Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2021 - Agenda Packet MEDINA, WASHINGTON www.medina-wa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Virtual/Online Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2:00 PM With the passage of the City’s Proclamation of Local Emergency, City Hall is closed to the public. Planning Commission participation in this meeting will be by teleconference/online only. Members of the public may also participate by phone/online. Individuals wishing to speak live during the Virtual Planning Commission meeting will need to register their request with the Development Services Coordinator at 425.233.6414 or email ataylor@medina-wa.gov and leave a message before 12PM on the day of the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for February 23rd Planning Commission Meeting on your correspondence. The Development Services Coordinator will call on you by name or telephone number when it is your turn to speak. You will be allotted 3 minutes for your comment and will be asked to stop when you reach the 3-minute limit. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/93050780194?pwd=dWdvbXBGVXdnajBjcDdXb3N5Yit4Zz09 Meeting ID: 930 5078 0194 Passcode: 500060 One tap mobile +12532158782,,93050780194# US (Tacoma) AGENDA Page 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL David Langworthy, Mark Nelson, Laurel Preston, Mike Raskin, Randy Reeves, Shawn Schubring and Jenny Smith 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff/Commissioners 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 - 5 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 Recommendation: Adopt Minutes. Staff Contact: Amber Taylor, Development Services Coordinator Page 1 of 23 Page 4. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Individuals wishing to speak live during the Virtual Planning Commission meeting will need to register their request with the Development Services Coordinator, Amber Taylor, via email (ataylor@medina-wa.gov) or by leaving a message at 425.233.6414 before 12pm the day of the Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting on your correspondence. The Development Services Coordinator will call on you by name or telephone number when it is your turn to speak. You will be allotted 3 minutes for your comment and will be asked to stop when you reach the 3-minute limit. 5. DISCUSSION 6 - 7 1. Council Update and Next Steps Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 8 - 23 2. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 6. ADJOURNMENT Next special meeting: March 23, 2021 at 2 PM. 7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6 PM, unless otherwise specified. UPCOMING MEETINGS Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, April 24, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, May 25, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Special Meeting at 2:00 PM Tuesday, November 23, 2021 Regular Meeting Cancelled November 2021 Meeting Date TBD Tuesday, December 28, 2021 Regular Meeting Cancelled December 2021 Meeting Date TBD In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (425) 233-6410 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 2 of 23 MEDINA, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ZOOM Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:00 PM MINUTES A.CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The Planning Commission Special Meeting of January 26, 2021 was called to order at 2:03 p.m. by Stephanie Keyser, Planning Manager. Commissioners Present: Nelson, Preston, Raskin, Reeves and Schubring. Commissioners Absent: Langworthy and Smith. Staff Present: Kellerman, Keyser, Taylor and Wilcox. B.ELECTIONS City Clerk Kellerman called for nominations for Chair. ACTION: Commissioner Schubring nominated Commissioner Preston for Chair. With no other nominations, the nomination period was closed. With no objections and by consensus, Commissioner Preston was elected as Chair. Approved: 5-0 Chair Preston called for nominations for Vice Chair. ACTION: Commissioner Reeves nominated Commissioner Schubring for Vice-Chair. ACTION: Commissioner Nelson nominated Commissioner Reeves for Vice-Chair. ACTION: Commissioner Reeves declines nomination. With no other nominations, the nomination period was closed. With no objections and by consensus, Commissioner Schubring was elected as Vice-Chair. Approved: 5-0 C. ANNOUNCEMENTS Keyser made the following announcements: •Planning Commission did not need to readopt work plan in January as it was previously amended in September of 2020. •Discussed Parking Study. •Planning Commission emails will no longer be active as of March 1, 2021. AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 Page 3 of 23 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Amended Minutes from December 8, 2020 Special Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring Approved: 5-0 E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None F. DISCUSSION 1. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Chair Preston gave report of leadership meeting to Planning Commission. Keyser and Planning Commission discussed recommendations to Council. Schubring calls to motion to not recommend to Council that the City of Medina do a second story setback. ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Raskin Approved 5-0 Schubring calls to motion to not use floor area ratio to Council. ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Raskin Approved 5-0 Schubring calls to motion to adopt Table 20.23.020(A) as presented in Appendix A of the staff report to recommend allowable structural coverage in R-16 lots that exceed 16,000sqft be modified to match allowable coverage to similarly sized lots in R-20 and R-30. ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Nelson Approved 5-0 Keyser asks Planning Commissioners how many want the City to pursue moving to an average grade calculation. All Commissioners in attendance were in favor. Chair Preston opens discussion on average grade. Commissioners discuss. Schubring calls to motion for Planning Commission to ask Council to direct the discussion on the trade-off of height vs. structural coverage to mitigate bulk. ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Raskin Approved 5-0 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 Page 4 of 23 Schubring calls to amend motion for Planning Commission to direct Council to pursue discussion on the trade-off of height and other incentives vs. structural coverage to mitigate bulk. ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Nelson Planning Commission discussed amended motion. Approved 5-0 2. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Keyser and Commissioners continue to discuss the tree code. ACTION: Continue discussion in next Planning Commission Meeting. G. OTHER BUSINESS None H. ADJOURNMENT Motion Nelson Second Schubring; The Special Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 4:13pm Minutes taken by: Amber Taylor AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 Page 5 of 23 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 2021 TO: Medina City Council FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Council Update and 2021 Schedule In 2020, COVID-19 limited our ability to bring new business to the Council to vote on. This year, we will be making up for it by recommending three separate code amendments: bulk; minor code amendments; and trees. The following provides a status update for where we are with all three amendments. The 2021 timeline of meeting topics and adoptions is presented in a table at the end. Staff asked for confirmation on when we will be able to have a joint meeting with Council to discuss the potential tree code changes but, as of the writing of this memo, has not heard back. It is assumed that we will follow a similar timeframe as last year (either in July or September). Additionally, please note that it is being proposed that we take the month of August off, similar to Park Board and Council. Bulk On February 8, 2021, Planning Commission’s recommendation on bulk was presented to Council. At the meeting, Council voted unanimously in favor of directing staff to begin the public process required for all development code adoptions. The regulatory requirements (SEPA, notice to the Department of Commerce) have been sent to the appropriate departments and the draft code is available on the city’s website. The next step will be a public open house, tentatively scheduled for April 15th via Zoom. After the open house, Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at their May 25th meeting. Council will hold a final public hearing at their June 14th meeting, followed by adoption. Minor Code Clean-Up Once it is determined whether or not the city needs to amend the ADU parking requirement for houses within ¼ mile of a major public transit stop (Evergreen Point Road’s park-n-ride and the bus stops on 84th and 12th), Planning Commission will be presented with minor code amendments that will follow the same timeline for adoption as bulk. Staff anticipates presenting the minor amendments to Planning Commission in March. Trees Planning Commission has been tasked with preparing a tree code amendment for Council to adopt in December. The scope of work is limited to the retention and replacement portions of the code for new construction. The timeline presented below is a tentative suggestion. If a cohesive and defensible proposal is agreed upon sooner than anticipated, adjustments will be made as necessary. AGENDA ITEM 5.1 Council Update and Next Steps Page 6 of 23 2021 Timeline Action Date PC Meeting (Trees) February 23 PC Meeting (Trees and Minor Amendments) March 23 Public Open House Trees and Minor Amendments (via Zoom) Tentatively April 15 PC Meeting (Trees and Minor Amendments) April 27 PC to hold public hearing (Bulk and Minor Amendments) May 25 Council to hold final public hearing and adopt bulk and minor code amendments June 14 PC Meeting (Trees) June 22 PC Meeting (Trees) – Joint meeting? July 27 Tree Code Draft Online/Public Noticing July Off August PC Meeting (Trees) – Joint meeting? September 28 Tree Code Open House September PC Meeting Finalize Tree Recommendation October 26 Tree Code Open House October PC to hold public hearing on Tree Code Amendments November TBD PC Meeting (Intro to Comp Plan) December TBD Council to hold final public hearing and adopt tree code amendments December 13 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 Council Update and Next Steps Page 7 of 23 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 2021 TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Planning Commission has been asked to review the tree retention and replacement requirements for new single-family construction. Staff anticipates using the same memo template for the next few meetings as we continue to work through this topic. To draw the reader’s attention to those sections with new information, the word UPDATED will appear at the end of a bolded title. The work plan task is presented below: Review tree retention and replacement requirements for new single-family construction Description Medina’s sylvan nature is something that distinguishes it from the surrounding jurisdictions and contributes to its high-quality residential character. Recent projects have demonstrated a deficiency in the tree code regarding new construction. This task would only review the sections of the tree code that relate to new single-family site redevelopment. Requests to Staff The first step will be to examine