HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2021 - Agenda Packet
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
www.medina-wa.gov
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Virtual/Online
Tuesday, April 27, 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 April 27th
Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for April 27th 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/93880267256?pwd=MldIYnBnV2FWZExvQzhCSFJYOURtZz09
Meeting ID: 938 8026 7256
Passcode: 690071
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,93880267256#,,,,*690071# US (Tacoma)
AGENDA
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
David Langworthy, Mark Nelson, Laurel Preston, Mike Raskin, Randy Reeves, and
Shawn Schubring
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency
enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation
or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an
official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the
discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
Page 1 of 77
Page
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Staff/Commissioners
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4 - 5 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2021.
Recommendation: Adopt Minutes.
Staff Contact: Amber Taylor, Development Services Coordinator
5. 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 April 27thPlanning 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.
6 - 7 1. Public Comment - Email from Miles Adams to Laurel Preston
6. PRESENTATIONS
1. Time Estimate: 15 minutes
Public Hearing Process – Planning Commission roles and responsibilities
7. DISCUSSION
8 - 61 1. Time Estimate: 60 minutes
Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements
Recommendation: Discussion item only.
Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager
62 - 77 2. Time Estimate: 15 minutes
Minor Code Amendments
Recommendation: Discussion item only.
Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager
8. ADJOURNMENT
Next special meeting: May 25, 2021 at 2 PM.
Page 2 of 77
Page
9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6 PM, unless
otherwise specified.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
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 3 of 77
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
ZOOM
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
2:00 PM
MINUTES
A.CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The Planning Commission Special Meeting of March 23, 2021 was called to order at
2:04 p.m. by Chair Preston.
Commissioners Present: Nelson, Reeves, Schubring and Preston.
Commissioners Absent: Langworthy and Raskin
Staff Present: Kellerman, Keyser, Taylor, Wilcox, Early and Sauerwein
B.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Keyser made the following announcements:
1.PC Member Smith resigned.
2.There is a delay in the parking study analysis.
Chair Preston asked for Commissioner’s thoughts on moving the Special Planning
Commission Meeting time as it has been hard for some members to join at the current
2:00pm start time.
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from February 23, 2021 Special Planning Commission Meeting.
ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring Approved: 4-0
D.AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None.
E.DISCUSSION
1.Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements
Schubring shared presentation.
AGENDA ITEM 4.1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2021.Page 4 of 77
Tom Early answered and discussed the questions that the Commissioner’s prepared for
him.
Nelson calls to motion that the City retains the Suitable Tree List as recommended by
City Tree Consultant.
ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring
Commissioners discussed
Approved: 4-0
Nelson calls to motion to keep definition of significant tree as currently outlined in City
code.
ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Reeves
Commissioners discussed
Approved: 4-0
Schubring calls to motion to raise the application multiplier from .35 to .40
ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Nelson
Commissioners discussed
Approved: 4-0
F. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
G. ADJOURNMENT
Motion Reeves Second Schubring; The Special Planning Commission Meeting adjourned
at 3:51pm
Minutes taken by:
Amber Taylor
AGENDA ITEM 4.1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2021.Page 5 of 77
1
Stephanie Keyser
From:laurelpr@seanet.com
Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 11:47 AM
To:Stephanie Keyser
Subject:FW: Tree permits
Dear Stephanie,
Below please find the relevant text from an email I received from Medina resident Miles
Adam, who is very concerned about the removal of trees from a lot adjacent to the golf
course. The lot is not being redeveloped, so strictly speaking it is not in our current purview.
However, I think it’s useful for the Planning Commission to be aware of these types of
examples as well, as evidence of residents’ concerns over canopy loss. Would you please
include the email text in the next meeting packet?
Miles also recently called my attention to two other properties adjacent to the golf course on
77th that are under redevelopment. Do we have “before” pictures of these properties?
According to Miles, the properties are being cleared or will be cleared shortly.
Thank you,
Laurel
…….
The property in question is at 1818 77th Avenue NE and the tree permit is #21-006. I watched as huge tree after huge
tree was cut down to improve the property’s view of the golf course. I was really stunned that this deforestation was
being permitted so I talked with Steve and he took me through the tree permit. Laurel---------the following trees were
cut down------3 Douglas Firs with DBHs of 32”, 36”, and 42”. Also 2 Red Cedars with DBHs of 20” and 38”. Please try to
visualize the size of these majestic trees------we will never recapture this lost canopy in the lives of the next generation
or two. Our city’s tree permit allowed these trees to be cut down provided that they were replaced by the following
trees--------9 trees of 2” caliper.
While I am not involved with the latest discussions on the city’s tree policies, it seems to me that common sense would
suggest something is wrong. We just let someone cut down mature fully grown trees of DBH 168 inches and plant new
trees of 18 inches of caliper. How can we just eliminate trees measuring DBH of 150 (repeat 150) inches from the
footprint of Medina?? If we continue to allow trade offs like this, we soon will not need a tree policy because our
beloved Medina will have no trees.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my email. You now have feedback from one very concerned citizen. I
hope somehow this example will be studied as you are reviewing the city’s tree permit policy because it provides a good
learning experience for all of us.
