HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2018-01-25 Minutes - Public Hearing - TMC 18.54 Tree Regulations / TMC 18.06 Definitions Updates
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
Date:
January 25, 2018
Time:
6:30 PM
Location:
Council Chambers
Present:
Chair, Nhan Nguyen; Vice Chair, Dennis Martinez; Commissioners, Miguel Maestas,
Mike Hansen, and Louise Strander
Absent:
Commissioners Sharon Mann and Heidi Watters
Staff:
Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; Andrea Cummins,
Urban Environmentalist, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary
Chair, Nguyen
called the public hearing to order at 6:35 PM. Commissioner Nguyen thanked
Commissioner Maestas for doing a wonderful job as the 2017 Chair.
AdoptionCommissioner Strander
requested amendments to the minutes to include several
ofMinutes:
questions that she raised at the 12/14/17 work session. Staff requested one addition to
the minutes.
Commissioner Hansen
made a motion to adopt the 12/14/17 minutes as amended to
include the eight questions listed below that Commissioner Strander asked at the
Commissioner
meeting, as well as staff’s addition. Martinez seconded the motion. All
were in favor.
The addition to the minutes are as follows:
1)What is the difference between an exemption and an exception?
Staff
: An exemption is a circumstance when the tree regulations are not applicable. An exception is
similar to a variance. If there are some special circumstances that make it difficult or impossible to
meet the requirements of the tree code this process is used to allow flexibility.
2)How is the City going to fulfill GMA goals to encourage more single-family and multi-family
housing while preserving the tree canopy?
Staff
: It is a balancing act. The code requires to the extent possible trees be retained on site.
For multi-family development, defer to the Landscaping Code, most of the site would probably
be cleared, although if possible to retain trees is encouraged. Otherwise, the landscaping code
would specify the amount of landscaping required on the front, sides and rear. For individual
single-family development there is no requirement for landscaping. For subdivisions, try to
preserve the trees that can be incorporated into the development, otherwise there are street tree
requirements for subdivisions, and requirement for replacement trees in sensitive areas. Also,
try to maintain some protection of the trees on the older homes that currently exist to get to our
goals.
3)The proposed regulation states a person can remove four trees that are four to eight inches in
diameter – what if a property only has four trees and they remove them all, how does that keep the
tree canopy?
Staff
: it doesn’t. But we decided it wasn’t reasonable to say that no trees can be removed from a
single-family site. A property owner can remove up to four trees in a three-year period; if more
than four trees are removed, then tree replacement would be required. This would replace some of
the tree canopy. Some jurisdictions are more restrictive, but we felt that coming from our current
regulations going to that extreme, that would be too much.
4)How much is a tree permit, how often does it increase, and what is the enforcement for not getting
a tree permit?
Staff
: currently $116.55; the price increases annually; we try to approach enforcement on an
educational basis first; enforcement begins with a courtesy letter requesting compliance and then
escalates as needed.
5)Is there a plan if the tree canopy falls below 47%?
Staff:
Not currently.
6)Is it correct that a residential home owner can prune a tree up to 25% and other trees up to 20%,
and no permit is required?
Staff
: Yes, it’s 25% of the canopy other than fruit trees; no permit is required for pruning.
7)Which City Department is responsible for doing the canopy assessment in the parks or the public
right-of-way; would the condition of the tree also be assessed?
Staff:
It is primarily DCD, partnering with the Parks and Recreation Department. The condition of
the tree is a separate assessment, regarding defects or health concerns. Green Tukwila Partnership
is helping with maintenance with Park properties, currently with Tukwila Park. In the past, City
received a grant from the Washington Dept. of Natural Resources for its initial tree canopy
assessment; currently King Conservation District is carrying out a canopy assessment for south-end
cities. In the future, we hope to develop a Citywide maintenance plan for City-owned trees – we
need data from tree inventory to develop the maintenance plan.
8)Is a laurel considered a tree?
Staff:
The laurels are an invasive species. We would also consider it a hedge/shrub rather than a
tree, although it can grow tall, like a tree. A laurel can be removed without penalty or a permit.
