Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07312003 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Open Record Public Hearing (Quasi-Judicial) A. Tree Conservation Ordinance 1906 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action B. Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment July 31,2003 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING July 31, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, JeffKelety, Alice King, and Jim Irvin. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Public Works Director Kenneth Clow. Chair Thayer reported that Mr. Michael Hyland had resigned from the Planning Commission. His written resignation will be forthcoming. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Hersey made a motion to accept the agenda. Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Hersey made a motion to approve the minutes of July 10, 2003 as written; Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearing A. Tree Conservation Ordinance Chapter 19.06 B. Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance Chair Thayer opened the public hearing by explaining the process. She asked if any Planning Commissioner had any issue that would preclude them from participating. There was no response. It was determined to accept the Staff Presentation and public hearing on both ordinances. Consensus was that Mr. Randall would answer public questions before Planning Commission deliberation and action on all of the material. Mr. Randall gave an overview of both ordinances showing overheads of a summary of issues and goals. He also showed new illustrations and tables not yet seen by the Planning Commission. In Mr. Randall's memo of July 28,2003 to the Planning Commission he cited exhibits already submitted to the Commission: Exhibit A -- Draft of Chapter 19.06 Tree Conservation Exhibit B -- Draft Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance Exhibit C -- Public Comments #1-22 Additions are entered as: Exhibit D -- Public comments mailed to Commissioners with BCD memo of July 28,2003: Public Comment #23 dated July 9,2003 from Don Haviland to Cindy Thayer Public Comment #24 dated February 13, 2003 to City Council from Scott G. Walker Exhibit E. -- Public Comment distributed at the July 31, 2003 hearing: Public Comment #25 dated July 31, 2003 from Forest Shomer Public Comment #26 dated July 31, 2003 from Bobbie Stambaugh Public Comment #27 dated July 31, 2003 from Donald Haviland Mr. Randall distributed Proposed additional changes for 7/31 Public Hearing, entered as: Exhibit F -- Proposed additions: Planning Commission Minutes, July 31, 2003 / Page 1 . Changes to Chapter 19.06 Tree Conservation, items #1 - 6 Amendment to PTMC Section 17.72.190 Parking Facilities - Landscaping, item #7 Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony at 7:47 p.m.. Ms. Lee Rowe, 1020 Jackman Ms. Rowe spoke of diminished and lost views from her home within the last 3 years due to significant tree growth of poplars along Sims Way and trees in other places. She stated she had asked for assistance from Public Works Director Ken Clow who noted differences among citizens over the issue of trees. Mr. Forest Shomer, 2014 Fir Mr. Shomer stated as a member of the Advisory Tree Committee he had met with the committee over the last several months pointing out their dedication and hard work. He indicated these ordinances are not perfect and will undergo changes, but he urged the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council approval of these ordinances. There being no more public testimony, Chair Thayer closed the meeting to public testimony and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION & ACTION . A. Draft Chapter 19.06 Tree Conservation (Exhibit A), Various editorial changes were made. CONSENSUS for other changes included: Page 5, Line 11 -- Change to "2. On sloping ground. diameter shall be measured. . ." Page 6, Line 11 -- Change to ""Diseased tree" means a tree that, in the opinion. . ." Page 6, Line 13 -- Change to ". . .has a strong likelihood of affecting vegetation, . . ." Page 11, Line 1 -- Change to ". . .one-third of the trees per 40.000 s.f. . . ." Page 14, Lines 21-25 -- (See proposed additional changes) Page 17, Line 16 -- Change -- ". . .open space functions including but not limited to view corridors. . ." Page 20, Line 16 -- Change to "The retained trees shall be equivalent to. . ." e Proposed additional changes for 7/31 Public Hearing (Exhibit F): 1. Page 10, Lines 1 - 10 -- CONSENSUS: Change as proposed. 2. Page 12, Lines 9 - 13 -- CONSENSUS: Change to ". . .pursuant to 19.06.060 -.070 and Me not associated with a projeet permit, meæàiag bat not limited to subdivision or short plat, building permit, binding site plan re'liew, eottage housing, Of àesign reyie,v and must obtain a tree conservation permit. . ." 3. Page 14, Lines 21 - 25 -- Questioned its necessity rather than as a reference. Mr. Randall and Mr. Berg liked having it. VOTE: CHANGE AS PROPOSED: PASSED, 5 in favor. 