AGENDA ITEM 5.1
Public Comment - Email from Miles Adams to Laurel Preston Page 6 of 77
2
Miles Adam
AGENDA ITEM 5.1
Public Comment - Email from Miles Adams to Laurel Preston Page 7 of 77
AGENDA BILL
Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements
Category: Public Hearing Resolution Other - Discussion
Prepared By: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager
Summary:
Planning Commission has been asked to review the tree retention and replacement
requirements for new single-family construction with the understanding that Council wants to
adopt the changes by the end of the year. For April’s meeting, the focus of the discussion will
be on the following:
1.Legacy Trees
a.What number DBH qualifies as one
b.Fee-in-Lieu section
2.Amending Table 20.52.130(C) Existing Tree Unit
3.Location Requirement (if we have time or we will start next month)
It is staff’s opinion that we are on track to be completed with the substantive tree code
amendment by July. To help things along, the following motions are suggested if
Commissioners feel so inclined during the meeting:
•I make a motion to reduce legacy trees from 50” to 36”
•I make a motion to approve the fee-in-lieu section as presented in the staff report
•I make a motion to reduce the tree units in Table 20.52.130(C) by .25
Attachment(s): 7.1 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements
Staff Recommendation: Discussion
Proposed Planning Commission Motion: See above
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 8 of 77
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 27, 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 or NEW will appear at the end of a bolded
title. Items that have been voted on and are therefore finished, will have the word COMPLETED
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 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 9 of 77
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 (COMPLETED – APPROVED MARCH 23rd: 4-0)
The definition of a significant tree will stay as it is currently written in the code.
Better legacy tree protection (UPDATED)
Concern has been expressed that the code does not provide enough protection for legacy trees. One
of the ways to potentially address this would be to lower the threshold for what is considered a
legacy tree from 50” to 36”. This would push any removal of a tree 36” and above to meet the
legacy tree replacement section of the code (MMC 20.52.120(B)). This section requires any legacy
tree that is removed to be replaced by a quantity of 50% of the DBH removed. For a 36” tree, that
would mean replacement inches of 18” on top of any other requirements from removing nonlegacy
trees. If someone were to remove more than one legacy tree, then the replacement trees are
calculated by adding up all of the removed DBH to get to the total number of replacement inches.
For two 36” trees, that would mean 72 replacement inches, or more likely 36 2-inch caliper
replacement trees. This could result in more trees 36” or larger that are saved because the
owner/developer doesn’t want to deal with the replacement requirement, or that more people will
request to utilize the fee-in-lieu section of the code. Staff made the change from 50” to 36” in the
draft code but would like confirmation that this should stay.
Another concern raised is whether the monetary component of the fee-in-lieu of planting section
is too low to actually act as a deterrent. To address this, fees-in-lieu will be permitted only if the
city arborist determines there is insufficient area to replant on site. Additionally, the associated fee
shall be tied to the most current council of tree and landscaper appraiser guide for plant appraisal
(Attachment A). The Council of Tree and Landscaper Appraisers periodically updates their
appraised values, which will take the burden off of the city having to raise the fees every few years.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 10 of 77
Amending tree credit value section MMC 20.52.130(C) (increase or decrease) (NEW)
At the March Planning Commission meeting, the possibility of amending the tree credit value table
(MMC 20.52.130(C)) so that larger trees (36” DBH or greater) were given a value of 1.25 was
suggested (the current code has trees with a DBH of 50” or greater assigned to this value). As staff
began the analysis, it quickly became apparent that assigning trees that are 36” or larger the 1.25
value did not have the impact that was assumed. In fact, it did not alter the net trees of any of the
analyzed permits. Instead of raising the tree credit values, perhaps reducing them would be more
appropriate. In the examples, a reduced tree credit value coupled with the .4 tree density multiplier
resulted in more trees either being saved through retention or by supplemental planting.
The following is an analysis of six previously approved tree permits. Using the approved
applications the examples show: what was permitted per the code; increasing the value to 1.25 for
trees with a 36” DBH or greater; and reducing all of the tree credit values. For ease of reference,
the baseline of what is used for each example is shown in the tables below:
Table for 1st Example (current code)
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
Table for 2nd Example (36” and larger 1.25)
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 36 inches
1.0
36 inches and greater 1.25
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 11 of 77
Table for 3rd Example (reduce all values by .25)
Tree Type
Diameter Breast
Height of Existing
Tree
Tree
Unit
Deciduous 6 to 10 inches 0.5
Greater than 10 inches 0.75
Coniferous
6 to 10 inches 0.5
Greater than 10 inches,
but less than 36 inches
0.75
36 inches and greater 1.0
707 Overlake Drive (TREE-20-049)
This is one of the permits that Steve Wilcox discussed in his presentation. This is a property on a
steep slope critical area and is a heavily wooded site.
Lot size: 19,753
Zoning: R-16
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 35.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 20.75
Net Tree Units: 14.75
Required Tree Units (.35): 6.9 = 7
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 36
Total Tree Units Removed: 21.25 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 14.75
Required Tree Units (.4): 7.9 = 8
Supplemental Units Required: No
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 26.25
Total Tree Units Removed: 15.5 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 10.75
Required Tree Units (.4): 7.9 = 8
Supplemental Units Required: No
Result between tree credit values – No Difference
There was no difference in increasing the tree credit value for the two trees that were 36” on this
site (both of which were approved to be removed) to 1.25. Once the trees that were to be removed
were subtracted from the existing tree units, there was no difference in the net tree units between
the existing code and increasing the credit value for trees larger than 36”. Additionally, by reducing
the number of credits the trees are worth, they would have still been able to remove the same
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 12 of 77
number of trees and have more tree credits than the minimum required. No supplemental trees
would have been required under any of the examples.
Result of legacy tree removal
This project removed two 36” trees. By amending the code to include trees 36” and above, this
would either have required the homeowner to amend their site plan to ensure both trees were saved
(the trees were located on the outer perimeter) or would have required 72” of replacement tree
caliper. If the owner did not want to amend the site plan, this would have likely resulted in the
homeowner requesting to use the in-lieu of planting section of the code.