the retention and replacement requirements for lots undergoing redevelopment. Deliverable The initial deliverable from PC to CC would be a high-level recommendation regarding changes to the retention and replacement requirement in the tree code for new single-family development (MMC 20.52.110) and/or the minimum performance standards for land under development (MMC 20.52.130). AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 8 of 23 PC Discussions Items that have been identified for consideration as the commission works through this work plan topic include: • the definition of a significant tree • better legacy tree protection • the specific tree species that the city requires/encourages • the role of natural loss • long-term survival rates and enforcement • the numerical tree replacement requirement • the location of trees, both removal and replacements • making sure the code is simple and flexible The following have been provided to move the conversation forward with respect to the items above: The definition of a significant tree (UPDATED) The current definition of a significant tree in the code requires the tree to be at least 6-inch DBH and a species identified on the City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species. Removing the requirement for the tree to be on the suitable list will mean that all trees on the lot with a 6-inch DBH or greater would be a significant tree, regardless of native vs. nonnative status. This is consistent with other jurisdictions. Better legacy tree protection (UPDATED) The comment was made last month that the city should have better protection of legacy trees. Specifically, the replacement cost for a legacy tree is perhaps not punitive enough. This is something that staff has reached out to the city attorney to get feedback on. Additionally, it likely makes more sense for the dollar amount to be placed in a fee schedule. That makes adopting monetary increases easier. The specific tree species that the city requires/encourages (UPDATED) The List of Suitable Trees has been found and asked to be placed on the City’s website. We should consider if this list is still an accurate reflection of what is suitable or if it’s necessary to still have a list at all. Instead of having a dedicated list, should we just have language requiring tree species that will thrive here? See an example of Bellevue’s language below: …the applicant shall utilize plant materials which compliment the natural character of the Pacific Northwest, and which are adaptable to the climate, topographic, and hydrologic characters of the site AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 9 of 23 The role of natural loss Staff is unclear how to integrate this consideration, whether it should be a clause in the code or just generally something to think about during these discussions. Long-term survival rates and enforcement The code does say that owners are responsible for ensuring that the supplemental trees remain viable for 5 years, however there is no mechanism for enforcement or follow-up. There has been concern raised on the logistics and cost of site visits after a project is finaled if we were to add an enforcement section. Numerical tree replacement requirement; Location of trees, both removal and replacement; Making sure the code is simple and flexible (UPDATED) At last month’s meeting, staff mentioned that there appears to be a discrepancy in the code between the retention section (MMC 20.52.110) and the density ratio section (MMC 20.52.130). While the code technically requires specific ratios of existing trees to be retained based on DBH, a clause prevents anyone from being required to save more than the ratio density. As a result, none of the applications are meeting the retention ratio section of the code. It is staff’s opinion that the clause completely negates having a retention section to begin with; again, this is supported by the lack of compliance. As code can be subjective and vary depending on who is doing the interpretation, staff asked the city attorney to look at the sections Council has directed Planning Commission to consider amending. Below is an excerpt of an email from the city attorney dated January 28, 2021: I reviewed the code provisions you included below and agree that they have the effect of steering applicants towards the .35 density ratio rather than the percentage retention requirements. This is because, as drafted, the code provisions conflict and the only way to reconcile them is for the City to be limited by the more restrictive clause (which in this case is the density ratio). If the City’s goal is to retain trees, I recommend that the City revise the tree code to have a minimum number/size of trees that must be retained (similar to the existing percentage retention requirements though you could also use the density ratio as the minimum standard). Then, if the applicant wants to request a modification or deviation of the minimum requirements, they could make a written request to the Director. Complaints about the seemingly lack of protection the 2015 tree code is providing keep growing. Council has been very clear on establishing limited parameters for Planning Commission’s discussions for this tree code update. It is fair to say that some might still bear the battle wounds from the previous tree code update and rightfully are hesitant to reopen this topic. Staff has repeatedly heard the words narrow and limited about this current task; we are not looking for a total re-write. While the need to stay on schedule and be able to present a code amendment for Council to adopt by December is important, staff would be remiss to only suggest tweaking one or two numbers if there is perhaps a simpler, easier way. