Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04102003 Min Ag · I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WORKSHOP City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes - March 27, 2003 General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) City Council Liaison Report Unfinished Business A. Tree Ordinance Workshop (7:00 to 8:30 p.m. appro x.) BCD Staff & Citizen Advisory Committee Members VIII. New Business A. None Scheduled. VII. Upcoming Meeting April 24 IX. Communications IX. Adjournment · April! 0, 2003 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 2003 I. 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 Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Beoúe Arthur, James Irvin, Alice King, Michael Hyland and JefIKelety. Also present was BCD Director JefIRandall. Michele Sandoval represented the City Council. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Hyland seconded. All were in favor. IV. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of March 27,2003 as written; Mr. Kelety seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT -- There was none VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Ordinance Workshop -- BCD Staff and Citizen Advisory Committee Members Mr. Randall distributed informative documents he recently received from the Community Tree Management Institute and an excerpt from the Pierce County tree ordinance regarding tree density. He gave a brief overview of Port Townsend's Tree ordinance showing aerial photos and introduced the Advisory Committee members present: Don Havilland, nursery owner; George Bush, retired forester with the U.S. Forest Service; and Bob Schramek, retired U.S. Forest Service staff officer. The committee members responded to the ten questions presented them by the Planning Commission that was followed by Planning Commission discussion. 1. Who should be qualified to prepare tree conservation plans and certify trees as being "hazard" or nuisance" trees? Should only certified arborists do this, or should professional foresters, landscape architects, and other tree professionals also be allowed to do this? The ordinance currently does not limit this work to arborists. Mr. Bush stated it is key the City make the final judgment on qualifications and suggested the qualifications be made broad enough to accommodate that. Mr. Schramek said he has a degree in forestry, but thought perhaps experience and work in the field is just as important. Mr. Randall referenced codes and standards of other jurisdictions, e.g., Spokane's Urban Forestry Program being implemented by its Parks Department; Enumclaw, and Woodinville. He noted Port Townsend does not have a certified arborist but requires that no work be done on significant trees without a city permit, and has the ability to have their parks or street persons make an assessment or hire a tree professional to give an opinion. Commission Discussion: Ms. Thayer said she felt the committee made good decisions not to be too specific. Questions: · Who would pay people required, and does that need to be added to the ordinance? Mr. Randall noted that the Tree Conservation Section 090 stated that for residential subdivisions and commercial projects, tree conservation plans should be prepared by a building or landscape design professional, but the main area is certifying a tree as a hazard, a nuisance or diseased; otherwise it is broader. Mr. Arthur suggested not changing it and let the City decide. · Who will determine? Mr. Randall: for now the planner assigned to the project · How to implement staff education? Mr. Randall: It is within our capabilities, and is not too complicated. CONSENSUS: Leave as is Planning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2003 / Page 1 · · · 2. What was the reasoning behind making an exempt residential lot 40,000 s.f. (Meaning tree removal is exempt as long as it occurs on a lot with a home and tree removal and all buildings cover less than 40,000 s.f.)? Why not make this exemption apply to smaller parcels or amounts of tree removal? Mr. Randall stated for the record the first thing to remember is that the maximum exemption threshold possible is 2 acres; they cannot go below the DNR exempt levels. The DNR exempt threshold is 2 acres, or 5,000 board feet used for commercial purposes. He said 40,000 is a common term used often in the City code for such things as densities. Mr. Irvin stated he was also asking for larger areas. Mr. Havilland explained that 40,000 square feet was their compromise, going from the extreme of over-protecting to trusting the homeowner entirely to improve their own property and not having any restrictions except for the DNR 2 acres. Mr. Bush noted 40,000 is just under an acre; he felt over 1 acre could be subdivided and made it a reasonable requirement. Mr. Schramek suggested that with 100 x 100 square feet there was not much left to protect; it is about the limit. Commission Discussion: Ms. Sandoval asked ifthere is a differential between platted and non-platted. She posed the problem of only one building site and remaining lots. Suggestions and questions: · Mr. Havilland: the committee tried to prevent that end run; he spoke of subsequent permits. · Mr. Randall: exemptions could read "if only one building site, or merge properties through a covenant." The committee did not specifically address. · Mr. Schramek: having a few trees would make it more valuable; you could probably get more money if not clear cut. · Ms. King: the exemption applies to construction of individual a single-family residence on one parcel. · Ms. Hersey: what if you have one house on a lot, sell off the rest, come back time and replant? · Mr. Randall: if you bound the lots together with a covenant it would make it one lot. · Mr. Irvin: is uncomfortable overriding property rights issues; wanted to know number of property owners and/or number of acres. · Mr. Randall: felt the majority were 40,000 and less. · Mr. Kelety: also requested data regarding the quantity of those lots. He felt issues raised by Ms. Sandoval were important. · Ms. Thayer: suggested to put off discussion for a parcel map. · Ms. Sandoval: have you looked at exemptions