The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03272003 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 27,2003 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, James Irvin, Alice King, Michael Hyland and Jeff Kelety; Lyn Hersey and Frank Benskin were excused. BCD Director Jeff Randall was also present. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA -- There were no changes IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the minutes of March 13,2003 as written; Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT -- There was none VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Tree Ordinance Workshop Mr. Randall started with a Power Point presentation for City Council. He noted an advisory committee made up of people with diverse backgrounds had met ten times, made their review and recommended an interim ordinance which has been in place since 2002. The tree ordinance has evolved into: 1) Title 19.06 Tree Conversation being considered tonight dealing with development forest practices and logging activities; 2) tree ordinance, more often called that by cities, affecting street rights- of-way and how the city manages its street trees. The committee recommended that the city pursue Tree City USA status by the Arbor Day Foundation. Mr. Randall pointed out the Landmark Tree Ordinance may be rolled over into the Tree City USA ordinance. He suggested he might reconvene the committee for discussions with the Planning Commission. Committee member Nancy Stelow explained the committee focused on "clear and present dangers," determining that to be commercial developers clear cutting 2,3,4 or 5 acres, converting into commercial out offorest, supposedly having a plan but clear cutting and not doing anything. Mr. Randall outlined: - exemptions; - exemptions subject to tree conservation standards; - non-exemptions, basically forest land conversions (Class IV Forest Land Conversions) requiring a permit, fee, public notice, and harvesting plan including a development application; - tree conservation standards; and - tree credit scores. Draft Februarv n.. 2003 Tree Ordinance. Title 1906 Tree Conservation Chair Thayer asked for page-by-page comments and changes. It was determined to designate things for clarification and discussion and to reconvene the committee to meet with the Planning Commission on April 10. Page 1 -- Nothing noted Page I -- B. Change to read: ". . . more canopy and benefits than newly planted trees." Planning Commission Minutes, March 27,2003/ Page 1 · · · D. Mr. Arthur questioned "nonforestry use" -- ownership of property in the city with the intent to be a forester. He believed it is not a forestry use, but an assumption of the community that trees are growing on that property. Mr. Randall said the assumption is they are not cutting the trees down to replant; they are cutting them to make it an urban use, and he said that activity is classified by the State as conversion to a nonforestry use. He concurred the State would determine trees growing on a 10 acre parcel is a forestry use, even though in a urban growth area. Mr. Irvin -- sees two purposes: 1) large clear-cut properties, etc.; 2) trees on small residential lots. He is concerned about writing legislation with two different purposes with a lot of diversity of the forestry aspect. He would like to see the two separated. He questioned the wisdom in writing a massive ordinance about maintenance in this low priority item of the city's business -- BCD as master keeper of the city's trees. Chair Thayer explained this ordinance was authorized by City Council and is mandated by the State by 2005. Mr. Irvin clarified there are two major segments ofthis ordinance as written, one regarding forestry aspects (and he has no problem with that), and one managing a variety of trees on small lots never intended to be forestry product producing lots. Mr. Randall explained if there is a house on a block or less, this ordinance does not apply Mr. Berg -- regarding Mr. Arthur's comment, suggested rewording to not deal with the conversion and forestry issue, "When clearing land on parcels larger than 40,000 square feet, require the retention of some existing trees so that they may be incorporated into the final site development." Mr. Randall said the way it is written it also covers other activities. H. Heritage and landmark Mr. Randall will correct to be the same. Pa~e 1. 19.06.020 A. and B. Canopy Area and Canopy Cover -- Mr. Randall will make consistent throughout. B. "Co-dominant trees" -- change to C. and continue alphabetizing remaining points. Page 1. 1. Change grammar to read, "Diseased tree" shall mean a tree that, in the opinion. . . " Mr. Kelety questioned the difference between forester and arborist, thinks there should be a distinction made and possibly add to definitions. Mr. Irvin suggested, also dead and dying trees. Page ~ U. Mr. Kelety asked regarding roots raising sidewalks, if it is assumed that if a sidewalk is raised it can't be mitigated? Mr. Randall replied it probably depends on the situation; there is opinion that it might not be the tree root's fault but perhaps something such as compacted soil underneath the sidewalk. Mr. Randall will reevaluate the examples. Page Q 19.06.030 Change to read: "Relationship to other City Codes. . ." 