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 10 of 23 It is staff’s opinion that the two sections, Tree Retention Requirements and Minimum Performance Standards for Land Under Development need to be untangled from one another. Potential ways to accomplish this are outlined below: Keep the Retention Section Require the Tree Retention Section (Residential Uses) The retention section in the code is flexible and elegant; an applicant is able to pick what percentage of trees they want to save on their lot based on DBH. One possibility is to require that residential uses follow the retention section and nonresidential uses to follow the density ratio. Requiring the retention section as written will result in one or two additional trees being retained (again, depending on the trees on the lot). This clarification will be relatively simple however, it doesn’t address all possible situations. There would need to be consideration for those lots that don’t have healthy enough trees to be retained. In that instance, perhaps they would trigger an alternative retention and replacement option where the requirement would be a one-to-one replacement of unhealthy trees for healthy. It should be noted that this doesn’t relieve a site from planting supplemental/mitigation trees as required. Alternative Method for Retention (Percentage of Total DBH) If Planning Commission likes having a retention section, yet wants to relax what’s required to be retained, some jurisdictions base their tree retention on the total DBH on a site. For example, the DBH of every tree on site would be added up and the applicant would be required to retain a percentage of that total. Obviously, this would result in the actual DBH being retained being equal to or greater than what’s required. Example of total DBH: 9” Maple + 18” Fir + 10” Cedar + 6” Pine = 43” Total DBH on Site Required to retain 45% = 19.35 = 20 (rounded up to next whole number) Possible required retention #1= 18” Fir + 6” Pine = 24” Total DBH retained Possible required retention #2 = 9” Maple + 10” Cedar + 6” Pine = 25” Total DBH retained AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 11 of 23 Remove Retention Section Only Require the Density Ratio A third possibility would be to remove the retention section altogether and just have the density ratio section. This is essentially what is happening right now and the results are the reason why this is on the work plan. The density ratio converts trees to units and requires a certain number of tree credits/units based on lot size. If this is the option chosen, the required ratio would be increased. Draft Code Staff started to further amend the tree retention section, however decided to stop until direction can be given on how Planning Commission wants to proceed. For ease of identifying what’s new, the code language that is existing but has been moved to a new section is underlined, while the completely new language is red and underlined. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 12 of 23 20.12.200 “S” definitions. “Significant tree” means a healthy evergreen or deciduous tree of at least six-inch DBH size, and a species as identified on the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species” as set forth in Chapter 20.52 MMC measured four feet above existing grade. The director may authorize the exclusion of counting any significant tree which for reasons of health, location, or age is not able to be retained. … 20.52.110 Tree retention requirements for residential uses. A. Where land is designated as under development pursuant to MMC 20.52.100 for a residential use pursuant to MMC 20.21.030, trees within the boundaries of the lot (retention of trees in the city right-of-way are governed by MMC 20.52.400) shall be retained in accordance with any one of the following: 1. Preserve at least 50 percent of the existing trees that are: a. Six inches diameter breast height and larger; and or b. Of a native species eligible for credit on private property as set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; or 2. Preserve at least 40 percent of the existing trees that are: a. Six inches diameter breast height and larger with at least half of those required to be retained each having 10 inches diameter breast height or larger size; and or b. Of a native species eligible for credit on private property as set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; or 3. Preserve at least 35 percent of the existing trees that are: a. Six inches diameter breast height and larger with at least half of those required to be retained meeting the following: i. All shall have a diameter breast height size of 10 inches or larger; and ii. Forty percent shall have a diameter breast height size of 24 inches or larger; and or b. Of a native species eligible for credit on private property as set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; or 4. Preserve at least 25 percent of the existing trees that are: a. Six inches diameter breast height and larger with at least 75 percent of those required to be retained each having 24 inches diameter breast height or larger size; and b. Of a native species eligible for credit on private property as set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species.” B. All fractions in subsection (A) of this section shall be rounded up to the next whole number. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 13 of 23 C. The requirement for tree retention under subsection (A) of this section shall not exceed the trees necessary to meet the required tree units set forth in MMC 20.52.130. DC. Multiple applications of the tree retention requirements in this section over a 10-year period shall not cause the number and size of trees required to be retained to be reduced below the number and size of trees required to be retained with the first application. ED. When calculating retention requirements, trees excluded from retention requirements shall not be included in the calculation. FE. All of the following shall be excluded from the requirements of this section: 1. Hazard trees designated pursuant to MMC 20.52.200; 2. Nuisance trees designated pursuant to MMC 20.52.210 and where, if applicable, re- development does not remedy the conditions causing the nuisance; 3. Those significant trees having less than a 3624-inch diameter breast height size and located within the footprint of the principal building on the lot. F. For the purpose of calculating tree retention, critical areas and their associated buffers shall be excluded from the site area used for calculation. Critical areas shall be limited to wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, conservation easements, and their associated buffers. 20.52.120 Tree retention priorities. A. The retention of significant trees shall be taken into account in accordance with the following guidance: 1. Achieving the required retention as required by MMC 20.52.110 shall be included as a primary step in site planning. Site design strategies and specific development site areas targeted for retention shall be presented at the pre-application meeting with the city. 2. Trees shall be incorporated as a site amenity with a strong emphasis on tree protection. To the extent possible, forested sites should retain their forested look, value, and function after development. 3. Trees should be protected within vegetated islands and stands rather than as individual, isolated trees scattered throughout the site. 4. Trees to be retained shall be healthy and wind-firm as identified by a qualified arborist. 5. The grading plan shall be developed to accommodate existing trees and avoid significant alteration to the grades around the existing trees that are to be retained as part of a tree retention plan. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 14 of 23 B. A tree retention plan shall be prepared with consideration of the following retention priorities. Priorities are not provided in an order of preference. Rather, successful tree retention shall meet as many of these priorities as are feasible based on the site conditions and the recommendations from a qualified arborist: 1. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy. 2. Significant trees located within the first 20 feet adjacent to a property line. 3. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers. 4. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than twenty-four (24) inches DBH. 20.52.1230 Legacy tree protection measures. This section applies to trees designated as legacy trees, which are native trees that because of their age, size and condition are recognized as having exceptional value in contributing to the character of the community. A. A tree meeting all of the following criteria shall be designated as a legacy tree: 1. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; and 2. The diameter breast height of the tree is 50 inches or larger; and 3. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a likelihood of surviving more than 10 years based on assumptions that: a. The tree is properly cared for; and b. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is unenhanced by any proposed development; and 4. The tree is not: a. A hazard tree pursuant to MMC 20.52.200; or b. A nuisance tree pursuant to MMC 20.52.210; excluding those trees where, if applicable and feasible, redevelopment can remedy the conditions causing the nuisance; or c. Located within the footprint of the principal building on the lot, excluding those trees where alternative design of the building is feasible in retaining the tree. B. Legacy trees shall be preserved and retained unless replacement trees are planted in accordance with the following: AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 15 of 23 1. The quantity of replacement trees is calculated by multiplying the diameter breast height of the subject legacy tree by 50 percent to establish the number of replacement inches; and 2. Where more than one legacy tree is removed, the replacement inches for each legacy tree being removed shall be added together to produce a total number of tree replacement inches; and 3. The total number of replacement trees is determined by the total caliper inches of the replacement trees equaling or exceeding the required tree replacement inches established in subsections (B)(1) and (2) of this section. C. In lieu of planting the replacement trees prescribed in subsection (B) of this section, an applicant may satisfy the tree replacement requirements by: 1. Planting at least three replacement trees; and 2. Contributing to the Medina tree fund at a rate of $400.00 (staff to follow up with whether this needs to be increased and/or moved to a fee schedule) per each replacement inch not accounted for in the planting of replacement trees; and 3. The sum of the tree replacement inches accounted for by contributing to the Medina tree fund and the total caliper inches of the replacement trees planted shall not be less than the total replacement inches calculated in subsection (B) of this section. D. Other Provisions. 1. Each replacement tree shall meet the standards prescribed in MMC 20.52.1350(D)(4)(a) through (d) and (g); 2. The tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall apply to the removal of a legacy tree in lieu of and in addition to requirements for removing nonlegacy trees; 3. The tree replacement requirements set forth in this section for a legacy tree shall not be used to satisfy requirements for removing nonlegacy trees or a pre-existing tree unit gap; 4. If the minimum performance standards in MMC 20.52.130 are used, and if supplemental tree units are required, the tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall together count as one supplemental tree unit; 5. Off-site tree planting as described in MMC 20.52.1450(A2), (B), (C), and (E) are acceptable alternatives to on-site replacement tree planting. 