them more useable and to
eliminate duplication and conflicts.
Attachment B of the November 1,2007, memorandum to the Planning Commission lists all of the
regulations related to the subject topic and identifies which regulations address clearing and
grading and tree retention for each specific land use, e.g., existing single-family lot, new
subdivision plat, vacant single-family lot, multi-family development, or non-residential
development (commercial, industrial, institutional). There are seven separate sections of the code
related to this topic, two of which an~ in Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," and five of which are in
Chapter 22, "Zoning."
2. Existing codes do not provide enough guidance about under what circumstances mass
grading would be allowed. The code amendments should clarify under what conditions
mass grading is allowed.
The Federal Way subdivision code states that all natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to
be subdivided, except that which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on
approved engineering plans. If development is to be phased, clearing and grading shall also be
phased. It also requires existing mature vegetation to be retained to the maximum extent possible.
However, the City does allow mass grading of a site based on unique conditions, such as
topography.
The City requires that a clearing and grading plan be submitted as part of preliminary plat
application. The engineering plan must conform to the clearing and grading plan. In addition, the
final plat must comply with the conditions of preliminary plat approval. Once preliminary plat
approval has been issued, a landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land can then be cleared of merchantable timber in
the clearing limits as depicted on the approved preliminary plat. 1
The zoning code allows all removal of vegetation for non-residential site development if a certain
percentage of the significant trees are replaced. Once a land use permit has been issued, a
landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the DNR. The land can then be
cleared of merchantable timber in the clearing limits as depicted on the approved land use permit.
A related issue is the stripping and removal of topsoil on graded sites. Staffhas learned through
participation in recent conferences on Low Impact Development (LID) that plantings tend to fair
better when topsoil is stockpiled on-site during construction, rather than trucking the soil out then
replacing the soil prior to landscape planting. Soil "best management practices" (BMPs) include
preserving site topsoil and vegetation where possible, reducing compaction, and amending
disturbed soils with compost to restore healthy soil functions.
3. There is no specified height limit for rockeries or retaining walls in the Federal Way City
Code (FWCC). Should the code limit the height of these walls and implement design
standards?
As developable sites become more constrained, there has been an increase in both the number of
retaining walls and the height of walls in order to provide level building pads. Staffhas seen
development proposals for walls in excess of 20 feet in height for both commercial and
residential development. Due to the aesthetic impacts associated with the increase in numbers and
height of retaining walls and rockeries, staff has been requiring section and elevation details for
proposed retaining walls and have implemented conditions of approval that establish maximum
wall height on a case-by-case basis. However, there are no specific design standards for retaining
walls in the FWCC.
Some jurisdictions establish restrictions on retaining wall height. The Washington State
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development clearing and grading example
code provides for a maximum rockery height of 12 feet. The City of Mercer Island specifies a
maximum of 12 feet in height for a rockery or retaining wall on a cut slope and six feet on a fill
I "Merchantable stand oftimber" means a stand of trees that will yield logs and/or fiber suitable in size and quality for the
production oflumber, plywood, pulp, or other forest products, and of sufficient value at least to cover all the costs of harvest and
transportation to available markets.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Planning Commission Memorandum
Meeting Date: January 16, 2008
Page 2
slope. Mercer Island also establishes that within a required yard, rockeries and retaining walls are
limited to six feet in height. King County has a similar requirement limiting retaining walls to six
feet in height within setback areas. In addition, if there is a fence on top of the wall, the combined
height cannot exceed ten feet.
4. Should we adopt lot averaging in conjunction with a slope density ratio?
As lots become smaller, and remaining developable sites tend to be steeper, there is a tendency to
mass grade as well as use more retaining walls. One solution may be to allow the permitted
number oflots based on the underlying zoning, but require lots on steeper slopes to be larger.
5. Should we re-evaluate how "significant trees" are classified?
City code requires significant trees to be replaced in amount equal to 25 percent of the significant
trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development activity if the
approved development will require the removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees on
the subject property. For subdivisions, significant trees located within areas to be improved or
graded are excluded from the replacement requirement.
In order to determine the number of significant trees to be preserved and or replaced in the event
that more than 75 percent is removed, the FWCC requires a tree retention plan that identifies all
trees located on the subject site that meet the current definition of significant tree (12 inches in
diameter or 37 inches in circumference, measured four and one-half feet above ground) at the
time of application for the first permit. Since the City's current development regulations focus on
protection of trees of a certain size or greater, the result has often been protection of individual
trees, but overall loss of tree canopy on development sites. In addition, development in the City
Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones are exempt from significant tree
preservation requirements.
As discussed in the following section on survival of preserved trees, it may be preferable to
consider preserving tree canopy or stands of trees, as well as individual trees of significance. This
may be accomplished by giving credit for the retention of stands of smaller caliper trees, even if
all do not meet the significant tree criteria.
,!'
In addition, should there be a different standard for classifying different species of trees for
protection? The City of Redmond has a "landmark tree" designation for trees measuring more
than 30 inches in diameter. The City of Redmond also specifies that the tree protection plan be
prepared by a certified arborist.
6. How can we ensure that those trees identified to be preserved actually survive?
~r'
Current development regulations require that any trees that are proposed to be retained must be
clearly noted on a tree plan that shows trees in relationship to planned site improvements. On site,
trees to be protected are to be protected with fencing and/or stakes with flagging that are placed at
the drip line of the tree.
The City has been advised by arborists with-Urban Forestry Services that the current protection
zone represented by the tree's drip line is not adequate. The recommendation is that the protection
zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter. For
example, a lO-inch diameter tree has a minimum protection zone represented by a 10-foot radius.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Planning Commission Memorandum
Meeting Date: January 16, 2008
Page 3
The zoning code states that the tree plan must be reviewed and approved prior to site clearing.
The code should be amended to also specify that protection measures must be inspected and
approved on-site prior to clearing.
Current tree protection requirements often do not result in the preservation of groupings of trees,
but result in single, stand-alone trees scattered throughout the project site, or strips of trees along
the site perimeter. Therefore, significant trees that are preserved often do not survive the site
development phase and/or blow down after completion of site development and are ultimately not
preserved. Groups of trees have a greater chance of survival, provide better cover for wildlife, and
are a better site amenity. In addition, the significant tree requirements do not address the issue of
significant trees/vegetation on adjacent property. Therefore, trees on adjacent properties are often
damaged and/or killed as a result of site development.
7. How should replacement of trees be regulated?
The City's current regulations specify minimum on-site tree size for replacement trees of three
inches or greater for deciduous and 10 feet or taller for evergreen. Some jurisdictions provide for
off-site tree replacement. The cities of Redmond and Port Townsend allow for off-site replacement
for some or all of the required replacement trees when on-site replacement can not be achieved.
Acceptable sites for receiving off-site replacement trees are city or county owned parks and open
space areas, public school sites, or private open space areas that are permanently protected and
maintained.
Another option provided by Redmond is a fee-in-lieu of tree replacement. The fee covers the cost
of tree, installation, and maintenance for two years. The city collects the fee and expends it for the
planting of new trees in city owned parks, open spaces, or rights-of-way.
Redmond also allows for the consideration oflandscape restoration (restoring all or parts of the
forest landscape and its associated benefits subject to administrator's approval) to mitigate the
loss of trees. For example:
. Creation of wildlife snags from trees which would otherwise be removed.
. Replacement of certain ornamental trees with native shrubs and groundcover.
. Replacement of hazardous or short-lived trees with healthy new trees more likely to
survIve.
. Daylighting and restoration of stream corridors with native vegetation.
. Protection of nonsiginficant trees to provide for the successional stages of forest
development.
8. Should the City require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees?
The City's current development regulations do not specifically address ongoing monitoring of
preserved/replacement trees after development is completed. Large trees that have been stressed
or damaged can take 18 months to three years to show evidence of trauma and/or die.
The City of Redmond has established sections on maintenance, performance assurance, and
enforcement specifically related to tree protection. The maintenance provisions specify that all
replacement trees and relocated trees shall be maintained in a healthy condition for the life of the
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Planning Commission Memorandum
Meeting Date: January] 6, 2008
Page 4
project. The performance assurance section requires that the applicant post a performance bond to
ensure the installation, maintenance, and adequate performance of tree protection measures. The
bonding period is for three years. Damage or removal of trees required to be preserved is subject to
enforcement action.
9. Should there be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to BPA and PSE
power lines and easements?
Utility companies such as the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) and Puget Sound Energy
(PSE) need to manage vegetation on and near their rights-of-way and easements in order to keep
people safe and their systems reliable. Trees (and other tall growing vegetation) that grow close to
power lines can be a hazard. Trees do not have to touch a high-voltage transmission line to be
dangerous. In certain circumstances, electricity can "arc" from wires through the air to trees and
equipment, resulting in fires, injuries, or even fatalities to anyone near the tree or equipment.
Touching any part of the electrical path can cause serious injury or death.
During wind storms, tall trees adjacent to power lines may cause power outages, which can
disrupt service to homes, businesses, hospitals, and important community services. In order to
prevent power outages, trees close to power lines are removed or trimmed by the affected utility
company, which have their own management plans. In order to prevent future conflicts between
protection of power lines and "danger trees," any tree-related code amendments should coordinate
with the vegetation management programs or plans of utility companies.
IV. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PREVALENCE OF MASS GRADING
During the November 7tl1 Study Session, Alternate Commissioner Kevin King asked for information
regarding the prevalence of the total removal of all trees on sites within the last five year period. Due
to topography, mass grading was allowed for Campus Crest and Wynstone, two adjacent plats located
along Campus Drive, and North Lake Ridge Division 4, a plat started in the Potential Annexation
Area and subsequently annexed to the City. Numerous commercial projects have also been
completely cleared and graded; however, this is allowed by code based on replacement of trees and
meeting landscaping requirements.
v. NEXT STEPS
The next step in this code amendment process will be to provide a similar briefing to the City
Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) for their input prior to actually drafting code
language.
K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\Planning Commission\Ol1608 Staff Report to Planning Commission.doc
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Planning Commission Memorandum
Meeting Date: January 16, 2008
Page 5
September 19, 2007
Planning Commission
Agenda and Minutes
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2007
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 28,2007, April 4, 2007, April 18, 2007, & May 2,2007
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. STUDY SESSION
Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Hope Elder, Chair
Dave Osaki
Merle Pfeifer
Wayne Carlson
Dini Duclos, Vice-Chair
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
Kevin King (Alternate)
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
H'I1'}I'. ci fFoffederalwlIv. CO/II
K:IPlanning Commissionl2007IAgenda 09-19-07.doc
CITY OF #
Federal Way
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
September 19, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
This staffreport contains a review ofthe current City ofPederal Way zoning and subdivision code
requirements for the preservation of significant trees, requirements for vegetation retention, and site
grading. These code sections are currently being reviewed by staff for possible amendments. The
reason this review is taking place is due to re-occurring issues that have presented themselves during
the development review process. These issues include:
.
Difficulty applicants have in understanding the current tree preservation requirements.
Significant trees that are preserved often do not survive the site development phase and/or blow
down after completion of site development and ultimately are not preserved.
Current tree protection requirements often do not result in the preservation of groupings of trees,
but result in single stand-alone trees scattered throughout the project site, or strips of trees along
the site perimeter. Groups of trees have a greater chance of survival, provide better cover for
wildlife, and are a better site amenity.
The current tree preservation requirements are not the "best management practice" (BMP) with
regard to tree preservation. This may be contributing to trees not ultimately surviving site
development.
The significant tree requirements do not address the issue of significant trees/vegetation on
adjacent property. Therefore, trees on adjacent properties are often damaged and/or killed as a
result of site development.
