Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-2001MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 4, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Ronald Douglass and Renee Larsen STAFF: Jeff Dixon and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Garna Jones, Peter DiTuri, Bill Taylor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Peace. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the October 2, 2001 meeting be approved as mailed. DISCUSSION: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance - Development Status and Tree Preservation Information Planner Dixon mentioned that the memorandum in the packet provides an update of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) status. Versions were received from the consultant and changes are being made based upon Public Works Committee requirements. There will be an additional section dealing with wellhead protection. The Public Works Department has a consultant working on wellhead protection. A couple meetings will likely be required to work through the version. When all sections are reviewed together the Planning Commission may decide that some sections need more in depth review. Planner Dixon then spoke about the concept of tree preservation which is not a GMA designated critical area. Combining this with other SAO regulations makes sense since a developer will be aware of natural resource areas in a single code. Most other jurisdictions deal with tree preservation as separate regulations. Some terminology will be shared between the regulations and staff will see how good the fit of tree preservation is in the SAO. Then it will be determined if the tree preservation regulations should stand alone or be included in SAO. Chairman Peace wondered about the current ordinances related to tree preservation. In response, Planner Dixon distributed an outline for discussion. Interest in pursing tree preservation is because the Comprehensive Plan says this is what the City should do in the environmental chapter. He then pointed out Policy EN-35. Planner Dixon is looking at examples from other jurisdictions and admitted that it can be a complicated process. The components are typical, but are approached differently in different jurisdictions. He discussed existing City Code provisions and benefits to retain trees such as buffering, air quality, resale value, etc. He pointed out Chapter 15.74, Land Clearing, and reviewed the Intent portion. He mentioned exemptions that allow removal of hazardous trees, but the regulations do not speak to health of trees only trees within striking distance. Commissioner Larsen commented that nearly all trees on a lot could be within striking distance of a house or a garage and could be removed and Planner Dixon replied that this is one problem with the chapter. Chairman Peace said that people assume they can cut down trees in their yard and Planner Dixon said they can cut six trees over a year period without a permit, but must get a permit if they do not meet this exemption. The chapter is not geared toward tree preservation. The land clearing permits go through the Public Works Department. Commissioner Douglass referred to the large trees being cut down by Olympic School and wondered ifa permit was issued cut down the healthy looking trees. Planner Dixon said property owner can remove up to six trees per year and be exempt. There is the perception that a tree can be hazard, but its hazardous condition does not have to be justified. There is a need to strike a balance between what people do to protect themselves and have measures in place to protect trees. -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001 Planner Dixon then pointed out Chapter 12.36, Street Trees and said these regulations are fairly good. The City issues approval to plant, remove or prune. Tonight's discussion will relate to trees on private property not trees in public right of way. Planner Dixon then pointed out Chapter 18.50, Landscape and Screening and mentioned the types of required landscaping. He provided a definition of 'significant trees'. Chapter says that the Planning Director can authorize tree removal if certain criteria are met. Chairman Peace wondered if the site is large, can entire site be cleared. Planner Dixon explained that people do not relate back to the correlation between landscaping and screening and tree preservation as required by this chapter. The tree preservation regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and City Code are not as effective as desired. SEPA decisions often require the retention of trees. He spoke of plat conditions at Lakeland that dealt with replanting of trees. The City receives calls from people wanting to remove trees and often have to renegotiate for trees required to be retained. Staff has to stress the merits of retaining trees. The Department of Natural Resources requirements do not come into play except when there is a logging truck load of trees removed. He spoke about the DNR forest practices permit process. He spoke about the different categories of DNR permits and their relationship to City approvals. Planner Dixon described typical ordinance provisions. He described a typical approach for preservation of special trees. He spoke about problems with existing protection measures and the problem of being able to retain notable trees. Tree retention is not often considered in site design. Commissioner Larsen wondered about removal of topsoil that leaves a large hole on site and Planner Dixon explained that development in the valley often involves over excavation to remove unsuitable soils which settle or fill placement for gravity operation of the storm system. Commissioner Larsen wondered how to protect trees if developer has to do drainage ponds and Planner Dixon advised that trees may not always be able to be saved. There is a need for flexibility and to devise a storm system so it does not have to have additional site filling. Another problem encountered is that trees saved initially might be removed later and used Vistara subdivision as an example. Staff worked with the developer during lot layout and street layout, etc., but trees were removed during house construction. The home builder wanted to revisit tree retention after negotiations were concluded with the developer. Chairman Peace inquired if it is alright according to current regulations to remove trees and Planner Dixon responded that this is a loophole with existing regulations. Problems are with small scale development that does not require SEPA or a landscape plan. Without tree preservation regulations there are not any goals for property owners to meet. He spoke about problems with submittal requirements for land clearing permits, such as noting tree health and location, and the need for better information for decision making. He spoke about inappropriate pruning