Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 01-16-2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2008 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Merle Pfeifer, Wayne Carlson, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: None. Alternate Commissioners absent: Kevin King and Tim O’Neal (both excused). Staff present: Interim Community Development Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Senior Planner Deb Barker, 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 seconded to approve the minutes of November 7, 2007, as presented. The motion passed; no nays. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION – Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment Ms. Clark explained that this evening’s study session will be a little different. Representatives from agencies and developers have been invited to participate in a panel. For each discussion point, members of the panel will be asked to express their questions, opinions, and suggestions. Members of the panel are: Gary Nomensen, Puget Sound Energy (PSE); John Norris, Norris Homes; Ron Tremaine, Redstone Development; Kurt Wilson, Sound Built Homes; Paul Woolson, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Don A?, BPA; Tina Melton, PSE; and Don ?, PSE. Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. Discussion Point #1 is that regulations should be reorganized into one section to make them more usable and eliminate duplications and conflicts. There was no discussion on this point. Discussion Point #2 regards providing guidance about under what circumstances mass grading would be allowed. A related point is whether the City should require topsoil to be stockpiled and reused. Staff has received information at Lower Impact Development training that stockpiling and reusing the soil would result in healthier soil. Commissioner Bronson commented that stockpiling and reusing soil would possible result in healthier soil only if the original soil is not contaminated. He suggested that if staff proposes that soil be required to be stockpiled and reused, that testing for contaminates be part of the regulations. Mr. Norris – Will restrict people if require top soil to be saved on site. Smaller constrained sites can be a problem. Builders use all the available ground, so there is no place to stockpile the soil. He doesn’t agree Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc that reusing existing top soil will result in healthier soil. Replacement soil is not necessarily unhealthy. We need to address the affordability of housing and how this can add cost. Mr. Wilson – We need to differentiate between commercial and residential development. Cannot leave soil on-site when doing commercial development because everything is built on pads. Builders don’t want to take material off site because it is more expensive to haul soil away. On residential development, they attempt to just scrape off a few inches from top. Builders want a maximum two percent driveway and limiting mass grading can end up with steep driveways. Saving trees is great, but trees should be preserved in clusters. Ms. Melton – Whether native top soil is used or new soil is brought in, the top soil must be suitable for planting trees. Proposing regulations must consider specific site conditions. (Ms. Clark asked for codes that use this approach.) Mr. Norris – City’s ordinance that allows 25 percent replacement for significant trees works. It has flexibility. Allow us to mass grade and plant trees back. Mr. Tremaine – Agrees with John, Kurt, and Tina. Commissioner Elder – Project on Campus Drive has been a source of a lot of complaints to her. We need to educate the public that we are not just going ahead with mass destruction of trees. Ms. Clark – Mass grading on the Campus Crest was allowed due to site constraints. Mr. Wilson – That situation occurred due to SEPA being issued and then developer going and obtaining a Forest Practices permit. There is a loophole. City should consider how to close the loophole. Need responsible development. Ms. Clark – Are working with DNR on this issue. Possible can take over Forest Practice permit. Commissioner Bronson – Problem isn’t mass grading, but timing. If houses had appeared sooner, probably less complaints. But now appear to be sitting until who knows when. Need to see something happening. Commissioner Carlson – Tie tree removing with this phase in some cities. Did City’s engineering dept apply any seasonal restraints? Ms. Clark – Some restricts on when can clear & grade. Mr. Wilson – Putting seasonal restrictions is an issue. Intent is discharge of stormwater and erosion control. Shouldn’t have a blanket statement in code because every situation is different. Discussion Point #3 regards height and design standards for rookeries and retaining walls. Commissioner Elder noted that the City needs to be careful to keep residential and commercial rookeries and retaining walls separate. Mr. Norris – Don’t need extra restrictions already have them. If in cut don’t need engineering. Rockery over four feet needs engineering if holding dirt. Already have codes in place. Just adopt codes that are already out there. Re design standards – we don’t want to do walls cause of expensive, but design standards can be more expensive on us. Rules many times don’t consider each piece of ground is different. Allow Director to make changes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc Commissioner Pfeiffer – Would like example of code John mentioned. Mr. Norris – In King County, if wall is over five feet must have a permit to be sure you have engineering for the rockery. Engineering so it doesn’t fall. Commissioner Drake – Engineering drives what you have to do. We