Staff also had an addition to the draft minutes to note the discussion from the Commission that the City
needs to provide canopy coverage assessment for City owned properties, City campus and City parks.
Carol Lumb
, Senior Planner, Department of Community Develop (DCD), gave the presentation,
Items in the packet responding to past requests and public comments:
Request for a chart that identifies other jurisdictions and how they treat trees in terms of how
they start regulating (Attachment H)
Page 2 of 9
The City Attorney provided guidance on the questions regarding liability (Attachment F)
Information from the Public Works Department regarding the responsibility for taking care of
trees that are in the public right-of-way (Attachment G)
Comments from Vern Meryhew, citizen, (Attachment I)
a comment letter from Greg and Vanessa Zaputil (Attachment J)
Chart of comments received and request for changes in the Tree Regulation
Highlights given on the Tree Regulations:
These regulations affect primarily single-family residential homes that are outside of either the
shoreline jurisdiction or a wetland, a steep slope, a stream or their buffers.
The City does not currently regulate the removal of trees on single-family property unless they
are adjacent to or within a sensitive area.
We are looking at the Tree Regulations because of the Comprehensive Plan tree canopy goals.
(listed in attachment C)
The tree canopy for commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties will be addressed
through the Landscaping Code.
The amount of canopy for each of the zoning districts in the City, is taken from the City’s tree
canopy assessment prepared in 2012. The low-density residential districts comprise
approximately one third of the zoned area in the City, and the canopy makes up approximately
59%. Because it was so high, the decision was made not to increase tree canopy when working
on the Comp Plan goal but to maintain the current 47% tree canopy in the City.
Once the City Council adopts the new Tree Regulations the Department of Community
Development will work on handouts for educational purposes.
A Tree permit would be required when doing work in a critical root zone; pruning a heritage
tree more than 20% of the existing crown, for the removal of trees over 8” in diameter; if
removing more that the number of trees allowed in a 36-month period; or when trees are
illegally removed.
When tree replacement is required, the number of replacement trees is based on the size of the
tree canopy. Hazard or defective trees are not required to be replaced, there is some suggested
language to add to the regulations for clarification – staff will address later.
Arborist reports are not required for removal of trees on single-family properties, which was a
change made by the Planning Commission. It is required for removal of heritage trees, or if
development is on a site where heritages trees are in close proximity, and for proposed
development, which are primarily for subdivisions or short plats greater than four lots.
Commissioner Stander
asked the following additional questions at tonight’s meeting that she
requested be included in the minutes.
th
Question regarding the January 11, 2018, packet, staff report prepared December 28, attachment E –
Goal 4.13, Page 49 of the January 25, 2018 packet. Residential zone is not listed there, is it somewhere
else?
Staff:
The last paragraph was left off on page 35, which should read, “no net loss of canopy cover in
individual categories as listed below: Low Density Residential: maintain current Citywide coverage of
47% and Medium and High Density Residential maintain current Citywide coverage of 40%.”
Page 3 of 9
REQUESTED CHANGES/CORRECTIONS
Planning Commission, from December 14, 2017 work session:
Page 11 – Nuisance Trees, add, underground utilities
Page 18, 18.54.030D, bring language into consistency, Table A, strikeout the word,
‘exceptional’
Page 18, 18.54.040 A., spell out the letters CRZ, ‘critical root zone’
Page 19, 18.54.040 Table A, delete the language,” an arborist report be prepared for the
removal of trees 18” or greater in diameter.”
Page 21, 18.54.060 D., revised language, “If the number of trees to be removed exceeds the
permitted amount in a 36-month period on a property zoned Low Density Residential and
improved a single-family dwelling, those trees shall be replaced based on the replacement
requirements set forth TMC 18.54.080 and Table B.”
Page 23, 18.54.080 B., Sentence added, “Trees damaged due to natural disasters such as wind
storms, hail, ice, snow storms and earthquakes are not required to be replaced.”
Page 25, 18.54.100 D., addressing liability question, liability memo from the City’s attorney,
page 54 (attachment F). Liability is very site and fact specific.