4. Pages 15 & 16, Lines 1 - 10 -- Mr. Arthur: Understands that street rights-of-way are not owned by the City but by adjacent property owners. If you are giving credit for planting trees in a street right-of-way that doesn't have trees, why would that be different from giving credit for trees that are existing in a right-of-way that isn't open, because it is the city's choice to open or not? He considered it his property until the city decides to use it for a right-of-way, for the conditions that were in the plat. This seems unfair to the property owner that he doesn't get a calculation, but if he buys several trees and plants them in a right~of-way the city has already opened, he gets credit for that. Mr. Randall: The other way would be to calculate tree density by calculating the land to the centers of those adjacent rights-of-way as the base land area, and count all the trees within that area, open and unopened to the center line. This just deals with taxed private land; we know what the land size is, etc. -- it is the more typical way He thought Mr. Arthur's way would be to include that in the calculation and count trees. Mr. Arthur felt that was the fairer way to do it. Mr. Berg gave an example and tended to agree. Mr. Randall: The one downside, we don't know those unopened rights-of-way are going to stay unopened. As the property around it builds out, more of those trees we are counting are not really there. Mr. Clow. Public Works: Agreed with Mr. Randall. Frequently they run across someone that will develop their piece of property, nice tree in the right-of-way. They are not opening the right of way, but they may have brought utilities into the area, and next it starts to go up that street. There is no guarantee that a tree that is in a right-of-way will remain protected by other pieces of property that may need that tree moved for access. He pointed out that even if you own it, you don't have total control over that, because there is a use available to the Planning Commission Minutes, July 31, 2003 1 Page 2 · · · public. Mr. Randall clarified for the discussion that this Section 7 applies to every situation that requires consistency with the tree conservation standards. Mr. Irvin supported the point of view that they consider private property at its boundaries and not worry about whether or not you are going to plant in open or unopened streets rights-of-way. It complicates the bookkeeping and the cost to the city and ultimately to the citizens. Mr. Arthur: He quoted from the draft Landmark Tree Ordinance, "As the beauty of the city is concentrated in trees situated in and along the public rights-of-way of the city. . ." He said he now hears we can take those trees out of those rights-of-way because we want to. There are projects where you can run a street straight through the biggest madrona or you can run around it. The question again is, the private property owner is not getting credit for doing what we are trying to say in the next item. Mr. Keletv: Wanted to clean it up; suggested staying just with what your property is; we don't want to take care of the city's property. He wanted to know how that impacted city property anywhere else. Mr. Randall: Had a concern that with that proposal, just count the trees on the land, it goes against the concept to locate trees on public land, street trees if you can. It gives a little less credit. They still have to plant street trees, but extra trees they have to plant on their own property instead of possibly putting in the street initially. He thought it was not a huge problem, but it makes them plant a few more trees. When he counted trees, he counted street trees. The numbers seemed to work. Ms. Thayer: With 60' street width, you have 15 feet on each side to plant without real concern about that being open for the full 60'. Mr. Randall: As has been pointed out, the city encourages people to plant trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Shomer would say that one of the reasons they provided these broad exemptions for people's back yards is because they recognize that people will rather do what they want to do in their back yards, and they want to encourage proper respect for trees in the rights-of-way, street trees. That is also what Tree City USA is all about. He thought they should count the street trees. Ms. King: Thought they should leave it the way Mr. Randall proposed it. Mr. Berg concurred. Mr. Randall: Answered Mr. Hersey regarding buffers that would normally be an open space restriction on the private property. They would count all the trees in a private property open space buffer toward that project. An alley way would be like a right-of-way, unless it's inside a plat, e.g. lots on both sides of the alley and they didn't need the alley for utilities and didn't vacate the alley as part of the plat. They alley effectively becomes a little open space buffer, and the trees count. CHANGE AS PROPOSED -- Newlv planted trees in rie:hts-of-wav (street trees) shall count towards tree unit reauirements: PASSED, 7 in favor; Mr. Arthur opposed. 