Repeated requests for "mass grading," where an applicant desires to clear and grade the entire site
at the initial stages of site development-this is currently not allowed without review and
permission by the Public Works Director. In some cases, mass grading may be acceptable, but in
other cases a phased approach would be preferable. However, the code does not provide much
guidance for determining when mass grading should be allowed.
There are an increasing number of developments (residential and commercial) being proposed on
sloped sites. This has led to an increasing number and size of retaining walls. Numerous and/or
large retaining walls present an aesthetic impact, as well as an impediment to non-motorized
transportation. There is limited guidance in the code to communicate what is acceptable retaining
wall design.
Small lots on sloped sites tend to result in greater number of retaining walls as developers desire
to maximize the development potential of the site. Requiring larger lots on sloped portions of a
site (for example: greater the slope, larger the lot) may encourage more site-sensitive
development, less grading and filling, lots that are easier to develop, and fewer retaining walls.
There are no specific penalties for illegal tree/vegetation removal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II. BACKGROUND
This section presents current code language that addresses significant trees, vegetation, and clearing
and grading regulation in Federal Way, with a brief discussion of each.
A. Subdivision Code - Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20
The subdivision code, FWCC Chapter 20, has two sections that regulate vegetation removal and
grading. These sections are inserted below for your review. The underlined and strikethrough. text
indicates recent amendments to the subdivision code related to implementation of Zero Lot Line
Townhouse and Small Lot Single Family development.
20-179 Retention of vegetation.
(a) All natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided except that
which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering
plans. For zero-lot line townhouse development. clearing and grading shall be allowed to
accommodate the construction of the building( s). If development is to be phased. clearing
and grading shall also be phased. A preliminary clearing and grading plan shall be
submitted as part of preliminary plat application.
(b) Existing mature vegetations shall be retained to the maximum extent possible.
Preservation of significant trees pursuant to FWCC 22-1568 shall apply solely to the
development of each single-family lot at the time a building permit is applied for.
(c) Lots created on slopes of 15 percent or greater shall minimize grading and shall
not result in extensive use of retaining walls. Slopes are to be measured in their natural
state.
20-186 Landscaping protection and enhancement.
(a) A landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted
with each subdivision or short subdivision application for a land division. The plan shall
identify existing wooded areas, significant trees, meadows, rock outcroppings, and other
landscape features. The plan shall also show proposed buffers, open spaces, street trees,
and other omamentallandscaping.
(b) Significant trees, as defined in Chapter 22 FWCC, Zoning, shall be identified,
except for those to be removed in areas to be improved or graded as shown on the
preliminary plat, application for a land division. During construction of subdivision
improvements and permitting of single family residences buildings, protection
techniques, as required in Chapter 22 FWCC, Zoning, shall be used to protect the
identified trees from harm or destruction, and to restore trees damaged or lost. Significant
trees to be preserved shall be visibly marked by flagging.
(c) Where safe and feasible, the meandering of streets and/or sidewalks around
significant trees is encouraged.
(d) All street trees and other plantings shall be installed in conformance with standard
landscaping practices and with appropriate city guidelines and regulations.
The sections above establish the requirement that vegetation is to be preserved to the extent
possible and that significant tree requirements are to be met. FWCC 20-179 is the section that staff
relies on to prohibit mass grading. However, with steep slopes and smaller lots, developers often
ask for mass grading because by the time they clear and grade for the infrastructure, there is often
not much left untouched and/or it may be difficult to come in later to clear and grade the individual
lots because the topography has been greatly altered to accommodate the infrastructure.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 2
September 19, 2007
Currently, only trees located on platted lots in a subdivision are subject to tree preservation. In
some cases, the majority of significant trees are located within proposed site infrastructure areas.
Therefore, in many cases only 25 percent of a limited number of the existing significant trees are
ultimately retained and/or replaced.
B. Zoning - FWCC Chapter 22
1. Definitions, FWCC 22-1
The definitions section has the following existing definitions that could potentially be modified:
Significant natural vegetation means any area containing a concentration of
significant trees; any area of significant biological importance; and any area
containing dense, mature, native vegetation.
Significant trees. A "significant tree" shall be defined as:
(1) Twelve inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference measured four and
one-half feet above ground; and
(2) In good health; and
(3) Not detrimental to the community (e.g., is not diseased, dying, or likely of
falling into public open space or right-of-way, etc.) or obscuring safe sight distance
requirements. Significant trees shall not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar or
big leaf maple.
In addition, staff will consider developing a recommended definition for landmark trees and
retaining wall.
2; Article XI, Use Zone Charts
Existing use zone charts could be amended to establish a relationship between minimum lot
size and/or lot coverage with regard to site slope.
3. Article XIII, Supplementary District Regulations
. Division 1, Generally
The following two sections will be reviewed for possible revision.
22-948 Erosion and sedimentation regulation
It is a violation of this chapter for the owner of the subject property to create,
allow or perpetuate conditions on the subject property which cause the erosion or
undermining of adjacent property. It is also a violation of this chapter for the
owner of the subject property to create, allow or perpetuate a condition which
causes the deposition of sediments or the movement of other geologic materials
onto adjacent property.
22-955 Calculating Lot Coverage
a) General. Except as specified in subsection (b) of this section, the area of
all structures, pavement and any other impervious surface on the subject property
will be calculated as a percentage of total lot area, exclusive of the area of any
recorded access easements, in determining compliance with maximum lot
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 3
September 19,2007
coverage required in this chapter. If the subject property contains more than one
use, the maximum lot coverage requirements for the predominant use will apply
to the entire development.
(b) Exceptions. The following shall be excepted from the provisions of this
section:
(1) A wood deck will not be considered as an impervious surface for
maximum lot coverage proposed if the deck is constructed with gaps between the
boards and if there is a pervious surface below the deck.
(2) A vehicular access easement, private tract, or that portion of a private
driveway located within the "flag pole" or "access panhandle" part of the lot will
not be used or considered in determining compliance with the maximum lot
coverage requirement of this chapter.
(3) One-half of the area covered with grass grid pavers will be considered
as impervious surface in determining compliance with the maximum lot coverage
requirement of this chapter.
. Division 4, Fences
This section could possibly be amended to address retaining walls.
22-1026 Barbed wire.
Barbed wire is permitted only atop a fence or a wall at least six feet in height
or between two agricultural uses.
22-1027 Electrified fences.
Electrified fences are not permitted in the city, except to contain large
domestic animals. All electric fences and appliances, equipment and materials
used in connection with an electrified fence must be listed or labeled by a
qualified testing agency and shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. All electric fences shall be posted with permanent signs, which are
a minimum of 36 square inches in area, at intervals of 15 feet along the fence
stating that the fence is electrified. The permitted location of electrified fences is
as follows:
(1) Electrified fences separating agricultural uses may be located anywhere
on the subject property, including on the property line.
(2) Other than as stated in subsection (1) of this section, an electrified fence
must be located at least 18 inches inside of a wood fence if the electrified fence is
within 20 feet of any property line.
22-1028 Razor wire fences prohibited.
Razor wire fences are prohibited in the city.
. Division 7, Land Modifications
The following two sections will be reviewed for possible revision.
22-1094 Discretionary approval
(a) Generally. A land surface modification that does not meet the
requirements ofPWCC 22-1093 may be approved through process III.
(b) Required information. In addition to the application material required in
process III, FWCC 22-386 et seq., the applicant must submit the following:
(1) A recent survey of the subject property.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 4
September 19, 2007
(2) A map showing the limits of the proposed land surface modification;
the location of utilities, easements, right-of-way improvements and any area
regulated under FWCC 22-1221 et seq. that is on or within 400 feet of any area
to be disturbed by the proposed land surface modification.
(3) A tree retention plan.
(4) An erosion control/construction phase stormwater control plan.
(5) A soils report which contains sufficient information to determine the
potential impacts of the proposed land surface modification, as well as proposed
measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts, all as determined by the city.
(c) Decisional criteria. The city may approve the proposed land surface
modification if it complies with the following criteria:
(1) Except as allowed under this chapter, it will not alter or adversely affect
streams, lakes, wetlands or significant trees, either on or off the subject property.
(2) It will not violate any express policy of the city.
(3) It meets at least one of the following criteria:
a. It is necessary to correct an erosion or drainage problem on an
undeveloped site.
b. It is necessary to create new utility or access corridors.
c. Other unusual circumstances exist which make it reasonable to permit
land surface modification in advance of the issuance of a development permit,
subdivision or short subdivision approval or shoreline substantial development
permi t.
22-1095 Tree and plant restoration
If, during the land surface modification, any tree required to be retained or
planted is damaged or destroyed, the applicant shall plant a tree of the same
species at least five inches in diameter, as measured six inches about the top of
the root ball if deciduous and at least 17 feet high if coniferous, in the immediate
vicinity of the damaged or destroyed tree. The city may require the applicant to
remove the damaged or destroyed tree. In addition, if the land surface
modification destroys groundcover or shrubbery, the applicant shall hydroseed
the bare soil and plant shrubs at least 24 inches in height in the immediate
vicinity of the damaged or destroyed vegetation.
. Division 9 Yard Requirements
The following section will be reviewed for possible revision.
22-1133 Structures and improvements
These possible revisions include amendments to 22-1133(5), "Fences," and 22-1133(6),
"Rockeries/Retaining Walls in Required Yards." These code sections state that fences not
over six feet tall may be allowed in a required yard and that rockeries or retaining walls
may be allowed in a required yard. There is currently no specified maximum height for a
rockery/retaining wall, nor any specific gui'dance in the code for the appropriate design of
a retaining wall. Staff currently relies on community design guidelines requirements to
regulate height/size and aesthetics of retaining walls. However, design guidelines were
developed to address building design.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 5
September I 9, 2007
4. Article XIV, Critical Areas
. Division 4, Geologically Hazardous Areas
22-1286 Limitations
This section requires that a soils report be prepared for sites containing or within 25 feet
of a designated geologically hazardous area. It specifies that conditions of development
approval may be imposed prior to permitting and land surface modification. This section
could potentially be amended for greater specificity in information required for submittal
and possible conditions for approval of development activity in geologically hazardous
areas.
5. Article XVII, Landscaping
22-1561 Purpose
This section will be reviewed and possibly revised to address the retention of vegetation.
22-1564 General landscaping requirements all zones
This section will be reviewed and possibly revised.
Please review Section 22-1568 in light of the following list of potential amendments:
· Adding definitions
· Potential changes to the percentage of significant trees allowed to be removed
· Retention of trees in perimeter landscape strips vs. clusters of trees.
· Better direction on where and how to plant replacement trees.
· Consider whether tree replacement could occur off-site and if so under what parameters.
· Consider whether larger significant trees should be replaced with more trees than smaller
significant trees.
· Should the city designate "Landmark Trees" to recognize unique species and/or size of
trees
· Add language to address protection of trees to be retained. For example, require
inspection of protective fencing and signage prior to site clearing and grading.
22-1568 Significant trees
(a) Purpose. The purpose ofthis section is to:
(1) Regulate the removal of trees from property within the city in order to
preserve, protect and enhance a valuable natural resource;
(2) Establish standards to limit the removal of and ensure the replacement of
trees sufficient to safeguard the ecological and aesthetic environment of a
community;
(3) Discourage the unnecessary clearing and disturbance of land so as to
preserve the natural and existing growth of vegetation; and
(4) Maintain a minimum number of significant trees.
(b) Definition. A significant tree shall be defined as:
(1) Twelve inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference measured four and
one-half feet above ground; and
(2) In good health; and
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 6
September 19,2007
(3) Not detrimental to the community (e.g., is not diseased, dying, or likely of
falling into public open space or right-of-way, etc.) or obscuring safe sight distance
requirements. Significant trees shall not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar or big
leaf maple.