are talking about aestictics. Code addresses engineering. What it looks like is different. Commissioner Pfeifer – Height issue doesn’t have looks. Twelve feet mentioned. But city isn’t hasn’t decided. Commissioner Carlson – Don’t rely on CTED model. Are problems with it. Offer applicants a choice. City identify their wish, but allow other ways of doing the wall. Are different design solutions that can be presented and let applicant choose. Mr. Wilson – Are we talking walls on housing lots or ones for retaining walls. If for lots, can’t restrict people to build their own wall (a property rights issue). Property on Hoyt Road without walls wouldn’t have worked. Don’t want to spend money on walls. If have to step a house, all see is siding of house. Terraces would look better. Commissioner Bronson – 1. If large wall, mask with shrubbery would be a security issue (people will hide behind them). 2. If regulated by OHSA would be required to have a handrail. Will our code have such a regulation? Mr. Wilson – Rule standard any thing over four feet requires a four feet fence. Re screening, avoid outright prohibiting them. Commissioner Long – Existing code if over six feet, does staff or developer choose wall or rockery. Clark planning doesn’t address. Ms. Clark – Hard for us to choose a height like hearing about alternatives. Mr. Norris – There are new walls that look nice. One thing that helps make decision on wall is if there are utilities close. Sometimes must use a gravity wall other times pored in concrete, consider what will be best type of wall to use, want plat to look good. Discussion Point #4 regards adopting lot averaging with a slope density ratio. Mr. Tremaine – Do as proposed. Would allow flexibility. Can build around slope without losing property. Mr. Wilson – Flexibility as an option, but don’t be prohibited. Can do things to build w/topography (garages under). It cause problems to say thou shall do this or are limited to this. Commissioner Bronson – In previous meeting, some Commissioners concerned, what to provide developer a way to make some lots smaller if it would work out to proper percentage. Intent is not to force developer to do things a particular way. Discussion Point #5 regards significant trees and how they are classified/defined. Mr. Norris – Ordinance is working. Lots of trees in FW. It is flexible. We don’t cut trees for the fun of it. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc Want to retain them. Tree canopy; can’t do it and plot out lots. Lots, roads, detention pond (open space, buffer). Keeping trees may get someone killed. It will come down on a house. Commissioner Elder – Explain if you force us to leave trees where we shouldn’t leave trees. Mr. Norris – Ordinance allows us to remove trees and plant new ones that in time will grow large. Not allowing mass grading is a problem. Ms. Melton – 1. Using caliper should be reconsidered. Need to consider more, health, where tree is growing, amount of soil available. Tree failures in last storm were done by trees in buffers. Need a certified arborist to lay out significant trees. Commissioner Pfeifer – To Tina, staff has given us a couple of ways What is wrong with drip line? Ms. Melton – Your arborist is a top arborist. Drip line problem, roots can grow long, can be instability problems. Recommended Barbarines Significant meet caliper, in good health, is there root rot, is it likely tree will fail in storm Commissioner Pfeifer – Will it not cost more to developer? Ms. Melton – Yes, will need to weigh that cost against retaining trees. Commissioner Bronson – We are trying to find a set of rules that are workable and not too expensive. But you are saying must hire arborist. Is there a way of achieving goal w/less cost. Ms. Melton – Could eliminate the target. If no roads, structure, etc in the length of tree, have eliminated target. Commissioner Elder – How can we make an educational guess what trees will be workable. Mr. Wilson – Maple Valley project required a tree survey. Would have cost 50,000. Convinced them to use a different approach. Cannot retain trees on 3,000, 4,000 sized lots. Trees removed and replanted with planting plan (w/native trees). All good land is developed. Replanting is better (cheaper to retain if can, but can’t). FW has 15% open space requirement. Commissioner Pfeifer – What does Maple Valley consider a significant tree? Mr. Wilson – Was based on caliper (24”) with X canopy cover. Consider size of lot when requirements. Can’t have much on a 5,000 lot. Commissioner Bronson – Panel says they want mass grading, want determination of number of trees planted as part of project. Do we need an arborist involved? Answer was yes. If agree to timeline to replant trees Mr. Wilson – Need to plant Commissioner Bronson – Don’t want to have to wait to replant. Mr. Wilson – City should take over Forest Permit. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc Commissioner Bronson – If city allows grading if require 15 months to replant. Answer is yes. Mr. Woolson – BPA – understand you to say will clear then determine what is planted to replace Commissioner Bronson – No, expect BPA would be involved. Mr. Woolson – Can’t permit trees over ten feet near power lines. Mr. Norris – Bronson is going down right path. Control by saying have to replace trees, on larger lot replace two trees and one on smaller lots. Don’t tie to what tree was there, just simple numbers. Allow developer to plant in place where won’t cause problems. Commissioner Carlson – Suggest something similar to what arborist suggests. Residents don’t want to wait 15/20 years before neighborhood looks good again. City should have a certified arborist to insure that trees that remain will thrive. Discussion Point #6 