Planning Comm PKT 09-19-2007
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2007
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 28, 2007, April 4, 2007, Apri118, 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
}!:!!'}!'. citvofJ('derlllwllv. com
KIPlanning Commissionl2007lAgenda 09-19-07.doc
~
CITY OF #/I ~~
Federal Way
Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading
Planning Commission Study Session
September 19, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
This staff report contains a review of the current City of Federal 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 an~a
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] 9, 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:
(I) 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:
(I) 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 of FWCC 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 propos(~d
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:
(I) 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 pemlit
land surface modification in advance of the issuance of a development permit,
subdivision or short subdivision approval or shoreline substantial development
permi 1.
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 hydrose~~d
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 guidance 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
22-1561Purpose
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 sign age prior to site clearing and grading.
22-1568 Significant trees
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to:
(I) 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.
.
~,'~\
r~
Figure 10 - S~C. 22-156~(b)
(c) Standards.
(I) 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 19, 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)(l)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 strikethrough text is
representative of recent code amendment.)
22-1638 District Guidelines
For residential uses only:
(5) All8significant 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 I 9, 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.
VEGETATION 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 oflots 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