in other counties? Mr. Randall this whole notion would be going a long way. We would be the first city in W A State for a tree conservation standard other than for street trees. · Mr. Benskin: Are we beating a dead horse? It is a moot point after trees are gone -- not going to protect trees. · Ms. King: might be a slight disincentive. · Mr. Arthur: there may be problems saving trees on small building sites -- tree quality, depth of roots, winds, etc. Better served for maximum number oftrees for someone to tell them how. People in Port Townsend have taken trees to heart. · Mr. Berg: what if 39,000 sq. ft? Mr. Randall replied you have to consolidate them. There are a lot of options Chair Thayer called for a vote: Keep 40.000 exemption with no chan¡:?:es 1) Three in favor 2) All others, bring back alternatives and I)arcel map. Mr. Benskin suggested bringing back documentation of this happening; 3. Did the advisory committee look at incentives for property owners to keep more land in forest (vs. Cutting)? Mr. Randall pointed out this was meant to be a regulatory tool to try to protect and preserve as many native trees as possible. Regarding incentive programs, they talked a lot about education. Mr. Havilland spoke of the need for education for the developer. Mr. Schramek stated he thought most people recognize that trees increase the value of your property, and Mr. Bush spoke of this ordinance being an educational guide. Commission Discussion: Mr. Arthur -- should get tax incentives, permit incentives. Chair Thayer called for a vote: Leave as is without incentives. only education 1) Ms. King, Mr. Berg, Ms. Thayer 2) All others, revisit Planning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2003 / Page 2 · · · 4. Could the committee discuss why it strongly recommends Tree City USA status? What are some of the expected benefits of this program? Mr. Randall spoke of benefits he derived from the Tree Management Institute in materials and information and value of the program. Mr. Havilland spoke to Tree City USA value; and Mr. Bush pointed out the benefit of being nationally recognized for status, good advice and an opportunity for some funding.. Mr. Randall stated that Committee Member Dave Keeler feels strongly it sets an example and not just regulates private property owners. The City should lead by example. Commission Discussion: CONSENSUS: Leave as is Mr. Benskin questioned 19.06.190, enforcement of penalties for noncompliance. Why shouldn't penalties go the City rather than the Tree USA Fund because the City is enforcing and administering the program? Mr. Randall replied it would be a fund managed by the City and used for planting new public trees, a City of Port Townsend dedicated fund. Rewording was suggested to reflect local fund for trees. 5. What was the basis for the Tree Unit calculation? Mr. Randall elaborated on the Tree Density Standards of the Draft Pierce County Ordinance that was extracted from the city of Olympia. Pierce County will be having a public hearing on their ordinance next month. Ms. Hersey questioned deciduous trees and Mr. Randall replied this ordinance does not make a distinction. Mr. Havilland explained that besides preserving trees it is important to encourage and is necessary to keep trees healthy, Le. thinning trees. He also pointed out the value of smaller trees. Mr. Randall pointed out the concept with the tables is: 1) assign values to bigger and smaller trees; existing trees and new trees; 2) for non-exempt activities, e.g. subdivisions, etc., planting trees to arrive at the number of required tree credits. This part of the ordinance is not required to satisfy DNR, but is a concept to treat properties more equitably. Mr. Bush indicated that a site with insufficient coverage may not be necessary for DNR, but it is important. Mr. Schramek noted the need for administrative flexibility. Mr. Randall stated that open space also has land use value. He explained that this ordinance only deals with private property, not public rights-of-way. Commission Discussion: Ms. Thayer recommended lowering the tree diameter to the recommended I" - 6" for one tree unit. Ms. Hersey asked if measurement of trees on hills is from the uphill or downhill side? Mr. Schramek replied it would be the uphill side -- brook swell. Mr. Benskin asked how it applies for fruit trees that have been pruned, below that 4 ft level? Mr. Randall replied it would still get credit. Mr. Arthur said regarding tree unit calculations, it is better to have a group of trees that are healthy than individual trees placed around for wind protection, leaning on one another. Can we give credit for leaving trees in groups? Mr. Randall said tree protection standards recommends keeping trees in groves. Mr. Arthur suggested that as an incentive. Mr. Berg asked for discussion regarding requirements for tree density being the same for R-I as R-III. Mr. Randall suggested you could you could high residential or medium single family at a lower standard, bump R-III and R-IV down into the same as CI/MU. CONSENSUS: Mr. Berg to check information and bring back for further discussion. 6. What was the committee discussion about priority trees criteria (24" diameter vs. Some other dimension or standard) ? It was noted the committee wanted the smaller 24" diameter vs. 30". There are not many 30" trees in this area, and ifthat were the criteria, there wouldn't be many priority trees; character and historical value of trees also need to be considered. The committee wanted to find a size that would represent the largest trees in this area; 24" and above would represent a very few and would be priority trees. In the western edge of town where this ordinance would mainly apply, those stands are mostly between 70 and 80 years of age and range is size from about 12" to 24"; the 24" tree in that area would represent the most dominant, vigorous, faster growing and healthier trees. There are going to be smaller priority trees with historical value, e.g. the local hanging tree, etc. Thinning of smaller trees should not be discouraged. If you put restrictions on smaller trees, e.g. down to 18", proactive management is unlikely. Mr. Randall noted that