~,'~\
rt
Figure 10 - Sec. 22-156~(bJ
(c) Standards.
(1) Retention required. Significant trees shall be retained on the subject
property to the maximum extent possible in all residential, commercial, industrial, or
institutional developments as follows:
a. If the approved development on the subject property will require the
removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees on the subject property,
significant trees shall be replaced in amount equal to 25 percent of the significant
trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development
activity.
b. All significant trees located within any required perimeter landscaping
area shall be retained, provided that this requirement shall not apply to commercial
zoning districts.
c. Significant trees required to be retained within on-site sensitive areas can
be used toward satisfying the 25 percent on-site significant tree retention regulations.
d. All significant trees located within required on-site recreation or open
spaces shall be retained, provided they do not conflict with on-site active recreation
areas.
e. The significant tree retention requirements of this chapter shall not apply
to the city center zoning district.
f. There shall be no cutting of significant trees without authorization from the
city for the purpose of preparing that site for future development.
g. Up to one-half of the 25 percent significant tree replacement requirement
may be satisfied by planting larger trees in required landscape areas such as
landscape islands, buffers, and perimeter landscaped areas. Such trees shall be a
minimum 12 feet in height for evergreen and three and one-half-inch caliper for
deciduous or broadleaf trees. Example: 100 on-site significant trees require 25 to be
retained or replaced. Applicant may plant 13 larger trees within required landscape
areas which meet size requirements mentioned above.
(2) The applicant shall submit a tree retention plan concurrent with the first
permit application for that development. The tree retention plan shall consist of the
following:
a. A tree surveyor cluster survey that identifies the location, size, number
and species of all significant trees on the site.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 7
September I 9, 2007
b. A development plan identifying the significant trees that are proposed to
be retained, removed, transplanted, or replaced, including a final report on percentage
retained.
(3) Each retained significant tree not located within perimeter landscaping may
be credited as two trees for purposes of complying with the retention requirements of
subsection (c)(1 )a., provided the tree meets at least one of the following criteria:
a. The tree is located in a grouping of at least five trees with canopies that
touch or overlap; or
b. The tree provides energy savings through winter wind protection or
summer shading as a result of its location relative to proposed buildings; or
c. The tree belongs to a unique or unusual species of native or non-native tree
not usually found locally.
(4) Where it is not feasible to retain required significant trees due to site
constraints including, but not limited to, topography, ingress/egress requirements,
existing and proposed utility locations, trails, storm drainage improvements, a site
specific tree plan, drawn to scale, shall be prepared. The tree plan shall show the
precise location of all significant trees on the site, in relation to the proposed
buildings, streets, parking areas, required landscaped areas, surface water facilities,
and utilities. The director of community development shall review the plan in relation
to the proposed development to ensure tree removal is the minimum amount
necessary to comply with the proposed development and meet the purposes of this
chapter.
(5) When required significant trees cannot be retained (see subsection (f) of
this section), significant trees that are removed shall be replaced with:
a. Transplanted or retained on-site trees four-inch caliper or larger, which
meet the definition of significant tree in all manner except size, and approved by the
community development director, based upon the director's assessment of the
location of the tree in relation to the proposed site development; or
b. New evergreen trees that are a minimum 10 feet in height, or deciduous
trees that are a minimum three-inch caliper.
The number of replacement trees, combined with the number of retained
significant trees, shall equal 25 percent of the amount of on-site significant trees
which existed prior to development.
(6) The following management practices shall be observed on sites containing
significant trees, to provide the best protection for significant trees:
a. No clearing shall be allowed on a proposed development site until the tree
retention and landscape plans have been approved by the city of Federal Way;
b. A no disturbance area, which shall be defined to be to the drip line of the
significant tree, shall be identified during the construction stage with either:
I. A temporary five-foot chain link fence.
2. A line of five-foot high, orange-colored two-by-four inch stakes placed
no more than ten feet apart connected by highly visible surveyor's ribbon;
c. No impervious surfaces, fill, excavation, or storage of construction
materials shall be permitted within the no disturbance area;
d. If the grade level around the tree is to be raised by more than one foot, a
rock well shall be constructed. The inside diameter of the rock well shall be equal to
the diameter of the tree trunk plus 10 feet. Proper drainage, and irrigation if
necessary, shall be provided in all rock wells;
e. The grade level shall not be lowered within the larger of the two areas
defined as follows:
1. The drip line of the tree(s); or
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 8
September 19,2007
2. An area around the tree equal to one foot in diameter of each inch of tree
trunk diameter measured four feet above the ground;
f. Alternative protection methods may be used if accepted by the director of
community development department to provide equal or greater tree protection;
g. Encroachment into the no disturbance area may be allowed where the
director determines encroachment would not be detrimental to the health of the tree.
22-1569 Performance and maintenance standards (landscaping)
This section states that failure to install landscaping per approved plans and/or failure
to maintain landscaping shall constitute a zoning violation. This section also does not
specifically address significant trees. Staff would like to consider addressing specific
penalties and also specify ongoing protection of significant trees here. Zoning code
violations are subject to criminal penalty per FWCC 22-11.
6. Article XIX, Design Guidelines
The following code section specifies that significant trees within the site perimeter are to be
retained or replaced. In many cases trees preserved in these perimeter locations do not survive
because they are either blown down or are damaged during construction and do not recover.
This section may be amended or possibly deleted if the objective can be realized by amendment
to the significant trees section of the zoning code. (Note: underline and striketm-ough text is
representative of recent code amendment.)
22-1638 District Guidelines
For residential uses only:
(5) All S.significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around the
site shall be retained and/or replaced within the applicable required landscape buffer.
Potential New Guidelines for Retaining Walls
Design guidelines specific to retaining walls are needed somewhere in the zoning code.
Design concerns include overall size and height, appropriate materials, and integration of
landscape materials. In addition, requirements may differ depending on zoning and whether
development is residential or commercial. Staff will develop recommended design guidelines
that may be added to Article XIX of the zoning code.
III. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION POINTS
Staff is asking for Planning Commissioners' input on the issues raised in Sections I and II of this staff
report and would appreciate feedback on any additional issues you may have observed or are aware of
related to tree preservation and site clearing and grading. With your advance input on this topic, staff
will prepare a report that provides further analysis of these issues as well as a series of recommendations
for your consideration and recommendation at an upcoming meeting.
GENERAL
· What observations/concerns do you have with tree preservation and/or site clearing and grading
activity in the City of Federal Way?
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 9
September 19, 2007
. What recommendations do you have for better achieving city goals of preserving significant trees
while accommodating permitted development?
. How should expense of developing the site be weighed against preservation of the site vegetation
and topography in evaluating the amount of clearing and grading to be approved?
SIGNIFICANT TREE ISSUES
. How significant trees are classified (some communities identify "landmark trees" as well as
"significant trees").
. Establishing an adequate buffer around significant trees to be saved.
. Requiring signage as well as fencing around trees.
. Tree replacement-review current replacement ratios as well as whether larger significant trees
should have more replacement trees.
. Tree canopy evaluation-some jurisdictions consider not only size but grouping of trees, with
greater emphasis on preserving contiguous tree canopy areas for habitat and greater potential
retention of trees for the long term.
. Parameters for tree replacement-greater specificity on where and/or how replacement trees
should be placed on site to establish more natural groupings. Clustering versus long narrow strips?
. Review the significant tree evaluation process-how can better evaluation be done to ensure trees
identified to be saved will actually survive; don't try to save trees that will likely be damaged
during construction, or not survive long term.
. Better evaluation of off-site trees and protection.
VEGET A nON RETENTION ISSUES
. Establish a maximum time period that ground may lay bare once vegetation removed.
. Guidelines for revegetation when needed for interim period.
. See grading issues as well.
GRADING ISSUES
· Establish parameters where mass grading is allowed in certain cases (e.g. small site size).
· Establish a maximum site area that may be mass graded. Consider whether we should look at
grading on a lot by lot, block by block-phasing issue.
· What about concerns about hauling the graded material away?
· Should we treat the grading of a site differently depending on the existing vegetation cover, e.g.,
grass versus trees?
· Slope stability as it relates to permitting vegetation removal and grading.
· Density/site coverage as it relates to slopes (steeper slope, less density/coverage allowed).
· Should lot averaging be considered? This would allow the permitted number of lots based on the
underlying zoning, but would require lots on steeper slopes to be larger.
· Maximum amount of grade change allowed through grading.
· What weight should we give to neighbor's concerns?
USE OF RET AINJNG WALL ISSUES
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 10
September 19, 2007
· Establish guidelines for retaining wall design.
· Maximum allowable height for retaining wall depending on use/zone.
· Design guidelines for retaining walls-use of terracing, acceptable materials, landscape screening
methods, etc.
· Establish submittal requirements for retaining walls (section, elevation, material sample, photo of
similar to proposed, etc.).
Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)
Use of topography/vegetation for stormwater management-perhaps this is too big/specialized an
issue to consider as part of this work program.
PENAL TIES
Adopt penalties for illegal clearing.
GENERAL QUESTIONS
· For subdivisions, at what stage should we require them to provide grading plans? Should we
require the plan at the preliminary plat stage, to prevent having to go back to the Council to
amend the conditions of preliminary plat approval?
· Should we require cross-sections, 3-D renderings?
· Should we emphasize the "Design with Nature" approach?
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 11
September 19,2007
1:\2007 Code Amendments\Tree Clearing and Grading\091907 Study Session tree.doc
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
Page 12
September 19, 2007
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19,2007
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners
absent: Hope Elder and Wayne Carlson (both excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate
Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, City Attorney Monica Buck, Contract
Planner Janet Shull, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Vice-Chairwoman Duclos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice-Chairwoman Duclos requested that if a member was not in attendance, they abstain voting for the minutes.
Approval of the minutes for March 28,2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain. Approval of
the minutes for April 4, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed unanimously. Approval of the minutes for
April 18, 2007 was tabled because not enough members who attended were present. Approval of the minutes for
May 2, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT
Ms. Clark announced the Community Development Director Kathy McClung's last day was September 17,2007.
Deputy Director Greg Fewins will be interim director until a successor is chosen. In addition, Ms. Clark announced
that Janet Shull has accepted a permanent position with the City as a Senior Planner and Ms. Clark introduced the
City's new staffattomey, Monica Buck.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 17th, at which time; the Law Department will
introduce a proposed Federal Way City Code (FWCC) reorganization. In addition, staffwill begin to prepare the
2008 Planning Commission Work Program and Ms. Clark asked that Commissioners be prepared to present
suggestions for the work program at the next meeting.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
STUDY SESSION - Clearing & Gradingffree Retention Code Amendment
Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Commission for proceeding with
research and development of specific code amendments. The issues under discussion include significant tree and
grading retention, site clearing and grading, appropriate use/design of retaining walls, and minimum lot size.
The City is receiving more requests for mass grading. This is allowed with review and permission by the Public
Works Director, but the City code does not provide much guidance for determining when mass grading should be
allowed. In addition, the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may grant a developer a permit to "log" a
K:\Planning Connnissionl2007IMeeting Sunnnary 09-19-07.doc
Planning Conunission Minutes
Page 2
September 19,2007
site (effectively mass grading it) and the City has little to no input on the decision by DNR to grant or deny a
permit. Commissioner Bronson encouraged the staff to work on coordinating with DNR. The Commission
discussed penalties and code enforcement for site clearing. Commission Drake asked if other cities have specific
language for site clearing. Ms. Shull replied staff would have to research it.
In addition to increased mass grading, there is increasing development on sloped sites with increased number and
size of retaining walls. Small lots on sloped sites tend to result in a greater number of retaining walls as developers
desire to maximize the site. Staff is considering requiring larger lots on sloped portions of a site, which should
encourage fewer retaining walls.