regards ensuring that trees identified for preservation survive. Commissioner Drake – Thought I heard our understanding is it is best to mass grade then replant. Ms. Melton – Need to take site conditions into account. Some sites retaining trees would work well. Trees near substations is a potential problem. Need each site to be evaluated independently. Commissioner Elder – One size doesn’t fit all. Also because of perception of citizens. Have heard “how come city didn’t do anything.” Tina point is good. We need to decide what is a fair manner of dealing with each site. Appreciates the feedback from panel because it helps us with a decision. Commissioner Drake – Does it boil down to whether willing to pay for arborist? Economics vs what you want to spend and we may want to spend to preserve. Commissioner Bronson – Are there thumb rules for evaluating tree area so that a planner can determine what needs or doesn’t need an arborist? This type of tree with this type of soil doesn’t need an arborist. Ms. Melton – Not aware of any boiler plate checklist. Would be a challenge to develop. Mr. Norris – City needs a code that can’t clear w/o a grade & clear permit. What Tina says, I’m concerned with cost of housing, An arborist will add to that cost. May have to change roads etc to retain a tree. Every site is different. Ms. Clark – Our subdivision does allow you to clear, we want to retain trees and will work with developer. Mr. Tremaine – Significant tree, if two years from now falls over, who pays? Discussion Point #7 asks how replacement of trees should be regulated. Ms. Melton – Minimum # of trees could be a problem from a screening standpoint in regards to substations. Could lead to transients hanging out there. 3” min caliper, ask to consider – can damage slope if large caliper is required to be replanted. Allowing placing in parks is good. Add verbiage that planting right tree for that spot. Fee-in-lieu is good, consider it be dedicated to tree planting and can’t be used elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc Mr. Norris – A 3” tree is expensive. Most place see 2” tree. Concerned fee in lieu will be viewed as money generator and will be overused. Commissioner Long – What are other cities using for caliper. Mr. Norris – Two inches is common. FW street trees now require a root guard that costs more than tree. Commissioner Pfeifer – What do you think of root guard Ms. Melton – Science hasn’t made a decision yet. Are looking into other choices. Sometimes root goes under root guard. Looking at alternative. Commissioner Long – Like concept of replacing on site. Suggest replace as much as possible on site with fee-in-lieu narrowed down to an adjacent area. Discussion Point #8 asks if the City should require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees. Mr. Norris – Who’s to say tree you are replacing would not die within three years. It takes a lot of time & work to get performance bonds released. Is managed down to nth degree. Commissioner Bronson – how many replacement trees have died within last five years. Is this really a problem? Why are we worried about this? Doesn’t seem to be a problem. Ms. Melton – Bronson is correct. Monitoring would be enormous amount of work for developer & city. Commissioner Carlson – Agree with Tina. Do have situations where people cut & run. See failures where people aren’t doing basic care (irrigation). Ms. Melton – See failure where planting too deep control planting would work better. Commissioner Bronson – Could Tina let us know what kind of percentage of failure they have. Ms. Melton – Will do. Discussion Point #9 asks if there should be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to utility (such as BPA and PSE) easements. Commissioner Drake – Do utility companies already have regulations? Ms. Melton – PSE, don’t have power lines in FW over 150(?) kilovolts. Do have language to maintain free of vegetation. Trim areas every three or four years per power of lines. Target hazard trees (with land owners if on private property). Ms. Melton – Suggest follow right tree, right place philosophy. Can meet with city to give specifics. Commissioner Drake – Can we adopt an association standard by reference? Ms. Melton – Some is regulated by Federal Gov. Could develop something for BPA & PSE. Don A – BPA, our current policy is being reviewed. Looking at not allowing any trees on ROW. Safety issue. Want to work with City about types of trees for off the ROW. Can make recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 16, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08.doc Ms. Clark – We want to be more specific about types of trees and where they can be planted. If we say default to their regulations, if all planners leave, new won’t know what regs are. Commissioner Carlson – Ask Tina to provide a permitted plantings notebook. Mr. Woolson – All we ask is we can review planting plan. Ms. Melton – Has some literature for Tree City USA. Clark -- CM Don – On street requires trees to be planted, City will have to top trees or BPA will cut them down. Ms. Clark – will talk to PW about this issue. Mr. Nomensen – Applaud PC for inviting us. Thanks for working with us. We have been analyzing outages during 2006 storm. Many caused by trees. 40 – 60 % caused by required buffers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark stated that the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program has been adopted by the City Council. A copy was provided to the Commission. In February, the Commission will have a dinner, hold elections for chair and vice-chair, and have a study session that will discuss the work accomplished in 2007 and 2008 Work Program. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.