20.52.1340 Minimum performance standards for land under development Tree retention requirements for nonresidential uses. A. The requirements and procedures set forth in this section shall apply to lands that are designated as under development pursuant to MMC 20.52.100. where the use of the land is for a nonresidential use pursuant to MMC 20.21.030. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 16 of 23 B. Figure 20.52.1340 outlines the primary steps prescribed by this section in establishing requirements and determining compliance with this chapter. Figure 20.52.1340 Tree Performance Process for Nonresidential Uses BC. Lots with land under development for nonresidential uses shall contain a sufficient number of significant trees to meet the minimum required tree units established by the following procedures: 1. The lot area is divided by 1,000 square feet; and 2. The quotient is multiplied by the corresponding tree density ratio applicable to the lot as set forth in Table 20.52.130(BC); and 3. The resulting product is rounded up to the next whole number to establish the minimum number of required tree units. Table to be clarified AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 17 of 23 Table 20.52.1340(BC) Tree Density Ratio for Nonresidential Uses Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density Ratio R-16, R-20, R-30 & SR-30 Residential 0.35 Golf Course 0.15 Nonresidential other than specifically listed 0.25 Public Schools 0.15 Parks 0.42 Residential 0. 35 Nonresidential other than specifically listed 0.25 N-A All 0.25 State Highway All 0.12 CD. To determine compliance with the required tree units applicable to the lot, apply the following procedures: 1. Inventory all existing significant trees on the subject lot; and 2. Assign a tree unit to each significant tree using the corresponding tree unit set forth in Table 20.52.1340(CD); and 3. Add the tree units together to compute the total existing tree units and subtract the tree units of those significant trees removed to determine the net existing tree units (do not round fractions); and 4. Subtract the net existing tree units from the required tree units determined in this subsection (CD) to establish: a. If the net existing tree units equal or exceed the required tree units then no supplemental trees are required; or b. If the net existing tree units are less than the required tree units then supplemental trees are required pursuant to subsection (DE) of this section. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 18 of 23 Table 20.52.1340(CD) Existing Tree Unit Tree Type Diameter Breast Height of Existing Tree Tree Unit Deciduous 6 to 10 inches 0.75 Greater than 10 inches 1.0 Coniferous 6 to 10 inches 0.75 Greater than 10 inches, but less than 50 inches 1.0 50 inches and greater 1.25 DE. If supplemental trees are required, the quantity of trees is determined by applying the following procedures: 1. Determine if a pre-existing tree unit gap exists by subtracting the total existing tree units from the required tree units: a. If the difference is less than zero round to zero; b. A difference of zero means no pre-existing tree unit gap is present; c. If the difference is greater than zero, the difference is the pre-existing tree unit gap; 2. To calculate the quantity of supplemental trees required, apply the provisions in subsection (DE)(3) of this section first to those supplemental trees replacing an existing significant tree starting in order with the largest tree to the smallest tree, and then, if applicable, apply subsection (DE)(3) of this section to those filling a pre-existing tree unit gap; 3. The quantity of supplemental trees is determined by: a. Assigning a tree unit to each supplemental tree using Table 20.52.1340(DE); b. Two supplemental trees shall be required for replacing each existing significant tree having a diameter breast height of 24 inches and larger subject to the limitation in subsection (DE)(3)(d) of this section, and consistent with subsection (DE)(2) of this section these shall be counted first; c. The quantity of supplemental trees shall be of a sufficient number that their total assigned tree units added to the net existing tree units shall equal or exceed the minimum required tree units established in subsection (BC) of this section; and d. Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum required tree units shall not be required. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 19 of 23 e. See Diagram 20.52.1340(E) for an example of calculating supplemental trees. Table 20.52.130(DE) Supplemental Tree Unit Purpose of Supplemental Tree Diameter Breast Height of Removed Tree Tree Unit for Supplemental Trees Replace an existing significant tree 6 inches to less than 24 inches 1.0 24 inches and larger 0.5 Fill a pre-existing tree unit gap Not applicable 1.0 Diagram 20.52.1340 Example Calculating Supplemental Trees 4. Minimum Development Standards Applicable to All Supplemental Trees. Table to be clarified AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 20 of 23 a. To be eligible as a supplemental tree, the tree species must be selected from the appropriate list set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species” established in MMC 20.52.050; b. Trees shall be planted on the subject lot; c. Each supplemental tree shall have a minimum caliper of two inches or, if the tree is coniferous, it shall have a minimum height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city; d. Trees