Robin Tischmak
, Engineer, Public Works Department addressed questions from the Commissioners
regarding trees in the public right-of-way. DCD and PW Departments are working together on
language in Title 11, which covers the right-of-way to alleviate the conflicting information. One
provision says that abutting property owners shall maintain vegetation in the public right-of-way unless
the City has accepted maintenance of the vegetation. If a property owner plants a tree in the public
right-of-way in a landscape strip, it requires approval from Public Works; they issue tree permits and
permit plantings in the public right-of-way. We want to make sure that the tree won’t present problems
in the future (wrong type of tree) or that there aren’t plans to expand the street that would require tree
removal in the future. If the property owner plants the tree the City could accept ownership. If the
property owner has requested and plants the tree, then maintenance would probably be put on the
property owner.
It’s a gray area and specific to the situation. If trees are on private property and causing damage to the
sidewalk the City will go to the property owner and expect them to resolve the problem. If a tree is on
the property line or in the right-of-way generally the City has taken responsibility in correcting the
issues.
Commissioner Strander
inquired on the permitting process for a tree in the right-of-way – does DCD
issue it? Mr. Tischmak said the permit process is a coordinated effort between DCD and Public Works,
but Public Works issues the permit.
Commissioner Strander
asked about trees planted in residential areas. Mr. Tischmak responded that
it is a changing situation, but in the past, Public Works has not planted trees in the right-of-way in
residential areas. Often, to install the public improvements, like sidewalks, trees must be removed
from private property. In that case, then Public Works will work with the property owner to replace
Commissioner Strander
these trees. cited the example of the City maintaining trees in the right-of-
way near her property. It was not clear which department of the City might be maintaining these trees.
Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Nguyen
In response to a question raised by , staff stated that the violation section of the
code was added in the event people cut down trees they are not supposed to. The code allows the City
to assess a fine up to $1,000, or 3 times the market value of the tree as penalty for the violation. The
Director has the authority to seek or not to seek a financial penalty in addition to the required
replacement of the trees. Mr. Tischmak stated it is a different issue if the tree is cut down in the right-
of-way, in addition to whatever penalties would be assessed by DCD.
There was a discussion about an example of deliberate tree removal in Seattle to improve views and a
comparison with Tukwila’s proposed regulations.
Commissioner Martinez
requested that when revisions to the SAO regulations are brought to the
Planning Commission, these include more specific violation language.
The question was raised regarding past issues with insects damaging trees. Staff responded that the
tree code doesn’t have any bearing on that type of situation. This was probably the U.S.D.A. or State
Department of Agriculture that required the tree removal in order to prevent an infestation of an
invasive species – these agencies would have compensated property owners. Tree removal in this
instance would be an exemption from the tree code.
Question raised, page 33, 18.54.120 B enforcement of a property owner threatening to violate the
Chapter and the explanation going to City Council.
Staff:
If it was a serious situation and time sensitive special emergency, the code allows the director to
go to court without going to the City Council beforehand. There would be coordination with the City
Attorney, and Council President.
Public Works Department recommendations:
Page 17, 18.54.030 C., 3., revised language to include, “routine maintenance within rights-of-
way related to interference, site distance emergency or topping as codified in chapter 11.20 of
the TMC also be exempt,” which will make the two chapters consistent.
Add, a new number five, under Exemptions to read: “The removal of trees in the right-of-way
related to a capital project that has a landscaping component that includes trees, where there is
adequate room in the right-of-way.”
Vern Meryhew, citizen, recommendations:
Page 60, remove, ‘City of Lake Forest Park’ from the definition
Page 12, revise the language to read, an individual who is a certified professional with
academic and/or experience that makes them a recognized expert in urban forestry and tree
protection.
Increase significant tree size to 6”. Commissioner Martinez suggested approving the
recommended 6”. Staff will change the definition of Significant Tree and in Table A and any
references of 4 inches to 6” throughout the draft regulations. There was discussion on the
approach of other jurisdictions, particularly SeaTac, which distinguishes between a conifer and
deciduous tree in setting the significant tree size.