Commissioner Drake asked if the need for change on these issues is coming from developers or staff. Ms. Shull
replied that both sides have expressed a need for change. Many ofthese issues have come from staff observations
of confusion on the part of developers and staff on how these issues should be handled. Ms. Clark stated that part
of the problem is that there are different parts ofthe city code that deals with these issues. The city is in the process
of reorganizing the city code and that should help, but will not solve all the confusion.
Planning Commissioners suggested the staff seek the help of experts (such as engineers and tree experts) and
developers (of commercial and residential projects) while developing the potential code amendments. The
Commissioners also asked the staff to invite these experts and developers to the Planning Commission meeting on
this topic so they may be available if the Commissioners have questions for them.
Ms. Clark commented that these potential code amendments could mean more specific information (and a higher
cost) could be required from developers at the preliminary plat stage. Commissioner Bronson commented that all
firms have Auto-Cad and requiring more specific information should not cost a lot more.
Commissioner Pfeifer commented that staff needs to be careful not to require the developer to replace significant
trees that homeowners will want to remove in order to protect their roof or for other safety reasons. Commissioner
Osaki commented that he would rather see a group of trees that are to be maintained by the homeowner's
association, as opposed to individual trees to be maintained by homeowners. Commissioner Duclos suggested the
staff seek the advice of an expert for what constitutes a "significant" tree and what kinds of trees should replace
significant trees.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Commissioner Pfeifer suggested that future agenda packets be sent by email, as well as regular mail.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
K:\Planning Connnission12007IMeeting Sunnnary 09-19-07.doc
November 7, 2007
Planning Commission
Agenda and Minutes
.
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7,2007
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 18, 2007, September 19, 2007, & October 17, 2007
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
. STUDY SESSION
Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Hope Elder, Chair
Dave Osaki
Merle Pfeifer
Wayne Carlson
Dini Duclos, Vice-Chair
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
Kevin King (Alternate)
City Staff
Greg Fewins, Interim CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
ll1WW. citroffederalwav. com
K:\Planning Commissionl2007\Agenda 11-07-07.doc
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
November 1, 2007
To: Hope Elder, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, AlCP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
MEETING DATE: November 7, 2007
This staff report is a follow up to the September 19, 2007, study session. At the September 19th
study session, staff introduced the topic of potential code amendments to address tree preservation
and clearing and grading activities associated with development proposals. Attachments A, B, and
C provide additional information:
I. Attachment A - Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
A. Significant Trees and Vegetation Retention
(a) Tree Evaluation
(b) Tree Protection
(c) Tree Replacement
(d) Monitoring of Protected/Replacement Trees
B. Clearing and Grading
(a) Development on Sloped Sites
(b) Mass Grading
( c) Retaining Walls
n. Attachment B - Summary of Requirements to Clear and Grade Land, Remove Vegetation, and
to Protect and Replace Significant Trees
This table lists all ofthe regulations related to the subject topic and identifies which
regulations addresses tree removal for each specific land use, e.g., existing single family lot,
new subdivision plat, vacant single family lot, multi-family development, or non-residential
development (commercial, industrial, institutional).
m. Attachment C - Information on the Class IV Forest Practices Act Permit
Staff will respond to the e-mail from Alternate Commission Kevin King regarding the prevalence
of the total removal of all trees on sites within the last five year period during the November 7th
Study Session.
Following the November 7th study session, staff will prepare code language which will be provided
to interested parties such as the Master's Builders Association, Friends of the Hylebos, Puget
Sound Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, interested citizens!, and the City's Public Works
and Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Departments for comment and feedback.
1:\2007 Code Amendments\Tree Clearing and Grading\1110107 Staff Report to Planning Commission.doc
I We have two interested citizens to date.
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Planning Commission Memorandum
Meeting Date: November 7,2007
Page 2
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
ATTACHMENT A
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
I. INTRODUCTION
This staff report is a follow up to the September 19,2007, study session. At the September 19th study
session, staff introduced the topic of potential code amendments to address tree preservation and
clearing and grading activities associated with development proposals. This staff report provides
additional information with regard to:
Significant Trees and Vegetation Retention:
.
Tree Evaluation
Tree Protection
Tree Replacement
Monitoring of Protected/Replacement Trees
.
.
.
Clearing and Grading:
.
Development on sloped sites
Mass Grading
Retaining Walls
.
.
II. SIGNIFICANT TREES AND VEGETATION RETENTION
Tree Evaluation: At the time of application for the first permit, the applicant is required to submit a
tree retention plan that identifies all trees located on the subject site that meet the current definition of
significant tree (12 inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference, measured four and one-half feet
above ground).
Some jurisdictions require that any tree with a diameter six inches or greater be identified as
significant. Other jurisdictions (Seattle is an example) have adopted more specific lists oftree species
where each species has its own size threshold for being dermed as significant. The City of Redmond
specifies that the tree protection plan be prepared by a certified arborist.
The applicant is required to preserve at least 25 percent of the significant trees located on the site.
Where the minimum number of significant trees can not be preserved, the applicant must provide for
replacement trees to be planted on site. It should also be noted that these protection rates only apply to
trees that meet the criteria of being significant and does not take into consideration the existing
pattern of tree cover on the site. Furthermore, only significant trees located on areas to be developed
with single-family lots in subdivisions are subject to tree preservation. Development in the City
Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones are exempt from significant tree
preservation requirements.
Some jurisdictions require a greater percentage of significant trees to be preserved (35 or 40 percent).
Redmond requires a minimum of 35 percent of significant trees be preserved and also allows
incentives for a higher level of tree preservation, such as reductions or adjustments to other site
development standards. For example:
. Reductions or variations of the area or width of required open space/landscaping;
. Variations in parking lot design;
. Variations in building setback requirements;
. Increases in building height;
. Reductions in the width of certain easements;
. Variations in grading and stormwater requirements;
. Other variations proposed and accepted by the Director, except the reduction in amount
of required parking.
The City of Seattle provides for, "recovery of development potential" where additional height,
reduction in setback area, and/or up to a ten percent reduction in required parking spaces can be
granted in cases where there is an "Exceptional Tree" that is required to be retained. (An "Exceptional
Tree" is a tree that is unique per its species or exceptional size. The city maintains a list of trees that
meet the criteria.)
The zoning code should be amended to specify that tree evaluation should extend beyond the
development site to adjacent parcels.
The city's current development regulations focus on protection oftrees of a certain size or greater.
The result has often been protection of individual trees, but overall loss of tree canopy on
development sites. One consideration is to ask for an evaluation that also considers preserving tree
canopy or stands of trees, as well as individual trees of significance. Both are important
considerations. In some cases, it may be acceptable to give credit for the retention of stands of smaller
caliper trees, even if all do not meet the significant tree criteria.
Tree Protection: Current development regulations require that any trees that are proposed to be
retained must be clearly noted on a tree plan that shows trees in relationship to planned site
improvements. On site, trees to be protected are to be protected with fencing and/or stakes with
flagging that are placed at the drip line of the tree.
The City of Federal Way has been advised by arborists with Urban Forestry Services, Inc. that the
current protection zone represented by the tree's drip line is not adequate. The recommendation is that
the protection zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter.
For example, a lO-inch diameter tree has a minimum protection zone represented by a 10-foot radius.
The zoning code states that the tree plan must be reviewed and approved prior to site clearing. The
code should be amended to also specify that protection measures must be inspected and approved on-
site prior to clearing.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Attachment A
Page 2
Tree Replacement: The city's current regulations specify minimum tree size for replacement trees
of three inches or greater for deciduous and 10 feet or taller for evergreen.
The replacement tree standards do not require that the replacement trees relate to those being
removed. If evergreens are removed, evergreens should be provided as replacements. A consideration
for specifying tree replacement is to relate the size of the replacement tree to the tree being removed.
Another consideration that some jurisdictions provide for is off-site tree replacement. The cities of
Redmond and Port Townsend allow for off-site replacement for some or all of the required
replacement trees when on-site replacement can not be achieved. Acceptable sites for receiving off-
site replacement trees are city or county owned parks and open space areas, public school sites, or
private open space areas that are permanently protected and maintained.
An option provided by Redmond is a fee-in-lieu of tree replacement. The fee shall cover the cost of
tree, installation, and maintenance for two years. The city collects the fee and expends it for the
planting of new trees in city owned parks, open spaces, or rights-of-way.
Redmond allows for the consideration of landscape restoration (restoring all or parts of the forest
landscape and its associated benefits subject to Administrator's approval) to mitigate the loss of trees.
For example:
. Creation of wildlife snags from trees which would otherwise be removed;
· Replacement of certain ornamental trees with native shrubs and groundcover;
. Replacement of hazardous or short-lived trees with healthy new trees more likely to
survive;
· Daylighting and restoration of stream corridors with native vegetation;
· Protection of nonsiginficant trees to provide for the successional stages of forest
development.
Monitoring of Protected/Replacement Trees: The city's current development regulations do not
specifically address ongoing monitoring of preserved/replacement trees after development is
completed. Large trees that have been stressed or damaged can take 18 months to three years to show
evidence of trauma and/or die.
The City of Redmond has examples of code provisions that Federal Way may wish to consider. The
City of Redmond has established sections on maintenance, performance assurance, and enforcement
specifically related to tree protection. The maintenance provisions specify that all replacement trees and
relocated trees shall be maintained in healthy condition for the life ofthe project. The performance
assurance section requires that the applicant post a performance bond to ensure the installation,
maintenance, and adequate performance of tree protection measures. The bonding period is for three
years. The enforcement section specifies that any trees removed without authorization shall be replaced
with anywhere from two to one and up to a six to one ratio of replacement trees per tree removed.
Penalties can be imposed of up to $3,000 per tree for removal or damage to a protected tree.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Attachment A
Page 3
III. CLEARING AND GRADING
Development on Sloped Sites: The current subdivision and zoning code requirements do not
address development on sloped sites in great detail. Current requirements specify that a geotechnical
report is required for sites that have steep slopes (defined as 40 percent or greater) In addition,
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-179 specifies that lots created on slopes of 15 percent or
greater shall minimize grading and shall not result in extensive use of retaining walls.
Some jurisdictions specify that as slopes increase, the minimum lot size shall increase. This helps
reduce the impact of development on steeper slopes and also reduces the incidence of large retaining
walls.
The following chart from the City of San Rafeal, California provides an example of how percent of
slope can effect the minimum lot size requirements.
Minimum Lot Size and Lot Width Based on Percent of Slope
Percent of Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Average Lot
Slope Per Gross Acre Size Width
0-10 6.5 5,000 sq. feet 50 feet
10-20 5.375 6,000 sq. feet 50 feet
20-30 4.25 7,500 sq. feet 60 feet
30-40 3.125 10,000 sq. feet 75 feet
Over 40 2.0 20,000 sq. feet 100 feet
(source City of San Rafeal, CA)
The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development has prepared a
technical guidance document, "For Clearing and Grading in Western Washington." In this guide,
there is a model clearing and grading ordinance that was reviewed by staff. One of the model
regulations specifies: "Limit artificially established grades to no more than a slope of2:1 [two (2) feet
of horizontal run to one (1) foot or vertical fall]."
Mass Grading: The Federal Way subdivision code prohibits mass grading in general. There is a
provision where an applicant may request mass grading when they can make a case that there are
unique site and development issues where mass grading is necessary. In some cases, where there is a
relatively small site with small lots, mass grading may make sense because once grading for
infrastructure is complete there may not be much site area left undisturbed.
A related issue is the stripping and removal of topsoil on graded sites. Staff has learned through
participation in recent conferences on Low Impact Development (LID) that when topsoil can be
retained on-site during construction and then replaced prior to landscape planting, the plantings tend
to fair better because the condition ofthe soil is better.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Attachment A
Page 4
Retaining Walls: There is no specified height limit for rockeries or retaining walls in the FWCC.