5. Pages 18 & 19, Lines 1 - 2 Mr. Randall: Clarification is consistent with previous proposal. CONSENSUS: Change as proposed 6. Page 20, Line 8 Mr. Randall: (New) Developed non-single family lots Phases tree removal, so if you want to remove several healthy trees, you remove and replant a little at a time. CONSENSUS: Change as proposed MOTION Mr. Kelety Recommend to City Council approval of Tree Conservation Ordinance Chapter 19.06 as modified SECOND Ms. King Discussion: Mr. Arthur stated he had not believed the DNR had the right to tell the city what to do, and he asked the County Prosecutor who informed him that as long as he was not an elected official, she would not give him an opinion. He then asked the Washington State Attorney General for the DNR who gave the same reply. He expressed his concern that he felt the impetus for this was not what he believed to be a proper disclosure, that he had done his home work and thought the city could do it different ways. Mr. Randall stated for the record, the DNR requirement is that all cities take over jurisdiction of Class IV forest practices as of December 2005 unless they extend the date. He said to meet that, they do not have to adopt everything that is included, and he is basically making the case that there are other things he would like to see included that deal with tree conservation standards for subdivisions, and other things he feels are closing gaps and making things equitable. He explained that this ordinance goes beyond what the city needs for the DNR practices. Mr. Irvin indicated he had had reservations about certain aspects of this, and as mentioned, there is really no rush to close this since it isn't needed until 2005 or maybe beyond. He stated it had always been his belief that should be the priority impetus, if that was the major requirement driving it. He said he is still concerned that they are over-reaching into the area of regulating and legislating to private property owners and wished they had had a lot of the comments in the package, that he had Planning Commission Minutes, July 31,2003 1 Page 3 · · · seen one person had been insistent. The second concern that he mentioned earlier, he does not know what the impact is going to be on resources, i.e., staff and time. Mr. Clow also commented on that. He thought they shouldn't blithely just accept that trees are good. He said, although, that he is tired oflooking at this, and he is probably going to vote for it and push if off onto the next table. He said in the future he would much prefer to take things in priorities, to prevent the little bit of bad that taints the process.. Ms. Thaver pointed out this was directed from City Council, and Mr. Randall explained they currently have an interim ordinance in place waiting for them to deliver something. Ms. Hersey agreed with Mr. Irvin and thought it should have been split into three. It would be much clearer; it is confusing. Mr. Kelety recognizes the complexity, but said the ordinance can be modified in the future and with all of the work of the advisory committee which was well represented, he felt they should proceed. Mr. Benskin also pointed out the time and amount of work that has gone into this difficult ordinance to make it right for everyone. He personally had a hard time adding more regulation to be administered to the city. There also is a need for this kind of regulation, too. He feels there is still some work that needs to be done, but feels there are some safeguards built into it to provide personal property rights to be respected. He didn't agree with it 100%, but felt he would vote for it. VOTE: PASSED by roll call 6 in favor; Mr. Arthur and Ms. Hersey opposed 7. Amendment to PTMC Section 17.72.190 Parking facilities - Landscaping. It was determined this was a separate issue from the Tree Conservation Ordinance and to include this discussion after considering the Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance. The date for this discussion was set for August 14,2003 along with the workshop on the Comp Plan site specific amendments. At 9:30 p.rn. Chair Thayer called for a 5 minute break. B. Draft Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance Mr. Ken Clow, Public Works, referred to his comments included in Commission packets. He indicated there are still two main issues of concern: 1) Resources. This is a regulatory program, a function they do not currently do, that will involve time, effort, and staff. While many times it probably isn't a big deal, they find in any kind of program that involves people, neighbors, etc., there will be occasions that will take up a lot of time for a very few incidents. 