Page 5 of 9
Staff went over the comments and questions from Greg and Vanessa Zaputil, citizens, expressed in
their comment letters, dated 1/10/18 and 1/24/18, and responded to questions from the Commission.
Some of the questions have been addressed through questions asked by the Planning Commissioners
and will not be repeated below. Responses are summarized below:
For non-single-family residential properties, the landscaping code applies, rather than the tree
regulations. Typically addressed through the development process.
Property owners are not required to use a contractor – they can take out trees themselves if
desired;
The information needed for a tree permit will depend on the complexity and extent of the
proposed tree removal – staff works with an applicant to help address which criteria must be
addressed and which can be skipped and typically a landscape architect would not be required
Commissioner Hansen
said do not add a lot of requirements and put too
for tree removal.
many burdens on the citizens when removing trees.
The proposed regulations are not based on property size – this is for ease of administration and
clarity of application for property owners. Other jurisdictions have used this approach, but staff
felt it was not the best one for Tukwila.
Education of property owners on proper tree pruning techniques will be important – there are
videos on the City’s web site on this, staff will prepare other materials.
Healthy trees can be removed – a tree permit would not be denied because a tree is healthy.
For the record, a second letter from Greg and Vanessa Zaputil, dated January 24, 2018, was submitted
and requests cost estimates for a property owner for items they identify as being required. Some of this
is based on a contractor being hired – that person will determine how much it will cost to remove a
certain sized tree. Same for an arborist – the fee charged is up to the arborist. Property owner is not
being required to hire an arborist (except in the circumstances already identified). For site plans, we
work with an applicant to develop the site plan – hiring a landscape architect is not required. Tree
replacement is based on the canopy lost, but City doesn’t specify the type of tree to plant other than the
canopy.
Commissioner Strander
asked if a permit is needed to remove a volunteer tree?
Staff:
A volunteer tree, such as a cottonwood, that grows in your yard will probably be removed before
it gets to be 6-inches in size – but if it is larger, then will count towards the up to four trees that can be
removed in a 36-month period.
Does the City follow up to see if a tree was removed?
Staff:
Typically, no, staff does not go out to see if a tree has been removed, unless the property owner
was required to replant after removal or if there was concern about infrastructure around the tree to be
removed.
Damaged trees from natural events (storms etc.) do not require a tree permit?
Staff:
These trees are exempt.
Page 6 of 9
Staff recommended revisions:
Revise references to ISA Certified Arborist in the code to, “Qualified Tree Professional”
Page 18, 18.54.040, revise #3 to read, Professional review or recommendation. “In certain
circumstances, the Director may require professional review or recommendation.
This assessment, prepared by Qualified Tree Professional should address the following.”
Page 23, 18.54.080 a, revise language of first sentence to read, ‘ Each existing significant tree
removed, above the number allowed in Table A, including the removal of trees in easements
and rights-of-way for the purposes for constructing public streets and utilities, shall be
replaced with new tree(s), based on the size of the existing tree as shown below, up to a
maximum density of 70 new trees per acre, generally 12 to 15 feet apart.”
Page 23, 18.54.080 B, new sentence added at the end: “Trees determined to be defective by the
City or a Qualified Tree Professional are not required to be replaced.”
Staff requested confirmation that they have permission to make the changes, as discussed by the
Commission and move the draft regulations on to the City Council.
Commissioner Martinez
, said looking at the comparison of other cities and whether permits are
required that involve a fee, that he was concerned with public outreach and the impact on the new tree
canopy survey and fees required. He said that the City needs to make the public aware that the first
three trees removed are free, then a fee-permit is required. He said it comes at significant financial
impact to the community.
There were no public comments.
The public hearing was closed.
DELIBERATION
Chairman Nguyen
asked if the Commissioners have any comments, are they ready to take action on the
draft regulations?