practices and gave examples. There are problems with conflicts between different regulations such as the Zoning Ordinance versus Land Clearing chapter of City Code. The regulations need to be based on uniform management of resources. Planner Dixon spoke of seeking to preserve larger trees or trees of historical significance. Commissioner Douglass inquired if there is a tree inventory at present and Planner Dixon replied that there is not any such inventory. This could be considered if the Planning Commission wants something like this. The inventory is generally for large or historical trees. Smaller trees can be ignored if only large trees are identified for protection or only approached by species. Another approach is looking at retaining groups of trees or stands of trees by specifying a percentage of trees to be retained. He then showed an overhead of classic standard which retains 20% of significant trees on site without critical areas and then he showed an overhead of 30%. He spoke of negotiating clearing limits to protect trees. He spoke of the need to be flexible. A combination of both is most used by cities which provides regulations for individual trees and regulations for stands of trees. It makes sense to retain stands of trees, but it can be problematic to remove some trees and retain lone trees because of root problems and weak trees remaining on site. There are many practical reasons to retain stands of trees. Planner Dixon then spoke about saving trees within perimeter areas or buffer zones for screening. Special area protection is less practical for Auburn. The intent is to save trees where it makes sense whether individual trees or stand of trees. -2- ' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001 Chairman Peace likes the idea, and wondered about process of keeping percentage and specific trees or stand of trees and individual trees. He wondered how to keep track of the trees. Planner Dixon spoke about the inventory of significant trees and notable landmark trees, and need to identify and work to save stands of trees. Chairman Peace used an example of developer preserving trees, but homeowner cuts down trees. Planner Dixon spoke about the opportunity for preservation. Chairman Peace inquired about how special trees on site would be protected long term. Planner Dixon said a developer could be required to replant, required to retain, gain an easement, or restriction on title. This all depends on process when going through review with the City. There are some requirements on residential plats. The commercial development process is a bit different such as an easement. Commissioner Larsen asked about someone with a number of trees and wanting to remove some for a garden, for example. Planner Dixon acknowledged the need to get sun on property for a garden and maybe there would be some requirements to remove trees, but with a requirement to replant. Commissioner Douglass likes the idea of an inventory of special trees and wondered what this would entail. Planner Dixon said the inventory could be a later step, regulations should be in place first, and possibly an intern could be used to develop the inventory over a summer. He spoke of need to have regulations in place and deal with on case by case basis until an inventory is prepared. Commissioner Larsen wondered about the cost to developers to retain trees and if this would place an additional burden on them. She wants to save trees, but not scare development away. Planner Dixon advised that tree preservation requirements are typically required by all cities and Auburn can develop flexibility in the regulations. The City does not want to be unfriendly to development with excessive standards. Planner Dixon then spoke about replacement mitigation standards and relation between removal and replacement. Getting a smaller size of replacement trees may require getting a greater number of replacement trees. Replacement of trees also involves where to replace the trees. There can be offsite and onsite issues as well, issues of protecting existing trees or replacing trees, and flexibility should be allowed here also. Planner Dixon pointed out the section related to 'use of in lieu fees' which is popular and similar to tree banking. Staff is interested in this one which is a good mechanism for flexibility. This is a simple process that does not have to be negotiated. This process is attractive to staff as a good measure of flexibility. Commissioner Larsen inquired where trees would be planted. Planner Dixon trees would be planted in restoration projects, park lands or open space, even as street trees. In response to ESA, City will have to restore streams and plant trees and this could be another one. Planner Dixon advised that if person pays fee, they may not be preserving trees. City should first seek to retain trees, with opportunity to replant on site, and if cannot satisfy this, they can do in lieu fees. Chairman Peace inquired if developer would chose the option of offsite, replant, or pay fee. Planner Dixon said it is cheaper and more expedient for developer to merely pay the fee versus acquiring easements to preserve, or acquire additional land. Planner Dixon compared it to wetland mitigation where the developer has small wetland to be mitigation and it may not make sense to mitigate offsite. He might have to buy larger site, do mitigation on a portion of it, subdivide and sell off. This is a lengthy process. Commissioner Larsen thinks a developer will choose in lieu fees because it is faster option and will save them time. She asked about prioritizing. Planner Dixon referred to exemptions and said there is a problem with existing regulations that do not prioritize, and there would have to be a hierarchy that is clear, strongly worded of sequence. There should be more incentive to retain existing trees versus replace. If a tree is removed then replacement with more than 1:1 ratio. Commissioner Larsen wondered about trees and their affect on housing values. She wondered about subdivisions without trees versus subdivisions with trees. Planner Dixon commented that subdivisions with trees are perceived to have more value and higher prices. He believes this is more a function of local market of treeless subdivision being high priced. There are case studies demonstrating that trees in subdivisions do increase and preserve house values. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001 Planner Dixon believes establishing a hierarchy is important, retaining existing trees, allow some replacement, onsite and if exhausted do offsite, and ability to do in lieu fees. Commissioner Douglass inquired who sets requirements. Does Auburn want to be a community of trees or a community of no trees? Planner Dixon commented that there is no requirement for percentage of trees onsite now. The Comprehensive Plan sets out some goals to do better job of retaining trees and trees for air quality, erosion control and there are precedents in the Comprehensive Plan. He cannot say tonight if the 20% or 30% is correct because of need to look at which factors are appropriate and bring back to Planning Commission in future with regulations. Commissioner Douglass expressed concern about in lieu fees and believes this may promote some areas with no trees and other areas with lots of trees. Planner Dixon also said there are issues about removing more native trees and replacing with ornamental trees. Commissioner Ekrem expressed concern about developer saying they do not want to put trees back in, and City receives funds and decides where to place the trees. She is concerned about developer removing trees and not replacing onsite. Planner Dixon cited the example of working with Vistara 1 to preserve trees, but the next Vistara developer came and had to negotiate trees. Vistara 2 had same property constraints and staff was more amendable to more tree removal, but developer had to replant trees within the yards. There are greenbelt areas in rear yards, areas were replanted with larger trees, and under planting with small trees. Commissioner Larsen inquired how other cities do greenbelts to buffer between subdivisions. Planner Dixon said this goes back to the first priority and have to retain trees or set aside tracts for preservation. Planner Dixon said that if City had hierarchy to retain onsite, replace onsite and only if cannot, developer pays fee. In Vistara 2 they could replant in rear, trees are small and had to replant and will in time gain back forestation. Commissioner Larsen expressed concerned about water problems and rising water table because trees are not retained and trees on hills should be retained to reduce runoff. Planner Dixon spoke of runoff from Mill Creek and developments on hills. Trees have benefit to retain moisture and uptake of water by trees may not be significant on the valley floor. Vegetated hillsides have more retention of water. He spoke about different soil materials and plant materials also being a factor. Commissioner Ekrem asked about identifying ways to retain trees in different situations, and in replacement section speak of ways to do this. She does not see hierarchy information referred to earlier. As Commissioner Larsen mentioned, she does not see anything in outline that prevents developer from going directly to paying the in lieu fee. Planner Dixon said the outline presented typical provisions that allow discretion. Regulations would be crafted to identify set priorities and if there are extenuating circumstance, flexibility can be provided. Commissioner Ekrem wondered how City is to manage tree preservation. She used Lakeland as an example, and thinks staff has expended lots of time working with this developer. Lots of City time and money has been spent on tree preservation, but then the homeowners cut down trees. She is concerned about staff time spent on project review and property owner undoing staff work. This possibility needs to be taken into account. Planner Dixon referred to construction protection measures which are standards of how to make sure trees survive injuries, excavation, grade changes, etc. After development, City needs to ensure that trees are maintained in healthy condition and this is ensured by having bonds, restrictions on title or easement that trees be maintained. Planner Dixon spoke about having exemptions in order to reduce administrative burdens and need to carefully consider the cumulative effect of exemptions. An exemption is needed for dangerous or diseased trees, but make sure there is evidence of a health problem. Commissioner Douglass referred back to in lieu fees would like to see something required for subdivision of some minimum amount of trees to be retained before being allowed o do in lieu fees. There should be requirement to retain certain minimum amount of trees. Planner Dixon confirmed that staff wants to put higher importance on retaining existing trees and if developer can demonstrate that because of slopes, for example, that he cannot retain trees, is it appropriate to allow some other measure. First and highest priority to be decided upon. Commissioner Douglass believes first and highest priority should be retention of existing trees. -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2001 Planner Dixon indicated that the Commission seems to agree to have priority to set out, such as retain existing trees, allow replanting onsite, maybe offsite, and as last resort in lieu fee to compensate for tree removal. Planner Dixon mentioned that in lieu fees the City would be paying cost of purchasing tree, preparing the ground area, labor and materials to install, and long term maintenance so the fee would have to take these factors into account. Commissioner Douglass inquired if there are any hearings for this and if neighbors will have a say in onsite tree preservation. Planner Dixon said no hearings are involved, but people are informed by existing processes such as development through SEPA process by the notice of application to adjacent property owners. Public hearings are conducted for preliminary plats. This is part of the current land use process. Planner Dixon referred to enforcement and spoke of need for better penalties and enforcement. The penalty provision is a problem because it is currently a civil process and is hard to pursue. City may consider in the future the ability to issue tickets or make criminal type infractions in order to be easier to pursue. Commissioner Douglass inquired about the City still having only one Code Enforcement Officer and hoped an additional position was funded for next year. Planner Dixon said Council had funded an extra position. Planner Dixon acknowledged tonight a lot of information was presented for review and thanked Planning Commission for their input and comments. He restated that this was an overview of what provisions might be found in a tree preservation ordinance and deal with those on private property. Commissioner Ekrem wondered how a citizen knows a permit is needed and Planner Dixon replied that the City could notify through the City newsletter about the tree regulations and inform of permit regulations. People are becoming more aware that permits may be needed. If they hire a landscape company, the company usually knows when a permit needed. There seems to be an increasing level of awareness by homeowners. There is the opportunity through the new regulations to get the word out. Commissioner Douglass thinks this is good public relations and gives people a chance to recommend specific trees for inventory. Planner Dixon offered that some jurisdictions have a nomination process for citizens to say what trees they want on the inventory. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. PCX~AGhMIN 12-2001 -5-