707 Overlake Drive East
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Madrona 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Douglas Fir 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Madrona 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Tree 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Deciduous 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Tree 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Hemlock 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 10 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 10 0.75 0.75 0.5
Deciduous 10 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 10 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 10 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 12 1 1 0.75
Cedar 12 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 12 x 1 1 0.75
Madrona 12 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 14 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 18 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 22 x 1 1 0.75
Deciduous 22 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 1 1 0.75
Hemlock 24 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 x 1 1 0.75
Deciduous 26 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 26 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 28 1 1 0.75
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 13 of 77
Douglas Fir 30 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 30 1 1 0.75
Cedar 30 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 30 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 36 x 1 1.25 1
Douglas Fir 36 x 1 1.25 1
TOTAL 35.5 36 26.25
7815 NE 28th ST (TREE-20-013)
Lot size: 8,120 sq. ft.
Zoning: R-16
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 12
Total Tree Units Removed: 8.25
Net Tree Units: 3.75
Required Tree Units (.35): 2.9 = 3
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 12.25
Total Tree Units Removed: 8.5 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 3.75
Required Tree Units (.4): 3.2= 4
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 1 tree
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 8.75
Total Tree Units Removed: 6.25 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 2.5
Required Tree Units (.4): 3.2 = 4
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 2 trees
Result between tree credit values – Reducing tree credits with the .4 multiplier resulted in
more trees
The net tree unit number was unchanged for what was permitted per code and increasing the tree
credit value for trees over 36” to 1.25. The .4 multiplier increased the requirement of a
supplemental tree by 1 tree (or this could have been achieved by retaining another tree). Having
the multiplier at .4 plus reducing the tree credit value resulted in 2 additional tree credits, which
again could have been accomplished by retaining two more or by supplemental planting.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 14 of 77
Result of legacy tree removal
This project removed one 44” tree that was located in the corner of the lot. It’s possible that the
site plan would have been amended so that the tree root wasn’t disturbed and the tree could remain,
or that the owners would not be willing to plant 22” of replacement tree caliper and so would ask
to utilize the in-lieu of planting section of the code.
7815 NE 28th
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Cedar 7
0.75 0.75 0.5
Douglas Fir 7 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 7.2
0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8
0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8.5
0.75 0.75 0.5
Plum 9 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Apple 9.5 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Hawthorne 10 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Plum 12.6 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 26 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 28 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 44 x 1 1.25 1
TOTAL 8.25 8.5 6.25
2000 79th Ave NE (TREE-16-013)
Lot size: 40,108 sq. ft.
Zoning: R-20
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 35.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 20.5
Net Tree Units: 15
Required Tree Units (.35): 14
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 36
Total Tree Units Removed: 21 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 15
Required Tree Units (.4): 16
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 15 of 77
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 1 tree
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 26.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 15.5 (based on updated credits)
Net Tree Units: 11
Required Tree Units (.4): 16
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 5 trees
Result between tree credit values – Reducing tree credits with the .4 multiplier resulted in
more trees
Once again, the net tree unit number was unchanged for what was permitted and increasing trees
over 36” to a 1.25 tree credit. The multiplier of .4 increased the requirement of a supplemental tree
by 1 tree (or this could have been achieved by retaining another tree). Having the multiplier at .4
plus the reduced tree credit value resulted in 5 additional trees, which could have been
accomplished by retaining more trees or by supplemental planting.
Result of legacy tree removal
This project removed one 36” tree and one 38” tree, both of which were located well outside of
the building envelope. Due to their locations, it is staff’s opinion that both of these trees were
removed to improve the view of the golf course. Lowering the legacy tree requirements would
have possibly made the owners reconsider removing these trees, or they would have most likely
requested to use the in-lieu of planting section to not have to plant 74” of replacement tree caliper.
2000 79th Avenue NE
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Douglas Fir 10 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cherry 12 0.75 0.75 0.5
Ash 12 0.75 0.75 0.5
Ash 14 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cherry 15 x 1 1 0.75
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 16 of 77
Douglas Fir 16 x 1 1 0.75
Magnolia 16 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 1 1 0.75
Birch 16 1 1 0.75
Maple 17 1 1 0.75
Cedar 18 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 20 x 1 1 0.75
Cherry 20 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 24 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 25 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 26 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 30 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 30 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 30 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 32 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 35 x 1 1 0.75
Hemlock 36 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 38 x 1 1.25 1
TOTAL 35.5 36 26.25
1306 Evergreen Point Road (TREE-17-033)
Lot size: 16,364 sq. ft.
Zoning: R-16
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 22.75
Total Tree Units Removed: 14.5
Net Tree Units: 8.25
Required Tree Units (.35): 5.7=6
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier – this property had no
trees larger than 36”
Total Existing Tree Units: 22.75
Total Tree Units Removed: 14.5 (no trees 36” or larger)
Net Tree Units: 8.25
Required Tree Units (.4): 6.5=7
Supplemental Units Required: No
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 17 of 77
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 16.75
Total Tree Units Removed: 10.75 (no trees 36” or larger)
Net Tree Units: 6
Required Tree Units (.4): 6.5=7
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 1 tree
Result between tree credit values – Reducing tree credits with the .4 multiplier resulted in
more trees
Although there were no trees that were 36” or larger on this site, the increased multiplier and
reduced tree credit value did result in an additional tree.
Result of legacy tree removal
This project did not have any legacy trees.