Staffhas seen development proposals for walls in excess of20 feet in height for both commercial and
residential development.
Staffhas been requiring section and elevation details for proposed retaining walls due to the aesthetic
impacts they present and have implemented conditions of approval that establish maximum wall
height on a case-by-case basis. However, there are no specific design standards for retaining walls in
the FWCC.
Some jurisdictions establish restrictions on retaining wall height. The Washington State Department
of Community Trade and Economic Development clearing and grading example code provides for a
maximum rockery height of 12 feet. The City of Mercer Island specifies a maximum of 12 feet in
height for a rockery or retaining wall on a cut slope and six feet on a fill slope.
Mercer Island also establishes that within a required yard, rockeries and retaining walls are limited to
six feet in height. King County has a similar requirement. Within the setback area retaining walls are
limited to six feet in height. If there is a fence on top of the wall, the combined height cannot exceed
ten feet.
IV. SUMMARY:
Staff believes the following items merit inclusion in draft revisions to the significant tree
preservation, and clearing and grading regulations.
Tree Preservation
1. Require that tree retention plans be prepared by a certified arborist in coordination with a
landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect!.
2. Either require that all trees that are six inches in diameter or greater be evaluated, or adopt a
more sophisticated significant tree definition that establishes species appropriate sizes for
significant trees.
3. Increase the percentage of significant trees that are to be preserved.
4. Eliminate the provision that tree preservation is only for areas where single-family lots are
proposed-make it apply to the entire site, but provide for greater flexibility in tree replacement
options (see 10 and 11 below).
5. Emphasize that trees are to be preserved in groupings where possible.
6. Require that trees on adjacent properties must also be evaluated.
7. Provide incentives for a greater percentage of tree preservation.
1 In some cases, the certified arborist and landscape architect could be one and the same.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Attachment A
Page 5
8. Modify the tree protection zone per arborist Best Management Practices (BMPs) that establish
tree protection zones based on tree diameter instead of drip line.
9. Require a site visit to verify that tree protection measures and signage are in place per approved
plans prior to development/site work.
10. Allow for more than 50 percent of replacement trees to be located within required landscape
areas.
11. Allow for off-site or fee-in-lieu-of tree replacement when there are no viable on-site
replacement options.
Clearing and Grading
1. Prepare draft code language that addresses development on sloped sites of 15 percent or greater
and establishes appropriate standards for minimum lot size, based on site slope.
2. In concert with item 1 above, allow lot size averaging so that greater number oflots could be
provided on flat portions of a site.
3. Establish a maximum area where mass grading may be allowed without Public Works
Director's approval.
4. Establish a minimum area where mass grading will not be permitted (for example: sites 10
acres or larger in size shall not be a candidate for mass grading).
5. Establish a code requirement that any portions of a site that are graded and not developed within a
certain period of time shall be revegetated. We will need to work with the Forest Practices Act
currently administered by the Department of Natural Resources (see Attachment C).
6. Retain topsoil on site for replacement after construction for better landscape establishment.
7. Establish a maximum height for retaining walls relating to type of development, site location,
and whether a cut or fill slope.
K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\Planning Commission\Attachrnent A.doc
Planning Commission Memorandum
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading
Attachment A
Page 6
~
~
~~
:!i"C
saf
=
~
z
~
~
==
u
-<
~
~
-<
rJJ
~
~
~
~
~~
~u
~s
~~
~~
~~
~u
~j
~~
~~
~~
u~
o~
~u
rJJ~
~~
Zo
~~
~~
~o
~~
~~
QI~
~ "'
~z
00
~
~~
~~
~~
rJJ~
o
~
~
-
<IS
.....
is'''''
o 5
:g s
CI:l 0..
o 0
~-
6 ~
o 0
Z~
..Q
's
<IS
~
.....
.:::
;::$
:::E
~ "0
.....:l
rJJ "C
~ 0
~ g.
~ ~~
:>-
o~
~ "8 <IS
::J .S
0 '" eo "C ...... 0 "C
.D .... ~ .s 0 _0.....-; "C
.s 0 ..a eo "C .s "O]]~~a ~ M
= .D 't;j "C .s o ~ ~d '" "'., :g c.. 0 .s
.g .s.;3 !: 11 .D5h 0"'''C0~ e ~
CI:l .s"C-d .... 0 c......=:>c..= c..().g
is so..... 0 5h'E . ]t< o 0 ~..... o'
'" 1il 0 "'iil't;j eo;g-.s 1il] ~
S o.t:: fr El .... :> ~ ..... ~ 0_ 0 =oSoCf)
~~()e08_ d eo..s::l a - ~ o 5h' t< <Ii S - .D
c.._
0 :> .s ~ 0 .eJ c.. c.. S'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'El5]o::;;:o 0"C]
:>
8 -; = "C. ~ ~ ~ eo g...2 .D El ;g' 't;j ..... eo.S ~ ~ ~o
a 0 0 ~ El =.~ eo 0 ~ . ~ ~r~p () ;g '"
]" - () 0 ~o"'"
:g"C~ ~oo o . '" .~'+:I S..2 () ()
o ..s::l 0 ~ 0 :>"C-; "'Sor9 1il:= B
~ _ .S ~ ().... .S ~o_ .~ ~.s ~ ~ 8.. ~. ElB -~:.a
- <s.g:.a~]gf :=:]] [.l.1 0 0 0 ~~. 8 e]~ < >> ~
~ * e",~. "'0 * c.. '" * :>..... c.. * .D
"C
0....,
0..0
..9~
0 >-
~]
OI)~
.S 0
1Jl"Eh
.~ .S
~rJ:l
~ \0
.... 0\
E-4 l' 00 "C
-< -...... "';' so 1il
8 10= O. =
0=0 Nc..O
N 0.+:1 = ~'+:I
~ ~ '+:1 S o () ()
.+:1 = 0 '+:1 ~ B
() B eo g ~ 8
000
Cf)~;> Cf) ~
~
.....
i:!i:!
~ S
<n 0..
~.9
~ 0
o ~
ZQ
l';Ii:l
rJ1
~
~
~
...:l
"0
...:l
"0
o
0..
o
Q)~
;:.-.......
o~
1l ~
~ .5
"0
0.....
0..0
O...:l
Q);>"
~]
0Il~
.5 0
..... .......
<n OIl
.~ .5
I:I.:lCZl
z
o
....
~
S
~
~
b
.~
~
~
<n
i:!
S
o
;:.-
8
i
~
p:;
o:l
~
<8
=
o
....
't;j
u
;.:::l
0..'
fJ'15
....
-e .~
o:l ....
11)"0
.s"O
.~ j
=
8
II)
~
!
.0 "0 .
'p 1a bll
5 =.E1
"OofJ'
.......... ()
....... s Vi
]1I)"g
"" bll (I:j
1a~~
-a bll ~
n.E1 0
~ ...... 0..
,J:l.~ 0
E-<~~
* II) 0..
II) ~
II) .c <8
.8~.9 =
::=.s ~ ~.g
II ~ II) o:l
"'<8!il~]
"'......0"00..
~ fr.;:l e fJ' .
.l:lU"Ooo =
...... lj ~ ~ ~ .~
1a . 0 0 +:J .,...
u"OEl"O=~
t+:: II) II) II) 0"0
'S ~ ~ ~ I=l "0
bllPII)~~C
.... 5.c 0.. 0 (I:j
r :g .9 .~ ~ -;
II) =
.c 0 d
].i~ .g
"':El~ ~
1a~"O ;.:::::
.......~~>.o..
0..;;>....... 1a fJ'
lI)o:l"O ......
fJ'>'~Cl=
u.o !:I <.,::i 8
~~ ~ .~ ~ 0..
'" ....... .:: 0
.-l<<S.s:E13
<@'S~~
* 0.. tI) '" "0
.......
]
'"
C II) II)
..!So:l......fJ'>.
o..>.Suc
lI).ctl)~(I:j......
fJ'''O 15 1a Cl 5 d
u e ............. <.,::i 0 0
~ '" bll "0 () !:I.p
C fr.8 II) II) go ~
.!!'-4:.6 sg]a3:.=
<0..~8u;>0..
*]~;.:::lla.gfJ'
~ &3
V) .......
...~
N 0
N ~~
~ u ;:.-
o "" 0
.~ "0 Ii
~ &3 .3-
CZl...:l.......
'"
.S 0 3 g- ~
..... "0 .......l:l '.;:J II) ~
o = g "0 "0 u .0.,... ..:.
.~.~.&U ~~ ~ ~ .9 ~ S
B a:s e U 1I)'.g II) ,g ...; "".o'bll
.2...... ~.c II) "0 '" 11)::= bll
t::8~~=:gCle-:,g1l~
II) o..<liC'lllll)j.9 0 = "" >.
0.. <Ii II) C'l "'.;l "" "0 (I:j "0 .0
bllbll5-~' ell)ull)"O
.S .8 'a .8 ~ () 0 OJ) t+:: i::; II)
!:l ;.a.s o..'i:j II) El ...... ~ .~ II) .:>4
~ ] 2 e ~ ~.g 1 ~ 00 [ ~
"0.9 Cl .9
'E=gu~"O ~~II)
bll 0 ';::l U rJl II) bll II) .c
s'p C" ~ ~ ll:l Cl 0 ~ .l:l....... >.
:~ 2 e ~ .8 .~ j .g ~ ~ ~ ~
t:: 8 ~C'l"""'''O (I:j u"O]
II) 0.. . C'l ;;:l .... =- ~ t+:: II) ....
0.. <Ii ~ ~ ii ~ El 0 II)'S i::; '" .
bll bll 5- Q. . +:J o'p .l:l bll II) El bll
.S .S:8 ;g ~bll () ~ g e 00 ~ ~.S
!:l"O _. .8 "'.l:l 0 ."'.cbll
,.....:-= u U 0 II) "" ~ ~ 0..'1iJ bll
.... ;::l II) 0 NO ~ 2 ~ II) 0 11).,... ~
* .0 ...... .;:l 0........... ~........o ;> '+-<
..... "0. ~ "B
o =.g U ~ t+:: ~ "0 .:>4
.i'~ ~ ~ ~.~ !5 .9 ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ .8 ~ ~ .o:g El] ~ Jil '" >.
8~C'l=lI)la(l:j .2;0
II) 0.. . C'l o:l..<:l,J:l . '" a 0...... ..:.
"" ~,J:l +:J 0 = II) 5h .~..,.,
0.. <Ii II) .8 '" () !:I 0 ,g .....8 ;>.S
bll bll 5- 0.. cO II) o'.g tI) 0 II) bll
.S .E1'a o:l ~ '0 ~ ;:l 2 ~ .......0 ~
!:l"O.s,.l:l. ~"'.l:lOO"'=t;:1
Cl:-=uUoo..~",~""",lI)o:j
* ..5 .8 .S N .9 .l:l .g e Cl ,g ~ $'
"0
II)
'" 15 e ~
'E <Ii o:l .8 '=.9 .0
bll . C'l II) ",. 11)....
= 0 ~ C'l == "0 II) ~ .o.i!l .
o .;:l;::l ~ ~.... ~ 0 ;> bll
'p "0 "0 C" 1I),J:l II) ~ 0....... 0 II) 0
u ~:-='a Q. "'.s 0 ...... ~ ...... .c .;:l
E ..5.s11 cO_j"O 0 ~= gg
~ ~..... ~ U'~ ~ 1a ~ ,g II ~
Oll)o......Q'O =-bll......""
u El ~ = .S N ~ .El 0 J C "0 .c>'
bll II) ;:l 0 "0 0.. 0 .... (I:j II)
.S ~:~'.g g u .9 ~ g t3 i::;"B
!:l ~ E: .8 ';::l U "0 '" .l:l ""S ~ ~
Cl E' II) 8 g ~ ~ 2 ~ 2'!:P e ~
* .= 0.. 0.. ~ Ii. ~ ..... "0 ..... tI) 0.. !:I
\0 "0
~ OIl &3 i:!