19.06.050 A. 1. Ms. King questioned "require a permit," and suggested using "tree removal permit" or "conversion permit" in appropriate instances. Mr. Randall is addressing in the next version. The main permit is forest land conversion. Ms. Thayer expressed concern with "may require," that can always be construed as "shall." Ifincluded, the reasons also need to be included. * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion C. 1. Forest practices within the city. Mr. Arthur asked if he owned 5 acres of timberland in Port Townsend and wanted to build one house, said he was only going to use 1/4 acre to build on and leave the rest in timber, would that be covered? Mr. Randall replied they would request the site plan and saying he is taking out trees in that 1/4 acre and not disturbing the rest; that is exempt provided you come in with your building permit. Mr. Arthur questioned, if he called the balance forest timberland, should he then qualify for a property tax deduction with the county? He suggested including an incentive program to encourage people who own larger acreages to save trees. Page 1 19.06.060 A. 2. (last sentence) -- Change to read: ". . . tree removal will exceed 40,000 . . ." Mr. Kelety talked about an individual owning an acre, building a house and basically clear-cutting the property. Mr. Randall clarified, 40,000 exactly there is no requirement. Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 2003 / Page 2 · A. 3. Mr. Arthur asked who makes the designation oflandmark trees and who compensates the landowner when a designation is made? Mr. Randall replied that is a separate ordinance. It would only become a landmark tree when the landowner where the tree resides requests the designation and enters into the program, rather like voluntarily putting a conservation easement on part of your property. The compensation is that the property owner knows this tree will be better protected. It would also apply to subsequent property purchasers. Mr. Irvin suggested putting landmark in the definitions. * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion 19.06.060 A.2. -- 40,000 square feet Page.!i B. 2. Mr. Kelety questioned approval by the Public Works Director, the burden and criteria for approval.. * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion B. 2. Standards for approval by the Public Works Director Tree City USA ordinance -- Mr. Randall to clarify · Page 2- C. l.c. Mr. Irvin referenced" . . .10% of the trees removed shall be dominant or codominant", and asked the basis everywhere there is a quantifiable standard. Mr. Randall answered that each would have a different answer. Mr. Irvin asked how subjective the criteria are. D. 5. Ms. Thayer questioned the 1,000 square feet. Mr. Randall answered that the threshold is based upon the existing commercial design standards that are being drafted. Page 10 -- Nothing noted Page 11 19.06.090 A. Change to read: " . . listed under 19.06.060(D). . ." Ms. King asked regarding the reference to 19.06.060(D). Mr. Randall clarified they need a plan; basically to know they are meeting the standards of tree conservation. Ms. King asked about changing to "must comply with the provisions of .090 and .100." Mr. Randall concurred. Page 12 -- Noting noted Pa~e 13 E. Mr. Irvin thought the calculation was confusing. F. Mr. Arthur asked concerning canopy cover, stating that cedar trees have no canopy. Mr. Randall clarified it as the maximum drip line. * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion E. Tree unit density Pa~e 14 Table 19.06.100(H) Mr. Irvin asked what the table was based on. Mr. Randall replied it was based in part on the City of Olympia's standards. G. Priority trees -- 30" (See page 18) Include priority trees in definitions 1. Mr. Irvin suggested rewording to ". . . approved by the BCD Director when:" * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion G. Priority trees -- 30" · Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 2003 / Page 3 · · · Page 15 19.06.110 (CORP) Mr. Irvin suggested not using an acronym, but spelling it out. Mr. Randall said they could change tlle title. * Desiflnated.f2r. further discussion CORP -- possible change Pa~e 16 D. 5. Mr. Irvin questioned appropriate community plan Page 17 2. c. Change to read: ". . . per Table. 19.06. 110(E) or per . . ." Page 18 * Designated.f2r. further discussion G. Priority trees -- 24" (See page 14) Page 19-- Pa~e 20 -- Page 21 -- Nothing noted Nothing noted Nothing noted Page 22 *Designated.fJ2r. further discussion 19.06.200 Liability to the City Other Items * Desiflnated .fJ2r.further discussion Cost to the City to implement the program Ideas for enforcement Mr. Kelety suggested that WSU Master Gardeners are interested in participating in the Landmark ordinance and would be interested in presenting their ideas and the possibilities to the Planning Commission. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Community Management Tree Institute -- Urban Forestry Conference Repol1 by Mr. Jeff Randall Mr. Randall will incorporate information into other discussions at upcoming meetings. IX. UPCOMING MEETINGS April 10,2003 -- Continuation of Tree Ordinance X. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none XI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Mr. Hyland. All were in favor. The meeting a<ljourned at 8:50 p.m. r--l. ~ /" (--t/~~ ~ Cindy Thayer, C r ------ . ~aM Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, March 27,2003/ Page 4