Commissioner Strander
read the following:
“The Comprehensive Plan goal 4.13 talks about no net loss of canopy cover in individual zoning
categories. So Low Density Residential, they want to maintain a 47% canopy coverage. Medium and
High Residential, Citywide coverage of 40%. I think the intent of the regulations set forth in the tree
ordinance are meant to accomplish this goal of the tree canopy. However, I believe these regulations
may not attain this goal. In order for the City to encourage and allow for more housing to be built, the
likelihood of a diminished tree canopy is imminent, especially given scarcity of buildable land in the
City of Tukwila. The requirement for a 47% tree canopy in a Low Density Residential zone and 40%
tree canopy in medium and high Density Residential zones will be very difficult if not impossible to
achieve with housing infill and redevelopment. I feel there is not really a way to keep the
aforementioned tree canopy presented goals and build expected number of housing units needed,
anticipated, or required. So, for these reasons I will not support this ordinance and will be voting no.”
Page 7 of 9
Commissioner Maestas
asked Commissioner Strander if there was a recommendation she would
make in order to meet it and support the tree regulations?
Commissioner Strander
said she thinks it would take some more time but she is not really sure.
Staff said that the next few years will allow them to see how we measure up with the tree canopy
assessment once they have some more data. When there is more data, this will show if the City is
falling short and how best to address this if the City is falling short.
Commissioner Nguyen
said that he agrees with Commissioner Strander with the need for data, but he
does feel comfortable moving forward, with the amendments so far, striking a balance. He said we
could keep in mind to revisit this issue in the future.
Commissioner Hansen
said there are two different issues for him, a new policy and the Growth
Management Act Policy, and he does not see the intersection clearly on those. He said they do not
have current data, but from a policy stand point he’s ok with the policy they worked on. He asked if
there was an urgency to get this done before the next data is obtained, at which time they would have
something clear to work off. He asked if 2012 was the first year the City had canopy data. He said he
accepts the policy but shares the concern about how it ties into the Growth Management Act.
Staff said 2012 is the beginning point for canopy assessment data.
Commissioner Martinez
said one of the ways they could look at it as a Planning Commission is that
they have a lot of development that is going to happen in the next several years. He said that the
Commission as well as staff are going to have to look at not foregoing or allowing some of the
development to get a variance on the canopy growth. It’s one way to help protect the future with the
development. He is concerned but he said they must start somewhere and they will make sure that
future development has the proper amount of canopy coverage as required with no variance.
Commissioner Maestas
said this is a policy that would support the goal of Comprehensive Plan
canopy the goal being achieved. He said there is no guarantee that it will be accomplished but he sees
it as something that is going to increase and maintain canopy. Without this policy having much more
restrictive elements related to cutting down trees or related to housing and business development, he
doesn’t see those restrictions being part of this policy. He said he thinks this policy focuses on the City
doing everything they can to maintain existing trees. He asked that when they are looking at the data
to give some thought as to how the City can promote the addition of trees by offering incentives for
homeowners to make an assessment on their property of where they can add trees to their property. He
suggested encouraging homeowners to add trees to their property and take a positive role in increasing
the overall canopy of the City.He asked if there is something they could add to the policy to increase
new trees in the City.
Staff said that the draft regulations do allow using the tree replacement fund for single-family property
owners to have a free street tree with the concurrence of the Public Works Department. Staff can look
at other ways for trees to be planted and encouraged.
Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Nguyen
suggested asking the Council to set aside some money when they complete the
bi-annual budget for the Parks and Recreation Department for an initiative for planting trees. The
Planning Commission could direct the chair to do this if they would like. He said it would be another
opportunity.
MOTIONS:
Commissioner Hansen
made a motion to approve 18.06 for the Definitions, as revised.
Commissioner Maestas seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Hansen
made a motion to approve the changes as revised for TMC 18.54 Tree
Regulations. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion. Motion carried four in favor,
Commissioner Strander opposed.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
th
Accessory Dwelling Units on the PC agenda, February 15.
Staff reminded the Commission to verify their attendance the day prior to meetings to make
sure there is a quorum.
ADJOURNED: 8:50 PM
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
Adopted: 2/15/18
Page 9 of 9