.0.5 ~ o~
No..O",
~ ~.~ u
.g ~ ~ ~
u&3"O"E
~...:l~1:I.:l
t:QN
.... Q)
ij gp
j~
~
<
~
~
t>=
'8
tlIl
i:ii
II)
~
9:
]
~
~
.8
"<:l
a
s:f
.$2
1;j
Q)
~
:>
Q)
>
o
~
"<:l
a
....:l
!
"<:l
8 a
.g ~
~o
o 0
5 ;
::s ij
5 5
.- ..
'" .-
"i!
8'S
tlIl~
j ~
~tn
ca
'.g 'E
Q) Q)
:-s! S
rJ:l 0..
~..s
6 ~
o Q)
ZCl
fi;I;il
V'1
~
~
~
..;l
.....
o
~
"0
Q)
0..
o
'Q)(;j
;>-
Q)~
] ~
~ .S
"0
Q) .....
0..0
o~
'Q);>,
~]
e.o~
.S Q)
1;J"Eh
.~ .S
~CIl
z
o
....
~
-<
8
~
.Q
.~
~
~
::;s
rJ:l
'E
8
Q)
;>
8
J
<Ii
......Z>'"c:l
:9 0 d
'" 0 ;::l
..s .t:l 0
<B':a",
'"c:l 0 f'l.....
1;l eo~ ~
<B'~ ~ ~ .
1)J.g.g....13
o d ..... 1;l eo
.... Cd '" u ..s
o 0 .... ll:I !3
~ ~;g.S 8
* ;9 !a'~ a3
(;j
-
~
.... '"c:l ~
.s ~ oS
oS '0
'"c:l~;9eo '"c:l
!a .~ .~ '[;9 o~
~.o 0 ~.~ 0 ~
~] ~..g '"c:l '(3 .0
o:~.s~~]
~ S'E '"c:l~ 8 O[ 6'0
"'..... 0 ..... 0 P
.......t c ....... t-4 -
< Cd u El ~ Q..'"c:l
* Q..a ~ a 1t 1;l
o~ 1;l
d;9
.g.~ .Q
S .... 's
~.9 ~ c.;..;
o ..s 0.....
;> d bo.....
..... 0 d S
o .;:O;::l
...... '"c:l '" "'^
..s 0 eo"""
~ ot:~ .all
d ..........
I'< o~ ~
~8..~'"c:l
-
0'1
o ~
.. 0
N .....
N (;j
d. ~
.9 0'"0.....
.....Q)d"o
o rJ:l Cd 0
~~~::;s
.....
S '0 0
.s '" d.O
~ ::=.0 or>
~ ,.g 'a () .~ ~ .9
Cd -:;J .... CI) 0 ;:::I 0 ....
..d ~ 0 .... F] c< ;> 0 ...
u~k3~ilCdoSk3~
g ~ ~ ~ .s ~ ~.~ ~ ~
~~@~z>8..!a!3@~
::s '0 0 0 Oi< 8..d ;:; 0 0
.=: Q.. 1;; 5h 0 Q.. u c< 1;; 5h
*
.... d
.s.g.... .
..s.~ 0 ~
~ '"c:l ...... 0
~.~ ~-<
Cl.~ I ca
..s 0 N u
0;9 N..;:l
:'5l .a U 01::
lJ:;;uu
g.r::' ~ I
"'::s~ &
'1"'"4 (J:l~ Q,)
~...... 0 (J:l
*
i:!:lr'1
... CI)
Ii ~
]~
!
~
r::
~
u
t+::
o~
iZi
(l)
u
..s
!
"0
fa
'g
~
.8
"0
fa
='
o
.~
~
;>
(l)
>
J
"0
fa
....:l
~.
"0
S fa
.g ~
~o
0.8
523
~ Ii
.~ 2
",.~
'" ;:l
.~ if
~~
0.....
u 0
~~
.5 ~
] ;:l
~tf.l
ca
'€ "S
o 0
:g 8
<Il $:I.
~Ja
8 ~
ZCl
~
00
~
~
~
~
o
....'l
"'0
o
$:I.
o
0)1a
>-
op.
11 CIS
;:J .S
"'0
0_
8<3
0)>>
~]
OJ)~
.S 0
~eb
.~ .S
~r/.l
z
o
....
~
8
~
>>
]
~
.....
.:=:
;::l
:;E
<Il
"S
~
8
]
1a
-
p.
.~ "0 ... g ..cI
-d' 11 .~ ~ .... ~ !;j ..... ~
.8 ():<d ~ 0 .s 1:> :E' oS'~ Q)
&~ ~ ~ ~ ~:s;l ~.~~
1a ~ Q) <l:l -a ;::l ~ ~:.........
Q)1;ll=ll:f"O "'~.sQ)~
~.fl1S 0 ~ ~.s ~ .~ oS ~
$:l e.....13 g<l:l $:l ;;;;:>d;1a
000.";:: l=l"O 0 t:: t:: n >.
>'El~~eQ)Q)&&"'() .
!;j '0 1a fr] ~.M 8 8 ~:g ~
..s $:l >."0 <Ii El ~ ~ ~ 0 () '"
*
Q) "0
.D Q)
:3 '~""'8
~ ~ Q) Q) 0 E
"O",0.D ....>. Q)
Q)$:l-1!!"'.D ~
~ ~"O~.;:l ~13 >.i:l
.g ~ !;j g ~ g's !;j ~
~ () 13 '.:2 13 ',p ~..cI ~ .
Q) (;::1 > .5 > .5 .... OI)..Q "0
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~
z'~ e ~ e ~ .s 'tJ .g .[!j
*
i:l 5
~ ~ oS .~
'" Q) Q) Q) '"
e~",>""$:lQ)
() 0 Q)',p g Q).D
"'N1a~l=loS>.
t ] .~ oS 8 "0 a
.~ "0 "O.~ g- i:l g .
... !;j Q) "0'.:2 8'.:213
..Q....se.5!i:l.5>
Q)~S~~~~~
;91a....oQ)oQ)Q)
~_O()>N>....
*
$:l $:l
.g .9
.5 '"
Q) 8
OI)Q)
~.s
Q)
;9 Q)
..... g
o ()
~
>8
~
~i
00
-.:t
0\"'0
~ 1a
$:l $:l
o .9
';j <Il
~ 8
r/.l~
Q:l"<t
.... Q)
~ ~
l3~
1
'"
~
~
~
P.+::
.~
en
~
!
"='
a
~
8
~
B
]
ci'
o
.~
~
>
Q)
;>
]
"='
j
!
"='
l3 a
.g W3
~o
o 0
5;
~ ~
.~ ~
'" .-
'" ::l
.- ar
~~
0.....
u 0
bll~
J ~
~tfl
~
.~ 1:j
~ s
"-' 0..
~..9
~ ~
o 0
ZC4
~
rJ:J
;;;J
Q
~
~
.....
o
~
'"d
o
0..
o
0(;1
:>.......
op...
"8 ~
;:J .S
'"d
0.....
0..0
o~
0;>.
~]
e.o~
.S 0
.....-
"-' e.o
.~ .S
~tf.l
z
o
.....
E-o
-<
8
~
;>.
]
~
~
::E
"-'
1:j
s
~
8
i
(;1
~
= '"'
o 0
u 0 '" 0
'~<9 = b =
]So.;3o
..... .~ 0 '"
~~--g'(j] ~
'1 ~ ~ = E 8..
. 8~Sa~
o 0
o "".p :>.~ =
"Cl t:: ..... 0 0.0 0
d8..~El.9~
;::l 0 c.. 0 0.=
8 a.g.;3~]
~
o
.~ ~
1:j.9
0(;1
.S 10
'"d 0
~~
0.9 ~
..0 '" ~
=1:: 0
] 8..==
:8E<S
oc..~</l
goo <<l
~ ~ '~I ~
S"Cl ~
'61> 0 :9
......~ 0 ~
'fe<98.
<;j
= .~
~ .g
~ ~.....'1il </l
o -.;;l d e <<l
b.9~:::311
d o'~ d
~ --g ~.S S
S'3 = ~ c.. ~
'61> !I) .= :9.9 ~
..... '"' ~ ~ ~ ~
'f] El 8..g <S
o
.....;3 til
.... 0 d ] 6- ...=
=0=0 -0 Uo .b
.E .~ ~ ~ 3 . ~ ~ .E ~ F '" :~
--g ~e~ 8..~e~ O'(j ~ 5l: &1 ~
:>....... 0 OV) dOe ~~ e~ 0 o.o~
o d c.. '"' I'- Cd c....... ......... -.;;l'1:: S ....
a :g 8 ~ J ~ 8 d'S 8 d d c..' :g
c.. 1=1 c.. -.;;l 'a c.. Cd "Cl '"' Cd 0 '" ~ 1=1
Cd g...... 0 5b.......uo8..U"Cl1::oc..
.E Q) . ~'3 0'1il. ~ ~ ~ V) S E 0 El ~
:> .E' 0" 8 0.E' 0.0 c.. N 61>'~ ~ oEl "Cl~
::= ~ ;::l 0 d.1"l ::s..... CD 0..... 1<: ::: n ~
* "'-J C/'J J-.4 Q"+J C/'J tf.) .... ...... CI} (I) ...... _
....
.... 0 d =.... '"' .
o=o,.;::a::so 00.0
<;j 0 ~ t::"'= 0 = ~ <9 '1:: >">
- :> ~ 0 0 '" ~ 0 0 = c.. &1.....
--g~ ~ 8..~ g.~ (;j ~~ oeo.o~
:> = e V) ~ a g.s c.. ~ --g 8..'~ =
00 I'-U....... "ClV)u.......odo
~ S.E ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 N ~.~ a 0 El
<<l c.. 0.;3 S:E' u .g .9'i:j 0 ....... m c..
0.9.!::l !I)'~ ;::l ~ fr- .~...= ~ 0.9
.;3 ~ ;::l '"' </l </l'1=I '"' ~ "',<.>.= u ~
::=.g [~.E.E'~] as'.E ~ 1 .9 .g
*
<<l ~ ::a~'(j 08 .b
'(j 0.;3 ...= 0 = ~.;3'1:: ~'>
.;3 0 '" ~ 0 0 d c.. Cd .....
1=j 0 ~-s i~ (;j ~~ oeo.o~
s.!::l s.... g g.s 8.. ~ --g O.S .......
c..g.....o....... "ClV)u.......g.g~
o 0 0 = d dON ~.;!l '"' 0 0
- '"' 0 Cd Cd U '!:I ~ c.. ~ 1=1
~_<;juuu.g.9l=1o....... c..
0:r=:>1-<~~c.. o.o...=u 0
"Cl ~ g 8..'S'S e til '1il .~ .~ 0 Q)
...........1=1 0.00.0 ;:1o...=..ou:>
1i:".9 e ~ '1il '1il] as'.;3 ~ 5l .9 .g
.s .s
o "' 0 0
..o~-s
= .;3:9 c..
].9r:l.9
'" 0 8. ~
en.-=:...... (JJ
8 '" ~ "Cl
b~......._
.......-.;;l~<<l
~ ~ O'~ ~
~"Cl~.g~
's 0 ~'1il.9
o.o'S'~ e '0
Ci)~o=~
* '"' 1=1 <<l <<l
00
\0
~e.o
N'S
Ng.