1306 Evergreen Point Road
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Dogwood 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Dogwood 6 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 8 x 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 8 x 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 8 x 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 9 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 1 1 0.75
Cherry 12 x 1 1 0.75
Ash 12 x 1 1 0.75
Ash 14 1 1 0.75
Cherry 15 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 x 1 1 0.75
Magnolia 16 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 1 1 0.75
Birch 16 x 1 1 0.75
Maple 17 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 18 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 20 x 1 1 0.75
TOTAL 22.75 22.75 16.75
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 18 of 77
1221 Evergreen Point Road (TREE-18-013)
Lot size: 65,556 sq. ft.
Zoning: R-30
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 79.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 29.75
Net Tree Units: 49.75
Required Tree Units (.35): 22.9=23
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 79.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 29.79 (no trees 36” or larger being removed)
Net Tree Units: 49.75
Required Tree Units (.4): 26.22=27
Supplemental Units Required: No
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 59.25
Total Tree Units Removed: 22 (no trees 36” or larger being removed)
Net Tree Units: 37.25
Required Tree Units (.4): 26.222=27
Supplemental Units Required: No
Result between tree credit values – No Difference
Due to the size of the lot and the number of existing trees, there was neither a difference in having
the trees that were 36” on this site (all of which were kept) have a tree credit of 1.25, nor was there
any difference in reducing the tree credit values. No supplemental trees were required for any of
the analyses.
Result of legacy tree removal
This project did not remove any legacy trees.
1221 Evergreen Point Road
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Hazelnut 6 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 19 of 77
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 6.5 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Apple 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Hazelnut 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Hazelnut 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Ash 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Maple 8 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 x 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 9 0.75 0.75 0.5
Cedar 10 1 1 0.75
Cedar 10 1 1 0.75
Cedar 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 10 1 1 0.75
Hawthorn 10 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 10 x 1 1 0.75
Cherry 10 1 1 0.75
Ash 10 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 10 1 1 0.75
Maple 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 11 1 1 0.75
Hemlock 11 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 11 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 12 1 1 0.75
Cedar 12 1 1 0.75
Cedar 12 1 1 0.75
Cedar 12 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 12 x 1 1 0.75
Dogwood 12 x 1 1 0.75
Plum 12 x 1 1 0.75
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 20 of 77
Douglas Fir 12 x 1 1 0.75
Madrone 12 1 1 0.75
Madrone 12 1 1 0.75
Hawthorn 12 1 1 0.75
Cedar 13 1 1 0.75
Yew 13 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 15 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 15 1 1 0.75
Apple 15 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 16 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 16 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 1 1 0.75
Apple 16 x 1 1 0.75
Apple 16 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 1 1 0.75
Cedar 17 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 18 1 1 0.75
Cherry 18 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 20 1 1 0.75
Cottonwood 20 x 1 1 0.75
Cedrus 22 x 1 1 0.75
Cypress 22 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 23 1 1 0.75
Cedar 23 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 23 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 26 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 27 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 27 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 35 x 1 1 0.75
Cedar 35 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 36 1 1.25 1
Maple 36 1 1.25 1
Cottonwood 36 1 1.25 1
Cottonwood 36 1 1.25 1
Cottonwood 38 1 1.25 1
TOTAL 79.5 80.75 59.25
2626 78th Avenue NE (TREE-20-008)
Lot size: 8,120 sq. ft.
Zoning: R-16
Permitted
Total Existing Tree Units: 10
Total Tree Units Removed: 7
Net Tree Units: 3
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 21 of 77
Required Tree Units (.35): 3
Supplemental Units Required: No
Using 1.25 tree credits for trees 36” and greater and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 10.5
Total Tree Units Removed: 7.5
Net Tree Units: 3
Required Tree Units (.4): 3.2=4
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 1 tree
Reducing tree credits and the .4 multiplier
Total Existing Tree Units: 8
Total Tree Units Removed: 5.75
Net Tree Units: 2.25
Required Tree Units (.4): 3.2=4
Supplemental Units Required: Yes – 2 trees
Result between tree credit values – Reducing tree credits with the .4 multiplier resulted in
more trees
Again, assigning trees 36” or larger a tree credit of 1.25 did not result in much of a difference.
However, the increased multiplier along with a reduction in tree credit value resulted in two
additional trees, which could have been satisfied by either retaining two more trees or supplemental
plantings.
Result of legacy tree removal
This project removed one 38” tree and one 39” tree. The 39” tree was located in the front of the
property and the 38” was located in the rear building envelope. It’s possible that the 39” tree would
have been saved but the 38” would have only been saved with a redesign of the house and possibly
some sort of variance for setbacks. If the owner elected to have both trees removed, a small lot
(8,120 sq. ft.) could not reasonably support 77” of replacement tree caliper and so they would have
had to request the in-lieu of planting section.
2626 78th Ave NE
Tree Credit Analysis Table
Description Tree
Diameter
Proposed
Removal
Tree Credits
Per Existing
Code
Tree Credits
w/ 36” DBH
and larger at
1.25
Tree Credits
Reduced
Cedar 10 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 15 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 16 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 17 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 17 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 26 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 29 x 1 1 0.75
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 22 of 77
Douglas Fir 33 x 1 1 0.75
Douglas Fir 38 x 1 1.25 1
Douglas Fir 39 x 1 1.25 1
TOTAL 10 10.5 8
Conclusions for reducing legacy trees to 36” or greater
Throughout the analysis of tree permits this year, it has been fairly evident that if a property is
heavily wooded the homeowner can cut down a large number of trees; no slight modification or
tweaking of numbers is going to change that. This is evidenced by the analysis of 707 Overlake
Drive and 1221 Evergreen Point Road, both of which were heavily wooded and both of which
were able to remove a large number of trees as a result. It is staff’s opinion that putting in place
priorities for areas of retention should help curb the clear-cut complaints that are received.