2) Intent, more particularly a City Council budget issue, 12.24.040, Standards ofIssuance. He mentioned one testimony tonight, and he hears from others regularly, that trees ought to be cut in the right-of-way because they are impeding views, because they are shedding on something, a general nuisance, not attractive; they don't like that particular tree. These are not uncommon incidents. The current regulations are fairly restrictive, and basically say the city cuts them down and doesn't allow citizens to deal with trees in the right-of- way. He did not feel the standard of issuance was clear enough to give the direction the city probably wants to give. He is unsure what that direction is, from an extreme of cutting no tree, bush, shrub in the right-of-way unless it is probably something like diseased or a hazard, to the other extreme that they will do whatever citizens want to do. He indicated they need to fmd a balance in the general guideline for what the intent of this ordinance is. As it is now, the director issues the permit if in his or her judgment the proposed work is consistent with the ordinance. He found it very difficult to determine what is consistent with the ordinance. He referred to a complaint in Commission packets, and said they would hear lots of them. It would be better for the ordinance and for implementation down the line if there is a way to clarify. Mr. Clow had not seen the draft in time to make a recommendation. He would like the flexibility as a director to make reasonable determinations, but no matter what he thought reasonable, they would fmd a lot of discussion on both sides of the issue. Tonight's example of someone wanting to cut down a tree, they are not the abutting property owner. It is a tree across the street and across several streets. It gets to be a lot trickier. He noted their intent in some of this is to maintain view corridors; there is value in that. Property owners see the value when they see their views being blocked; that is one of the issues coming to Public Works regularly. He thinks this section needs to be clearer. Ms. Thaver: Did not see how aily property owner can expect to have trees cut 2-3 blocks away from where they live to open a view corridor, maybe adjacent. Mr. Clow: Thought that was the wording, but said he thought the issue was the abutting property; that is really where they would want to deal with it. He agreed and said he would not interpret it being blocks away or even non- abutting. They may have planted the tree. Mr. Keletv: Is his issue with 12.24.040 that now people can ask forremoval of a tree and there is no ordinance that says you have any responsibility to respond at all, that now there is and that's the problem? . Mr. Clow: Now what we have is, no one else can cut a tree in the right-of-way. Currently it says Public Works Planning Commission Minutes, July 31, 2003 1 Page 4 . . . Department or designated professional has sole responsibility of removal of bushes, etc. Mr. Keletv: Does that mean they are the only ones that can do it and now we are saying people can apply for a permit to do it? At present people come to you and plead their case about a tree. Do you listen to them, or not? Mr. Clow: They do listen. He thought the responsibility now, the city would say it's a damaged, unhealthy tree, and because it is in the right-of-way and subject to falling over. Mr. Kelety: So people come with tree requests, you listen, act or don't act. Now, this says someone comes with a permit, you evaluate and they cut? Ms. Thayer: They make application. Public Works issues a permit and they cut. Mr. Keletv: He thought that was not far from what is already going on; it just formalizes it, except they can cut now and they have the responsibility. But we do have that function right now except Public Works cuts, they do not. With this, 1) it's documented; 2) they cut and carry the burden of cost. Ms. King: Right now there are no criteria to go to; you just make a call? Would that be helpful to you to have criteria? Mr. Clow: Thought it would be helpful to have an intent. Ms. King: If the main intent in removing trees in the right-of-way, to use your example, were to remove damaged, diseased, unhealthy or hazardous trees, that would be an intent? Mr. Clow: That would be an intent, if that is all you are going to do. There are other issues out there, but that would be one. Mr. Benskin: In permitting this to happen, for the public to remove trees or work on public property, where does the liability fall if something happens to the property, to the person, a neighbor, their dog, car, power lines? Who picks up the tab, should something go awry? Mr. Clow: He assumed if they issue a permit, we would have to go out and evaluate that to see that their permit includes where are the power lines; adjacent property; what are the potentials for that. Mr. Benskin: Thought that should be looked into. Mr. Clow: He thought the City Attorney could fmalize it. There are certain issues they deal with when they issue permits to do utility work that are similar. They have to make sure it is reasonable. Mr. Benskin: Usually a person doing utility work, putting in sewer, lines or something has a bond or license to do that. Mr. Clow concurred. Chair Thayer asked the Commission if they recommend approval of this to the City Council with the reservations of including some concerns Mr. Clow has, if they could go forward? Does the Planning Commission have concerns enough that it should come back to the Commission? Mr. Kelety thought if they were going to send it forward, they should like it or not like it. Mr. Randall brought forward another option saying this is a little more easily segmented. This one has some parts, like the Landmark Tree part could almost stand by itself, as does the Tree Committee Chapter. Amendments to the last section, 12. 