~ U
o "-'
..... '"d
o ~
~~
.~ ~ 0 ~]. ...=
as' 0 .;3 ::a 0 .g Y .b
I-< I-< d ...= = 0,J::l .= '>
= ~ 0 0 . '" ::s.;3 ~.g >. .....
"Cl .~ .....;3 ~ e ~ ~ '(j ~ '" : &1 ~
0....... 0.... ~ 0 ~ (;j....... ~~ 0 0.0.....
:> d - 0 ..... c....... d..... -.;;l'1:: S =
8 :g ~ d d 8 d'S 8 d d c..'u :g
c..1=I 0 0 Cd c..Cd"Cl '"' Cd 0 ",d 1=1
~ ]' S ~ ~ 0 ~ 8 8..~ --g li 0 ]'
o 0 e 8..'S'~'S.g V) 's ti c.. S 0
.;3 :> 0 0.0..0 0.0 c.. N 0.0..... 0 S :>
::= .g .;3 ~'1il &l'1il e.9'1il ~ a 8 .g
*
"Cl 0 0
0=..0<9 d
,13 0 ~ so.o .B
O".s u. =
e:Sgj E
</l't::' o'E.~ e
o :s !a Cd </l 0
g"Cl '" = 0
d s.~] ~ ~ ~
~'s'~ ~ is &1 0
~e~.9~~'~
So'" "Cl 8..'a ";::;
.~..o E 0 5b 50
r:n 0..... fJl V)..... !I)
* ...... rJ} ~ N en ~
~ >. '"' ~
gdECd
Cd 0 0
~.s.~ !a
u.;300.0'
~.~ c...s--g
'S "Cl --g ~.S
.~ ~ '13 ~ ~
~.9 [j]
*
"Cl <<l
~ ~
g 0.0
-;; "Cl .S
o 0 ~
g.s u-d
~ [l.s
u >.- S
~ d '"' e
'S Cd E 0
o.o.s 0..0
'1il :s .~ ::a
~.~ 8..~
*
.9
"ClE
0.....
'13 ~
0"0
~~
o.t::'
g :s
~--g
u .S
~s
.~ e
Ci)]
*
~lI)
.... 0
6 1f
SQ..
..c::
~
~
~
~
0.;:::
'a
rn
~
9:
"0
a
'g
~
2
"0
a
d'
o
'.1:/
~
~
:>
o
>
J
"0
~
~
"0
~ a
"0 ~
~o
02
5 2l
::E 6
.~ 2
~.5
.~ if
~~
8'0
bIl~
.S ~
j ;::l
Q..Vl
-
Cd
'.g 1:l
Q) Q)
:sa s
f/} p..
~..9
~ ~
ZCl
~
rJ:l
~
~
~
~
:3
"C
Q)
p..
o
GJ~
;>--
Q)~
] Cd
~ .S
"C
Q) .....
g.3
GJ;>.
~]
~~
.:::1 Q)
1;j"Eh
'>< .S
~rI'.l
z
o
1004
~
S
(J
~
= ~
"d 8. ad' '11
Q) 0 Q) tIl
",.!::l .....s 0 U
3 5< 0 .s ~.-;::
.!::l U = e 0 'f
_ .....S u"d ~ ~
d .S ~.o >- 0 U
~-B e=.s-B la
~.~ ~ ~ "d .~ g
6b"d~"'ut)'Q
.... U _ ~"d;.a Cd
'" ~'1;1 u'~ 13 e
::::lu6Cd80u
::..so~o..ue
....
o
!3 ~
=-i:l
U U 0 U
~ ~~ ~
i:l '3 ~ .<;::' ...:
CdO"",u~
~e$.s'.::l
~=p..o:6
.... .,8 ~ - bIl
"'=U.Qa
JL~:.g'" 0..'=
E-< U 0.. 0
*.... Cd N
bIl ~
.~ = -B
::s oubIl
u ",'Q.;l.S
o u tIl la
= e.N S 0..
u ..... C <<=< u
~d,gal5..gi:l
;;:l td ~ .... .... ..: u
..ciu~uo.eEl
",~~-;::,.gu....o..
u ... ~ '" 0 0
.... ....,g <:l ~o <<=< U
U '" ~ I'< U >
~ ~ '~.g 0..'~-8
V") i:l ~~ a"d....
Nuu <:lUd......c:l:3 dtS
u e ~ .;;;1 la td .s U I td....
..g....._>-~ ]u~. ....uu
.... d '3.0 u 8. u 8 .' tS g.s<
o td O""d .!::l Cd p...t:: ~ - -;; ta
~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~ 8. ~ ~~"d ~
~ ~i:l'E la 1a]]"d.o] 1a 8
8'1;1 ~ ~ - ::: _ td 8.:;;l.s 5 ~
O_Q)ubll,",~ ~Cd..ci_U;;:l
.9 ~ ~ ~.~ .~ ..c:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t
~u fr~.2 arg:l fa UN > =
!;' 0...... S 0...... ",.0_ tl- u 0
"d~ ~ "d >-6
U'Q U . g ,.go
'S'1il.;l ;g ~'::s s] ~ -B g
.s I'<"d bIl .S U 0" = _ "d ':::' 'Q
"'UUU! ~.!::legta..2:s~
G) l-I I:.IJ f.I4. 0 G.)...... ~ ...... ..=\J \-4
~ ].~::s .~ ~ So 1a .S ~ ",,~] ~
~.9 'f]'E 6 d et.8j 1::> 8 l5..13 ~
u"d g ta ~ 0 td ='a e 8.. ad' 8 ,5
tfl u~ u"d dt.8.,8 bIl"d U '" U _ U
'= .!::l. '" la U'!::l = '1;1 .s.-;:: ='3 S Cd ~
bile. Cd:>el'<u:;!Cd'fu ....uCd
.... ,",.:::, U ~ U bIl - u = 0.. 0 - e
en e :s la .9 0..'1;1 e ..s 0 0 e"d'1;1 Cd
* *
.Q
.~
~
~
::E
'"
1:l
S
Q)
;>-
8
J
~
p:;
] -.
'" V") 1a ;g
::s N u 0
U t+=l....
.0 .s 'a ]!
1a bIl.!:ll So
U!"'U
",' 2....
Cd .... =
U '" '" 0
la'Q 6'Q
U Cd 0 =
>"'-2
:B] 5 e
;g ~ e U
~.98.~
] '" ~
-;:: -..<:l
,~ 8 :?l:<='~ =0
g 2 Cd,;> ....
-'1;1 ~ 8 ~
~ 6 d o...t) e
UOu ~;.au
.!::l"d 0..] 13 e
-U030
1a.!::l..... u ~
u ;:2 0 ...-......
t+=lO"degt)
'a e .,8 U 0 Cd
bIl.S Cd.o"d 2
~ ~ t] ~.~ ~
<r::se",-Bo~
*
U.... ....
d -B 0 0 .
td u<<=<i:l
OU El~2u
d ~ 0 P.'1;1 El
ui=l <l:l:3_0..
.0 '~:l g 0.. ~ ..s
::::= I:.IJ 0...-4 Q,)~ CIJ
~~-B~.;3 bIl;)
'" bIl'~'~ .....S"d
ea otSlau
]'13 ~ oS a fr a
L... ::s e ::s.... .... !::l
!it U ..... Cd up..<+,<
.... ] ~ .... ~
,.gd "'''3..c:l 2.::s
~td u_. U uen
....u .o.B ;:l ~8
~ i 5 i j [ ; ]'~ ~
Cd.... El o...S U - 0.. la
~ '" u i:l >- '" la.;!3]"d
8d~U.o3UUtdU
o 8c..~]tl g-g- ~g-
o ~ e.3!.l:l .... U u ~ u
;. 0.. u O".E ~.g.g ~ .g
.......V")UUtIllatdtd:ltd
!;'Ntl...."'___.o_
~ a
.~ :l .()
'13 0 u ....
::s:€-B <Ei:!
U~El""2u
o '" 0 0.... El
= u<l:l u'" 0..
] ~ g ~~..s
]~'~:3b1l~
",u.No...s-8
!.l:lCUlau
~ .~ ~ -: fr a
~'1;1 ;l <E l5.. <E
*
u
i:l .& a .....~
~u~ S~fa......c:l:3 ]<E~6
u ~ ~ '", la;;J 2 g .1.... n ~..2 00
-B !:l >- U u.... u en 0 - o.."d
.... d '::l.o u p.. u 8 .' <<=< g:.::l tIl ~
o td O""d .!::l Cd o...t:: ~ - -;; ..,s 0
.... t.8 e.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e Cd ~"d ~ l5 ~
;;:l '!::l '""' bIl "0 '" .... Cd u.... = - .... 0..
~ 5bd.E la ta]]"d.o] td 8 0 ~
8'1iJ a ~ -;:d - td 8. ~.S 5 ~ gJ x
oi:l8].~ U ~ i~.;JQ) U] g~
.9 8..!ll >- ta '3 ..c:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b:'S! ~
o..~ frtll_ O"g;3 d UN ~ = ~ U
:;:J 0...... El o..e "'.0.2 tl- u O"d tl
*
i::I:l\O
.... u
~ ~
e~
-5
~
~
E-<
~
U
l!:i
.~
V5
u
~
!
'"
;j
~
8
~
.8
'"
;j
cf
o
.~
a:p
:>
u
;;.
J
'"
~
!
'"
~ ;j
'" ~
~u
0.8
ijf.l
~ ~
.~ ~
~ 'S
.- ar
~~
8'Ci
bI)~
j ~
~cn
ca.
'.g ~
~ s
~ 0..
"" 0
~-
6 (I)
o ~
ZCl
~
00
~
Q
~
~
.....
o
...:l
"e
(I)
g.
"a)"id
>-
(I)~
] ro
~ .S
1S.....
0..0
O...:l
"a);>.
>-
Cr~
Oll~
.S (I)
.....-
III Oll
.;< .S
~oo
z
o
....
~
8
~
'" <l)
I "0 <l) go "0
~g ~""gU<l)~
~ g 8'~ j ~].~.~
O.......l:l M l:l.~""" <l) <l)
.E~d]~~13~S
OM Q.~ O:l 0 M.!:l....!J
U .... -d...... ::l - t:I
~ i or) Q) d O".g g
~. N U O:l e,..<;j I'l
8~ <l)~- ~<l).
:'S! lli';:].!:l fr l:l..S lIl.!:l ~
U <l) <l) 5- M >';9 '" ~ 0
~ ~';1 e S S'~ ~ [~
;>.
]
~
~
"",_I ~ 6 ("f"')
II ~ 0 ...... <l)
.S ~ b ~ g 8 .-g ~.s <l)'~
Obht:l 8.......l:l<l)~P..:sgoo 0
",.s ~ 0 Ci..o ~ ~ ..0 fr >..~ ~ ~ ~
]S:!~l~Ci~~.9~S"'1a,J:::l~~
:::: a M Q. :g <a l;::l or) 0 .... <l) _.g <l) "0
~ 3 r.2 3:.::; 0 ~';:I N "0 1a e "O,..<;j S ~
"'1il1....!::lo:l::l~5b<l)<l)u....<l)~<l)O
",. ,J:::l ~ U "0 lli';:]'S S:'::: ~'S ~,s.p
3. .~] -B'g 3' B O""$:l 8: e,o 0" <l) 0" G
b ,J:::l O:l.S "0 .l:l';:] e e < ~ e !a e s
III
~
~
8
]"
"id
p::
or). "0
N 13 .g
<l) U <"l::l '"
's '" ...... 0",J:::l d
O"P..de]<l)
e e ~.S ~ ~ 0
~ Ci >.:S ~.!:l ~
~"O"'~<l)5-..o
.... g S '" !a e '"
c .:::l .... <l) <l) "0
~ ~ 1a g go.~ ~
~ ......~ .... U t:L).S
'S <l) P.. <l) ~ 0 d
bI)..o l:l. ~ 1a <l) <l)
.;:] .9 < _ _ S S
. ~
0'" '" "0 ~
'" .~ ~.~.~ ~'.8']] ~ ]
<l) <l) U ~ 3 _"~ "'] l:l.~ <l)
:g '" c:l iE ~ s -; '" 2 '" e.~ go
"0 .:::l 0 "0 S ^ <l) <l) <l) M - U
1 ~ €- g 8 ~ g.~';1 ~ ~]
<l)~o~-E"O'-"~<l).s!a<l)-
~ -d 'bO'~.8 1a ~ U ~ "0 13 ;9 13
e <l)~,~ ~ ib 6.S ~ r.2 ~,s,S'3
M' ::s 0.... ,c.., ~ I'l I 0 $:l;9 0"
&: ,-".8 ~ Z e ~ .~ ~ !a e'~ e
III
(I)
~;.@
1.0 (I)
-"e
I .....