However, if after five or so more years this does not create the intended result, then the city should
perhaps consider either varying tree retention requirements based on lot size or existing on-site
canopy.
In analyzing six approved tree permits, raising the credit for trees that are 36” or larger to 1.25
credits did not seem to have the impact that was hypothesized at the March meeting. Permits where
larger trees had been removed would not have been hindered by this additional .25 tree credit
value. It’s possible that a change like that might encourage someone to save one or two additional
trees, but ultimately the impact would be minimal. On average, increasing the tree density
multiplier from .35 to .4 (which was voted unanimously to recommend in March) will have the
result of requiring an additional tree. Reducing the tree credit values by .25 seems to result in more
trees either being saved or requiring supplemental plantings more often.
Reducing the DBH of what qualifies as a legacy would require those trees to follow the legacy tree
protection measures (MMC 20.52.120) which includes the replacement section. Large lots would
be able to accommodate at least some of the replanting that is required more often than small lots.
The specific tree species that the city requires/encourages (COMPLETED – APPROVED
MARCH 23rd: 4-0)
The list of significant trees will stay. The only caveat will be for the list to perhaps be updated at
the staff level in the future, and for the list to be put back into the code.
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
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 23 of 77
enforcement section. However, Planning Commission is a recommending body and it is ultimately
up to Council to decide what should and should not be included.
Numerical tree replacement requirement; Location of trees, both removal and replacement;
Making sure the code is simple and flexible
Large Lot (+20,000 sq. ft.) Considerations
Large lots (anything 20,000 square feet or larger) statistically have more trees than smaller lots.
This should not be surprising, nor should it be surprising that these larger, more heavily wooded
lots are able to cut down more trees. In the future, and with another tree canopy assessment, it
would be reasonable to do an analysis and require coverage or the density ratio based on lot size,
however this is currently outside of the scope and timeframe for this amendment. One of the
complaints often heard is the perceived ‘clear cutting’ that these larger lots seemingly are able to
accomplish. One of the ways to address this is to require a percentage of the retained trees to be
located within the setbacks in the following prioritized locations: front yard, rear yard, side yard.
Staff is of the opinion that this type of requirement would not be appropriate for smaller lots that
may only have two or three trees to begin with.
Update Density Ratio to .4 (COMPLETED – APPROVED MARCH 23rd: 4-0)
The increase in the density ratio requirement from .35 to .4, as was recommended by the city
arborist and staff, was approved.
Draft Code
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 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 24 of 77
20.52.110 Tree retention requirements priorities.
A. Where land is designated as under development pursuant to MMC 20.52.100 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 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.
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.
A. The retention of healthy significant trees shall be taken into account in accordance with the
following guidance:
1. Achieving the required tree density ratio pursuant to Table 20.52.130(B) shall be
included as a primary step in site planning. Site design strategies and specific
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 25 of 77
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.
B. A tree retention plan shall be prepared with consideration of the following retention priorities.
The priorities of which significant trees are to be retained shall be based upon the site conditions,
the recommendations from a qualified arborist, and the following objectives:
1. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy.
2. Significant trees located adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers.
3. Significant trees located within the first 20 feet adjacent to a property line.
4. Significant trees which will be used as part of a low impact development (LID) storm
water facility.
5. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than twenty-four (24) inches
DBH.
C. For lots larger than 20,000 square feet, excluding lots within the shoreline jurisdiction as
provided in MMC 20.66.050, the tree density ratio shall be meet in the following way:
1. At least 25 percent of the required significant trees as determined by MMC 20.52.130
shall be retained within the site perimeter in the following order of priority:
a. Within the first 20 feet of the front property line.
b. Within the first 20 feet of the rear property line.
c. Within the first 10 feet of the side property lines.
2. At least 15 percent of the required significant trees as determined by MMC 20.52.130
shall be retained within the site interior.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 26 of 77
D. 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.
E. When calculating retention requirements, trees excluded from retention requirements shall not
be included in the calculation.
F. 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.
G. 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 as
described in Chapters 20.50 and 20.67.
20.52.120 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. Legacy trees within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated in MMC
20.66.050.
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 5036 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
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 27 of 77
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:
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 If the city arborist determines there is
insufficient area to replant on-site or within the adjacent public right-of-way, the city arborist
may authorize payment of a fee-in-lieu provided:
1. There is insufficient area on the lot or adjacent right-of-way to meet the number of
replacement inches prescribed in subsection (B) of this section; or
2. Tree replacement or management provided within public right-of-way or a city park in the
vicinity will be of greater benefit to the community.
13. Planting at least tThree replacement trees for each legacy tree removed are planted; and
24. Contributing to the Medina tree fund at a rate of $400.00 per each replacement inch not
accounted for in the planting of replacement trees; and Fees shall be provided in lieu of on-
site tree replacement based upon the following:
a. The expected tree replacement cost including labor, materials, and maintenance for
each replacement tree; and
b. The most current Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
5. Any fee-in-lieu requires an explicit written agreement between the city and the applicant.
36. The sum of the tree replacement inches accounted for by contributing to the Medina tree
fund fee-in-lieu 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 20.52.1340(D)(4)(a)
through (d) and (g);
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 28 of 77
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 iIf 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 20.52.140(AC2), (B), (C), and (E) are
acceptable alternatives to on-site replacement tree planting.
20.52.130 Minimum performance standards for land under development
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. Figure 20.52.130 outlines the
primary steps prescribed by this section in establishing requirements and determining
compliance with this chapter.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 29 of 77
Figure 20.52.130 Tree Performance Process
B. Lots with land under development 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(B); and
3. The resulting product is rounded up to the next whole number to establish the minimum
number of required tree units.