some deciduous trees many never get to that diameter, and other criteria could be added. He will bring a list of important features from engineering design standards. It was pointed out that priority and landmark trees are not the same, that priority trees basically means healthy, large trees of that size. Planning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2003 / Page 3 · · · Commission Discussion: Mr. Kelety asked if that indicates a 20" tree is unhealthy? Mr. Bush suggested it could be more appropriate designated as dominant or co-dominant. Mr. Schramek indicated it should be determined by age, class, etc., rather than size in a stand of trees (dominant or co-dominant). Ms. Hersey suggested 24" and/or dominant. Mr. Randall stated this gives them a plan as to which trees to retain -- if you don't have 24", go down to dominant, healthy co-dominant trees on the site. It recognizes all properties are different; if you have 24" trees, keep them, if not go to the next best thing. Mr. Berg noted that 24" is referenced in the eagle management plan. Mr. Randall noted 24" to 30" trees in town are quite sacred 100 year old trees. Mr. Arthur raised the issue of smaller trees. He suggested looking at the soil, that there might be value in taking them all down and replacing them to create a better forest in an urban environment. CONSENSUS: Leave at 24" 7. Is there a better name' than "conversion option harvest plan" for logging activities where no specific development proposal is known and a higher level of tree retention will be required? Mr. Randall noted that the term "conversion option harvest plan" comes from DNR. Mr. Havilland stated and Mr. Schramek reiterated they were trying to keep it simple with a term used by DNR. Commission Discussion: Mr. Irvin disliked the use of the acronym. CONSENSUS: Eliminate the use of an acronym 8. Can the City waive its liability (19.06.200)? Mr. Randall discussed this with City Attorney John Watts who indicated if there is no basis for a property owner knowing a tree is a liability, and the City does not notify them, there is no other duty in this ordinance beyond duties already in the law. Commission Discussion: Mr. Arthur raised concern for trees the property owner felt unhealthy, and who determines liability. Mr. Randall indicated the city could require determination by a tree professional and responsibility would then be the city's. Already discussed. 9. What kind of fees are anticipated for the various permits? Mr. Randall stated DNR suggests conversion fees at $500, anything else is basically free or $50 for basic permits. A local jurisdiction can set their own fees. He explained the City's basic philosophy with planning fees is that when the permit review benefits the public as a whole, there is some subsidy that goes into the permit fee, but it isn't intended to cover all the planning costs. A building permit is benefiting the property owner and they pay a little in excess of the costs of the review. He will suggest fees in the next version of the ordinance. Commission Discussion: Ms. King asked where there are significant trees mentioned in the ordinance other than in definitions. It was noted in 19.06.040 Applicability. 10. What are the anticipated staff impacts of this ordinance? Estimate costs to the city. Mr. Randall indicated most impacts are already within development projects, that noting much more is significant. He does not anticipate more staff impact, but this ordinance will give them a standard, direction and opportunity for tree plan review. Projects where there is only logging and no proposal for development beyond logging are a problem. There is no permit process to deal with these although DNR does, but DNR is not about urban forestry, conversions to urban uses. These are the ones that cause the most public concern. Exemptions are intended to avoid common tree permits where they don't think tree preservation is an issue. The ordinance has been designed so there won't be a significant impact to staff time. Commission Discussion: Mr. Benskin asked if the public would have a short version to figure out the impacts of the ordinance. Mr. Randall thought they would be able to do that. He also said exemptions being near the front of the ordinance would make it easier. Planning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2003 / Page 4 · · · Chair Thayer thanked the committee members for coming and sharing their insight. Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Randall if he had talked to the Fire Department regarding requirements in the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Randall explained the Fire Department has the ability to review all the development plans. Mr. Arthur's sUl!l!estions for Tree Ordinance: Mr. Randall thought tree maintenance the mark of a city with an excellent tree program and would like to be able to have the personnel suggested. He indicated money in Port Townsend for tree maintenance is small, almost non-existent, but hoped they can make people more aware. Mr. Arthur suggested a program of sharing costs with property owners to preserve landmark trees. He does not think protective legislation is the answer. Ms. Hersey thought an ordinance with an incentive program is a fabulous idea, and suggested they might refer to the Council for some further incentive program. Mr. Randall noted other ideas are forthcoming and might be added to an ordinance for street trees. VIII. NEW BUSINESS -- There was none IX. UPCOMING MEETING April 24, 2003 X. COMMUNICATIONS -- e-mail from Mr. Bernie Arthur dated April 8, 2003 re: Tree Ordinance: Mr. Irvin recommended that distribution of future dialogue with Staff be made to the entire Planning Commission. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Hyland and seconded by Ms. Hersey. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~-.fl~ Cindy Thayer, C . . ~ .' Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2003 / Page 5 . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting, Tree Ordinance April 10, 2003 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No E> 0 6 sc..h)p )'I.t-~ ~ 1J'f2. JJ~ f7J.. PlltP~. /ý~fI-< <L- £~~ (l /11 d /)v/a t{-;Y '-'--" \ 1