~6
.~ 5h
..........
U III
(I) (I)
ooCl
~r-
.... <l)
5 ~
ei:l..
1
0)
.g
,;
~
E-<
=
o
.~
~
o
U
=
o
'.:;l
os
~
~
]
4>
::J
]
bl)
:a
~
]
J
u
a
~
~
i
~
U
t-
o
o
;z
8
~
~
!.;::I
'a
Vi
g
!
"0
!a
l3
e
i:l..
B
"0
!a
c:!'
o
'.:;l
~
~
:>
iIJ
~
!
"0
j
i1J"
~
"0
e !a
.g ~
~o
o 0
E;
~ 5
.~ ~
'" .~
'" ::s
..... if
~~
0.....
u 0
bl)~
j ~
i:l..r/l
~
CITY OF '" --7
Federal Way
ATTACHMENT C
FOREST PRACTICES ACT
I. Definitions
"Forest land" means all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber
and is not being actively used for a use which is incompatible with timber growing. ...
"Forest landowner" means any person in actual control of forest land, whether such control
is based either on legal or equitable title, or on any other interest entitling the holder to sell or
otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber on such land in any manner.
"Forest practice" means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and
relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including but not limited to:
Road and trail construction;
Harvesting, final and intermediate;
Precommercial thinning;
Reforestation;
Fertilization;
Prevention and suppression of diseases and insects;
Salvage of trees; and
Brush control.
II. Summary of Class IV General IV Forest Practices Permit
1. If a development is proposed on land with merchantable timber and the landowner
desires to clear the land, he or she must obtain a Forest Practices Permit from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
2. The landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the DNR once a
development project has been issued a Mitigated Determination of Significance (MDNS,
threshold determination pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act [SEPAl).
3. The landowner can harvest the on-site timber once a Class IV Forest Practices permit has
been issued by the DNR.
4. A Class IV Forest Practices Permit expires after three years if the landowner does not
develop the property.
5. Prior to December 31, 2008, the City may request that jurisdiction for Class IV Forest
Practices Permits be transferred from the DNR to the City. This may allow the City better
control on timing of harvesting of timber relative to the development of the site.
6. Staff needs to do further research and obtain direction from the City Council on whether
we should pursue requesting a transfer of jurisdiction for Class IV permits from the DNR
to the City.
1:\2007 Code Amendments\Tree Clearing and Grading\EXHIBIT C Forest Practices Act.doc
Planning Commission Memorandum
Forest Practices Act
Attachment C
Page 2
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 2007
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, Wayne Carlson, Bill Drake, and Lawson Bronson.
Commissioners absent: Dave Osaki, (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners
absent: None. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, and
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved (and it was seconded) to approve the minutes of April 18, 2007, September 19, 2007, and October 17,
2007, as presented. The motion passed; no nays.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT
Ms. Clark introduced Associate Planner Matt Herrera.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was decided to delay the election of officers to the next Planning Commission meeting.
STUDY SESSION - Clearing & GradinglTree Retention Code Amendment
Ms. Clark and Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. They discussed existing code regulations and noted that
significant trees are dealt with in different sections of the code. One of the intents of this code amendment is to
consolidate the regulations.
Chair Elder commented that clearing a site can have a detrimental effect (due to erosion, etc.) on nearby property.
Mr. Carlson commented that he has noticed that one or two large trees may not be the best solution. A number of
medium sized trees (especially of various sizes) work better to mitigate detrimental effects. He also commented that
the City may have particular species of trees that they would want to preserve. Mr. Bronson commented that
definitions are needed for large trees, medium trees, and heritage trees. Ms. Duclos commented that she would like
to have incentives to preserve a greater percentage of trees. It was stated that it would be a good idea to identify
trees on adjacent properties that might be affected by development. Mr. Bronson commented that Google provides
aerial surveys and asked if the City uses them. Ms. Clark replied that the City does use aerial surveys. Ms. Duclos
asked how a homeowner would know if a tree is protected or significant. Mr. Bronson asked is there a penalty for
cutting a tree that is blocking view and planting smaller ones in its place. Ms. Shull commented that these are
excellent points that the City will consider.
K:\Planning Connnission12007IMeeting Sunnnary 11.07.07.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
November 7,2007
Public Comment
John Norris, Norris Homes - He commented that he is passionate about building houses that people can
afford. He feels that the current proposal has nothing in it that would make houses affordable. He urged the
Commission to understand that the regulations cost money and price homes out of the reach of families.
Allowing flexibility is very important. Trees are a renewable resource. There are a number of older
neighborhoods that had been mass graded that now have large, beautiful trees. More restrictive regulations
are making the building of homes more expensive, which in turn, drives up the cost to potential buyers.
Mr. Bronson commented that we need to decide what we want Federal Way to look like. Do we want to look like
San Francisco, with no trees and small yards, or do we want neighborhoods with lots of trees and large yards?
The Commission would like additional study sessions on this topic with "experts" on these issues. Ms. Clark
replied that staff will invite agency representatives, developers, and other interested parties to a future study
seSSIOn.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Bronson announced that the November 29th Terrorism Awareness Presentation needs participants and
encouraged Commissioners to attend.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
K:\Planning Commissionl2007\Meeting Sunnnary II-07-07.doc
Citizen Comments
City of Federal Way City Hall
PO Box 971833325 8th Ave. S.
Fede:ra1 Way, WA 98003
fW ~-e; Fi!~ 1 /
c~ t W& v4aJLtiruJVV
. . ~JJti'Jkr
-;/k cq--rYff
RECEIVED
MAY 2 !) ZOO?
. iIiiif .10 _ apt.
Federal Way, WA 98003
PUBLIC WOflKS
DEPARTMENT
To 'Whom It May Concern:
My name is Amanda Bell. I have lived in Federal Way for my whole life, and I must say
that it is a wonderful city in which to live. It has been brought to my attention that large
amOlmts of trees in Federal Way are being cut down to make way from more housing
developments. It haS happened in this city over the past few years.
I would.like to see more trees being planted to replace the ones that are being cleared out
and .fewer trees being removed from construction areas. Hopefully; this could help sustain
our state's natural beauty, even when houses are being built. I would be happy to raise
monc~y to help pay for the trees to be planted. I would like it if you could place
restrictions on the amount of trees to be cleared out in different properties. I can be
reached at the above address. If I do not hear from you within two months, I would be
happy to send a reminder letter.
Please help save our natural resources; there are too many trees being lost due to these
new developments. If you consider making these changes, I will feel that I have mad!a
positive impact to the environment.
Sincc~rely,
.JJ~ Wl
Amanda Bell
Tree Retention and Landscaping/Grading Code
Page 1 of 1
Margaret Clark - Tree Retention and Landscaping/Grading Code
From:
To:
"Dini Duclos" ........ .. ~ u 1 Ai -.a
"Tina Piety" <Tina.Piety@ci.federal-way.wa.us>, "'Margaret Clark'"
<Margaret.Clark@cityoffederalway.com>
10/2/2007 2:48 PM
Tree Retention and Landscaping/Grading Code
Date:
Subject:
Hi Margaret and Tina,
I was talking with a resident who is very concerned about development and what is doing to the animal habiltat with all the
removal of trees etc. I told her about the Planning Commission and what we are looking at.
She would like to receive notice of any public hearing so she can testfy.
Her name is Mrs. Donna Williamson and she lives at f . -
-r-ed Way 98023. Telephoru T
- .
Could you add her to your list for notification.
Thanks,
Dini
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Defau1t\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47025A3CCHPOCity Halll... 11/5/2007
Page I of2
Margaret Clark - Fwd: Tree, Clearing, Grading Ordinance
). 1111 "1 ".. Ii . 'liI'l~f,J
L
"'~1-'
~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Greg Fewins
Janet Shull; Margaret Clark
11/13/2007 8:05 AM
Fwd: Tree, Clearing, Grading Ordinance
--..-...,,----<.-~--,.....-,->--........-._______________.,...__.._._..,~._..,._.._____.^.~,_'N___"___
fyi
Greg
>>> "Kurt Wilson" <
Greg:
11/13/20077:03 AM >>>
Per your direction, I forward the following comments. Sorry they are later than expected
Tree Retention:
Do you really plan to regulate tree removal on existing single family lots outside the ROW?
Can the developer unilaterally make the determination as to whether or not significant trees are retained, replanted,
or mitigated offsite?
<This is very important with mostly infill development with topography that occurs in Fed Way>
Tree surveys of 6" and larger trees is a real waste of money with little benefit. If a threshold of retention is
established, it should be incumbent upon the applicant to show how the standard is met by using retention,
replacement, mitigation, a combination thereof. (ie: x amount of tree units per acre retained based on a
representative sample survey of the site)
Making this process as predictable as possible without discretion of staff is most important to our industry.
(ie: why propose to retain narrow strips of trees (specifically in non-residential development) when we all
know they are highly susceptible to wind damage and that developers will just have to jump through another
hoop and get a forester to convince the staff that tress should be replanted and not retained)
Replanting seems to in most cases make the most sense. So why not structure the code to allow this to happen
without a bunch of back and forth with the City staff which costs our industry time and money?
Consider giving credit for street trees of certain calipers and species.
Mass Grading:
Mass grading should be allowed in ALL urban areas. Who are we trying to kid? Most all of the "f1at" sites are
gone. I have never been able to figure out the reasoning behind this policy other than one incident, Jornada.
One experience is not the way to govern. What benefit is ultimately gained? All it does is increase costs for
the Builder when the City is successful!)
Why would staff want to limit the use of walls? Developers usually try to get out of spending money on walls so that
the builder is left to deal with the topo problems. It always makes sense to deal with them in bulk during the mass
grading activities. This allows the final streetscape of the community to be predictable from the start. Federal Way
has forced some pretty bad clearing/grading approvals on developers in the past, ALL FOR NO NET GAIN TO THE
CITY!
There are numerous wall types that actually are both beneficial and actually very aesthetically pleasing.
Topsoil is usually retained on residential plats because it is an increased cost to truck it away. However, this is
virtually impossible for this to occur on commercial development sites.
(Keep in mind that keeping too much (More than 6" ) on building lots requires a displacement of the excess
non-structural material on the lot after the foundation is backfilled causing steeper driveways in order to
minimize haul-off) (not always the best thing for the end user in my opinion.)
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Default\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47395AD9CHPOCity Hall... 11/13/2007
Page 2 of2
It appears that the direction City staff is heading with these proposed changes is going to make it even tougher to
develop the remaining residential land left in the City limits. The City has
made good improvements over the years and I would like to see that continue.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Kurt Wilson
'1-,.....
l~I!I.I. -
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Default\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47395AD9CHPOCity Hall... 11/1312007