Table 20.52.130(B) Tree Density Ratio
Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density Ratio
R-16, R-20, R-30 & SR-30
Residential 0.3540
Golf Course 0.15
Nonresidential other than specifically
listed
0.25
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 30 of 77
Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density Ratio
Public
Schools 0.15
Parks 0.42
Residential 0. 3540
Nonresidential other than specifically
listed
0.25
N-A All 0.25
State Highway All 0.12
C. 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 20.52.130(C); 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 (C) 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 (D) of this section.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 31 of 77
Table 20.52.130(C) 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
D. 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 (D)(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 (D)(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 20.52.130(D);
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 (D)(3)(d) of this section, and consistent with subsection (D)(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 (C) of this section; and
d. Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum required tree units
shall not be required.
e. See Diagram 20.52.130 for an example of calculating supplemental trees.
Table to be
discussed/clarified
at April meeting
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 32 of 77
Table 20.52.130(D) 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 20.52.130 Example Calculating Supplemental Trees
4. Minimum Development Standards Applicable to All Supplemental Trees.
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;
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 33 of 77
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.
20.52.140 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;
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
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 34 of 77
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 20.52.130(D), the trees shall be
planted in the following order of priority:
1. On-site and adjacent 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 Chapters 20.50 and
20.67;
b. Within the site perimeter in the following order of priority:
i. Within the first 20 feet of the front property line.
ii. Within the first 20 feet of the rear property line.
iii. Within the first 10 feet of the side property lines.
c. Adjacent to a low impact development (LID) stormwater facility;
d. Within the immediately adjacent 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 not immediately adjacent to the property;
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. Fee-in-Lieu. If the city arborist determines there is insufficient area to replant on-site or
within the adjacent public right-of-way, the city arborist may authorize payment of a fee-in-
lieu provided:
a. There is insufficient area on the lot or adjacent right-of-way for proposed on-site tree
replacement to meet the tree replacement requirements of this chapter; or
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 35 of 77
b. Tree replacement or management provided within public right-of-way or a city park in
the vicinity would be of greater benefit to the community.
c. Fees provided in lieu of on-site tree replacement shall be determined based upon:
i. The expected tree replacement cost including labor, materials, and maintenance
for each replacement tree; and
ii. The most current Council of Tree and Landscaper Appraisers Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
d. Any fee-in-lieu requires an explicit written agreement between the city and the
applicant.
D. An owner may select to apply a combination of planting trees on site, off site and/or fee-in-
lieu 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 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 36 of 77
FNR-473-W
Tree Appraisal and the Value of Trees
Author
Lindsey Purcell
RCA, BCMA
Urban Forestry Specialist,
Purdue University Department
of Forestry & Natural Resources
Forestry and Natural Resources
Contributor
Jeffrey Ling
RCA, TPAQ
Arborwise
Trees provide many benefits and great value to
property owners in functional, aesthetic, social,
environmental, and even economic ways.
Functional benefits include mitigating climate
change by storing carbon, removing pollution from
the atmosphere, managing stormwater runoff, and
improving air quality. Trees provide oxygen and
many other benefits — such as shade, which can
impact home cooling costs.
The collective value of trees makes a difference in
people’s health and quality of life in cities and towns
everywhere. In fact, it is also possible to calculate
the benefits provided by each individual tree in any
landscape by visiting the MyTree website at https://
mytree.itreetools.org/.
What is the value or worth of a tree?
Value may be defined as the monetary worth of an
item at a given time with the expectation of benefit.
A dollar figure in a formal tree appraisal, which
provides an estimate or approximate value, can
quantify many of these benefits. However, a tree’s
true worth may be judged by a sale or, in litigious
situations, a court ruling.
The valuation of trees and living landscape
components requires training, expertise, and
experience. Just like any real estate or professional
appraiser, plant appraisers have the responsibility
of assigning values and preparing to defend,
explain, and support their results.
If you are pursuing tree valuation, you should
retain the services of a qualified consulting
arborist who can properly apply methods and
techniques that best relate to your situation.
Three methods used to appraise trees and
landscapes — Cost Approach, Income Approach,
and Sales Comparison Approach — are described
in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition.
Authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers (CTLA), published by the
International Society of Arboriculture, and
endorsed by the major arboriculture and
horticulture organizations, this guide represents a
critical resource for sound plant valuation.
www.fnr.purdue.edu
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 37 of 77
2
Determine the functional limitations of the tree and its interaction with site elements.
Evaluation of the structural integrity and overall health of trees is an important component of
the appraisal process.
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
Why should a tree be appraised?
Tree appraisal assigns monetary importance to any
tree on a site that is indicative of the tree’s
contribution to the site, especially when
construction may affect plants on the property.
Basically, an appraisal constitutes developing an
opinion of value or cost of a site’s landscape
elements. An appraisal’s purpose is defined by a
client’s needs, which may include unexpected losses,
tort claims, insurance claims, tax deductions, real
estate assessment, and proactive planning.
The best time to conduct an appraisal is prior to any
incident with, or damage to, a tree. However, most
appraisals occur after a tree has been removed or
damaged. Such situations require additional
investigation and might include a determination of
pre-casualty value or comparative sampling on a
local basis. Provided they are available, previous site
records, tree assessments, site reviews, and even
witnesses can help determine a tree’s pre-damage
condition.
After gathering every relevant fact, the appraiser
determines the appropriate method of appraisal and
provides an unbiased valuation. The appraiser
should document all activities related to this
process, from initiating client contact and
establishing a tree’s background information to
inspecting a site, collecting data, and formulating a
reasonable and defensible value.