shall be planted in a manner of proper spacing and lighting that allows them to grow to maturity; e. Existing trees within the boundaries of the lot having less than six inches diameter breast height may count as supplemental trees provided the tree meets all other requirements applicable to a supplemental tree; f. Supplemental trees replacing existing significant trees shall have at least one tree be of the same plant division (coniferous or deciduous) as the significant tree it is replacing; and g. The owner of the subject lot shall take necessary measures to ensure that supplemental trees remain healthy and viable for at least five years after inspection by the city and the owner shall be responsible for replacing any supplemental trees that do not remain healthy and viable for the five years after inspection by the city. E. All trees used to satisfy the supplemental tree requirements of this chapter shall be included as a significant tree for purposes of this chapter. F. In lieu of the supplemental tree requirements prescribed by this section, an owner may satisfy the requirements for supplemental trees by meeting the requirements for off-site tree planting set forth in MMC 20.52.140. 20.52.1450 Off-site tree planting Supplemental tree standards and priorities. A. To be eligible as a supplemental tree, the tree species must be selected from the appropriate list set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species” established in MMC 20.52.050 and shall meet the following general requirements: 1. Each supplemental tree shall have a minimum caliper of two inches, or, if the tree is coniferous, it shall have a minimum height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city; 2. Trees shall be planted in a manner of proper spacing and lighting that allows them to grow to maturity; AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 21 of 23 3. Existing trees within the boundaries of the lot having less than six inches diameter breast height may count as supplemental trees provided the tree meets all other requirements applicable to a supplemental tree; 4. Supplemental trees replacing existing significant trees shall have at least one tree be of the same plant division (coniferous or deciduous) as the significant tree it is replacing; and 5. The owner of the subject lot shall take necessary measures to ensure that supplemental trees remain healthy and viable for at least five years after inspection by the city and the owner shall be responsible for replacing any supplemental trees that do not remain healthy and viable for the five years after inspection by the city. B. All trees used to satisfy the supplemental tree requirements of this chapter shall be included as a significant tree for the purpose of this chapter. C. Where supplemental trees are required pursuant to MMC 20.52.140(E), the trees shall be planted in the following order of priority: 1. On-site and right-of-way. The preferred locations for on-site supplemental trees are in the following order of priority from most important to least important: a. Adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers as defined in Chapter 20.50 and 20.67; b. Adjacent to stormwater facilities; c. Within the site perimeter; d. Within the property’s right-of-way. 2. Off-site. An owner may elect to plant the required trees at another approved location in the city. Except where contribution to the Medina tree fund is used in lieu of planting required trees, application of this section shall not result in planting trees below the minimum requirements for on-site plantings. Off-site locations include: a. City-owned properties; b. Street rights-of-way; c. Private property with the written consent of the owner of the off-site location; d. Other public property with the written consent of the entity within the jurisdiction over the off-site location; e. Any other property determined appropriate by the director. 3. Medina tree fund. In lieu of planting trees, an owner may contribute to the Medina tree fund provided the following are satisfied: a. When the contribution is for replacing an existing significant tree, payment is at a rate of: AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 22 of 23 i. Two hundred dollars per each diameter breast height inch of the significant tree where the tree removed has less than a 20-inch diameter breast height size; ii. Two hundred fifty dollars per each diameter breast height inch of the significant tree where the tree removed has at least a 20-inch diameter breast height, but less than 36-inch diameter breast height size; iii. Four hundred dollars per each diameter breast height inch of the significant tree where the tree removed has at least a 36-inch diameter breast height or larger size; a. When the contribution is for required tree plantings used to satisfy the pre-existing tree unit gap determined in MMC 20.52.130(E)(1), payment shall be at a rate of $1,700 per required tree not planted. D. An owner may select to apply a combination of planting trees on site, off site and/or contributing to the Medina tree fund provided: 1. The combination is consistent with the provisions of this chapter; and 2. The combination results shall be equivalent to or greater than the minimum requirements for on-site plantings. E. Consistent with the authority granted in MMC 20.10.040, the director may establish additional administrative rules as necessary relating to the care and maintenance of off-site trees. F. Existing trees at the off-site location shall not be included as satisfying tree planting requirements. G. Trees planted off site in lieu of on-site requirements shall not be counted as an existing tree on the property where the off-site tree is located. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 23 of 23