04, are not terribly important, so one idea might be to pass forward the material that would allow them to pursue Tree City at the same time as the Tree Ordinance which would be creating Chapter 2.71, The Tree Committee. The Landmark Tree is just something one of the Councilmembers wanted, and is not necessary for the Tree City. Mr. Benskin brought up how this is going to get funded, where does it come in the budget if we give city crews, Public Works, the responsibility for maintaining and doing these things? He thought that needs to be incorporated into this document, and any thought of retaining an arborist. It seemed to Mr. Irvin that the overall philosophy within the town and city government is to maintain the minimum developed street right-of-way, which means they maximize all the street trees and all these tree problems to an extent. He cited a personal problem ofmadrona limbs falling in the street, and he asked who cleans them up? Mr. Clow answered if there is a tree that blocks lines of sight at street corners, the city trims them, when they know about them. Ms. Thayer said they are doing this already, the difference is that now they are putting the onus on the property owner it they want a tree. Mr. Clow replied, that if they want him to make that call, he will be glad to and will continue, but he thinks over time it will be clearer if in this there would be a slightly better focused intent of what they are trying to do, to preserve trees in the right-of-way, or preserve the right kind of tree in the right-of-way. If someone says they want to cut down a tree and plant a different one, that is different from saying we will only allow you to trim unhealthy trees. Mr. Kelety felt the general nuts and bolts of this is great, but that this is not enough for Public Works and welcomed Staff input. He suggested they come back with a proposal. Mr. Clow agreed. Chair Thayer suggested they come back with a proposal, they take it up at their August 14th meeting, though Mr. Clow will not be there he can submit it to Mr. Randall, and possibly we can go forward. Mr. Randall suggested they could possibly see if some of the people that had been on the Tree Committee could further consider and come up with some different language, and come back with some written comments from Mr. Clow. Planning Commission Minutes, July 31, 2003 1 Page 5 · · · Mr. Berg asked why they are giving this ability to cut down public trees to the public? He asked why they don't just leave it that Public Works has to do it? Mr. Randall said his sense is that they are rather avoiding the issue by not having standards, and by avoiding the issue they have issues come up. He said to have it on the books, clarify it and have a process. When asked about who would be cutting down the tree, Mr. Benskin pointed out that the way it was written it sounded like the private citizen could do it. Mr. Berg thought that could happen if they got a permit. Mr. Benskin said there is nothing mentioned about hiring a professional to do the job for the private citizen. Mr. Randall said they would reword and come back on August 14th. Ms. Hersey said she would also like to know who is going to police this. Mr. Berg said he would like them to come back with more language and liked the idea of some kind of public notice of any tree that is threatened to be cut for some reason or another so that neighbors have, a chance to express their opinion before the chain saw operates. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. BenskinContinue the Tree City ordinance public hearing to August 14. Mr. Berg Unanimous, 8 in favor by voice vote Chair Thayer pointed out that the Planning Commission liaison to the Shorelines Committee is now vacant due to the resignation of Mr. Hyland. Mr. Kelety was selected to replace Mr. Hyland. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 14,2003 Continuation of Tree City USA/ Landmark Tree Ordinance public hearing and Workshop for Comprehensive Plan Amendments IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to conclude the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Mr. Arthur. At 10:30 p.rn. the meeting was closed to be reconvened August 14, 2003 in City Hall Chambers to continue the open record public hearing on the Tree City USAlLandmark Tree Ordinance and Amendment to PTMC Section 17.72.190 Parking facilities - Landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes, July 31,20031 Page 6 · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Open Record Public Hearing - Tree Ordinances July 31. 2003 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No ",,/ee ~ú)~- /0 AO ~JlÞr.b~ V rlJY d.ÁVÙ j, 2-J 14- rr~ ~