One technique outlined in the Guide for Plant
Appraisal is the Trunk Formula Technique (TFT),
which appraises larger trees in the landscape within
the Cost Approach. Used by professional appraisers,
this technique extrapolates costs to purchase the
largest commonly available nursery tree relative to
the size of the appraised tree. This means the costs
of a nursery tree can be proportionally increased to
infer the cost of a larger tree. Small trees being
appraised, less than 4 caliper inches or an 8-foot
conifer, would be figured at retail cost.
The value based on the TFT application is a
calculation generated by using unit tree costs. The
unit tree costs required for this formula must be
obtained either from local resources as determined
by the consulting arborist or collected by the
Regional Plant Appraisal Committee (RPAC). The
RPAC is comprised of industry experts who are
typically associated with their local chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture. This
committee gathers data based on statewide
information to determine unit costs for commonly
available trees, the trees’ obtainability, and their
functional limitation in your area.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 38 of 77
3
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
There may be external limitations outside the tree owner’s control — such as the site location — that can affect tree value.
A diameter tape aids in calculating tree size.
RPAC information and data is a baseline for species; it is the
responsibility of the appraiser to determine tree species
ratings and wholesale values based on availability in a
region.
Ratings for common Indiana tree species can be found at the
Indiana Arborist Association website (www.indianaarborist.
org). Statewide surveys have determined that for the
computations needed for cost techniques, the largest
commonly available, transplanted deciduous tree would be
3.5 caliper inches with a unit tree cost of $37.67.
Calculating a tree’s value using the TFT begins with
multiplying the cross-sectional area of the tree by the unit
tree cost. To determine a tree’s cross-sectional area, you must
first calculate the tree’s diameter at breast height (DBH).
DBH is measured using a special diameter-measuring tape
wrapped around the tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. In lieu
of the special measuring tape, regular measuring tape can be
used to determine circumference and that number divided
by 3.14 to calculate DBH. Once the diameter is determined,
divide by 2 to get the radius. Multiplying that number by the
unit tree cost will then provide the overall basic cost.
For example: If a tree has a diameter of 20 inches, the
computation would be 10 x 10 x 3.14 — equaling 314 inches.
Multiplying 314 by a unit cost of $37.67 equals $11,828,
which is the overall basic cost. However, this is not
necessarily the “value” of the tree. Additional factors will
affect a tree’s value, which is why a professional appraiser is
recommended for an accurate value.
Factors in Appraisals
Depreciation
Accurate appraisal values will reflect the application of
depreciation factors. Professional appraisers use depreciation
in their valuation process to justify differences in a new,
“perfect” tree compared to the appraised tree. This will
account for less-than-ideal tree characteristics, placement in
the landscape, or the site it occupies. The three depreciation
factors or variables include actual condition of the tree,
functional limitations, and external limitations.
Condition
As it relates to a depreciation factor in tree valuation,
“condition” refers to the assessment of overall tree health.
Professional appraisers will assess a tree’s vigor, looking for
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 39 of 77
Properly placed trees can add value to your home and property.
4
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
the presence of pest issues and any stress symptoms. They
also will consider the tree’s structure and form — reviewing
branch habits to determine if there is a strong, stable
structure with good branch attachments and spacing and if
the tree has a good form for its species. Each species has a
typical genetic form, or “normal” traits, representative of its
species. However, most trees are not normal or typical. See
Table 1 for more information on rating the condition.
Functional limitations
Functional limitations applied as depreciation factors in tree
valuation are primarily associated with the tree itself or the
site on which it’s located. These are factors that may limit
future growth, development, and overall health. Site
conditions and placement, such as proximity to utility lines,
could limit full development due to necessary pruning for
clearance. Professional appraisers will investigate any genetic
limitations related to the genus and species itself. These
include naturally poor branch systems, susceptibility to
pests, or invasive tendencies as examples that would
depreciate a tree’s value.
External limitations
External limitations applied as depreciation factors in tree
valuation include issues outside the control of the tree’s
owner that may affect sustainability, structure health, or tree
form. One example of external limitations would be
environmental circumstances such as water availability,
issues with threats from pests, or utility vegetation
management concerns where there are impending conflicts
between power lines and a tree. Additionally, local
ordinances, easements, or rights of ways may be factors that
affect life expectancy.
When applying depreciation factors toward overall basic
cost, a professional appraiser will assign a rating to each of
these three depreciation categories: condition, functional
limitations, and external limitations. The overall basic cost is
multiplied by the determined value in each of these three
categories to estimate the depreciated cost — the final
functional reproduction value using the Trunk Formula
Technique.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 40 of 77
5
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
Tree appraisals must be reasonable and defensible.
The Trunk Formula Technique is only one method to appraise
large trees. It is important to realize that estimates of a tree’s value
may not be proportionate to the value of a property or what
would actually be paid for a tree. Studies estimate that trees may
account for up to 15% of a residential property’s value. Much
lower values could result, given such other circumstances and
factors as location.
For example: An ideal, mature sugar maple with a 24-inch
diameter at breast height may be valued at more than $15,000,
but the home it resides next to may be worth $35,000. This is an
unrealistic tree value that is not reasonable in any professional
appraisal situation. Legitimate appraisal values should be
reasonable and defensible; this requires a knowledgeable,
professional consulting arborist.
Tree Appraisal Scenario
Let’s put the Trunk Formula Technique to work with an example
for a typical suburban landscape.
Example
A residential site in an Indiana neighborhood has a sugar maple
(Acer saccharum) on the front lawn, shading the front of the
home. Measuring 14 inches at breast height, the tree is in good
condition and in a proper location. The tree’s owners wish
to have it appraised to determine the value of the tree on
their property.
The appraisal calculation method would be as follows:
1. Basic Reproduction Cost = CSA x UTC
CSA = Cross-sectional area of the subject tree
UTC = Unit tree cost, determined by the Regional Plant
Appraisal Committee (RPAC) or local wholesale cost
2. Depreciated Reproduction Cost = CR x F x E x BRC
CR = Condition rating
F = Functional limitations rating
E = External limitations rating
BRC = Basic reproduction cost
3. Total Additional Costs = cleanup, installation,
maintenance
These other costs would be included if there is a loss
that requires the removal of a tree and the installation
of a new tree, along with post-planting care costs for a
determined time.
4. Total Reproduction Cost = DRC + TAC
DRC = Depreciated Reproduction Cost
TAC = Total Additional Costs
5. Appraisal Value = Total Reproduction Cost rounded to
the nearest thousand.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 41 of 77
6
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
Now, back to our example using the steps above:
1. Basic Reproduction Cost: 154” CSA x $37.67 UTC =
$5,801
2. Depreciated Reproduction Cost: 1.0 CR x .80 F x 1.0 E
x $5,801 BRC = $4,640
3. Total Additional Costs: $0 (not applicable in this
example)
4. Total Reproduction Cost: $4,640 DRC + $0 TAC =
$4,640
5. Appraisal Value: $5,000 (TRC rounded to the nearest
thousand)
Following the calculated steps, the reproduction value of
the tree would be $5,000.
This value is the reproduction cost of the tree if it were
destroyed or lost. In other words, it is the cost to replace a
tree with an exact replica.
As mentioned: Dependent upon appraisal situations, there
are other approaches, methods, and techniques beyond the
Trunk Formula Technique used to estimate costs and tree
values. These alternative means may be found in the Guide
for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition. Arboricultural consultants
should utilize the guide as a resource to develop a
professional work product.
Summary and Resources
Tree appraisal is a professional service provided by
consulting arborists. An appraiser may assume the role of
mediator, arbitrator, consulting expert, or expert witness. In
many situations, an appraisal might be disputed in a lawsuit.
An appraiser should maintain professional liability insurance
for litigation cost protection. This publication is for
educational purposes only to provide an awareness of tree
value. When an expert opinion is necessary — as for an
insurance or legal claim — it is highly recommended that a
tree owner consult with a professional arborist trained in
current appraisal methodology.
For a list of professional arborists, consult the following
online resources:
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered
Consulting Arborist: https:/www.asca-consultants.org/
default.aspx
International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist:
https://www.treesaregood.org/findanarborist
Depreciation can be significant where overhead utilities
are present.
Tree condition and form play a major role in depreciation of plant value.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 42 of 77
Tree Appraisal • FNR-473-W
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs, services, activities, and facilities without regard
to race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, disability or status as a veteran.
Purdue University is an Affirmative Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.
Nov. 2019
Order or download materials from
Purdue Extension • The Education Store
www.edustore.purdue.edu 7
Condition
Rating
Tree Structure
Consider root condition/formation, trunk
condition, and branch assembly and
arrangement.
Tree Health
Consider crown indicators — including vigor,
density, leaf size, quality, and stem shoot
extensions.
Tree Form
Consider the general shape
and overall form.
Formula
Values
Excellent
Root plate undisturbed and clear of any
obstructions. Trunk flare has normal
development. No visible trunk defects or
cavities. Branch spacing/structure and
attachments are free of any defects.
Perfect specimen with excellent form and
vigor, along with a well-balanced crown.
Trunk is sound and solid. No apparent pest
problems. Normal to exceeding shoot length
on new growth. Normal leaf size and color.
Exceptional life expectancy for the species.
Ideal tree for that species,
including shape and
canopy symmetry, health,
and density. Outstanding
function on the site or
location.
1.0-.90
Good
Root plate appears normal, with only
minor damage. Possible signs of root
dysfunction around trunk flare. Minor trunk
defects from previous injury, with good
closure and less than 25% of bark section
missing. Good branch habit; minor dieback
with some signs of previous pruning. Co-
dominant stem formation may be present,
requiring minor corrections.
Imperfect canopy density in 10% or less
of the tree. Lacks natural symmetry. Less
than half the normal growth rate and minor
deficiency in leaf development. Few pest
issues or damage, and controllable if present.
Normal branch and stem development with
healthy growth. Typical life expectancy for the
species.
Nearly ideal tree for that
species, including shape and
canopy symmetry, health,
and density. Functions well
on the site or location..90-.75
Fair
Root plate reveals previous damage or
disturbance. Dysfunctional roots may be
visible around the main stem. Evidence of
trunk damage or cavities, with decay or
defects present and less than 30% of bark
sections missing on trunk. Co-dominant
stems are present. Branching habit and
attachments indicate poor pruning
or damage, which requires moderate
corrections.
Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of
the canopy. Poor overall symmetry. Leaf
size smaller and color somewhat chlorotic.
Shoot extensions indicate some stunting
and stressed growing conditions. Obvious
signs of pest problems contribute to a lesser
condition. Some decay areas found in the
main stem and branches. Below-average life
expectancy for the species.
Acceptable tree for that
species. Tree shape and
symmetry are adequate,
with some substantial
asymmetry in shape and
canopy form. May have
considerable concerns for its
use and function on the site
or location.
.75-.50
Poor
Root plate disturbance and defects
indicate major damage, with girdling roots
around the trunk flare. Trunk reveals more
than 50% of bark section missing. Branch
structure has poor attachments, with
several structurally important branches
dead or broken. Canopy reveals signs of
damage or previous topping or lion-tailing,
with major corrective action required.
Lacking a full crown, with more than 50%
decline and dieback that especially affects
larger branches. Stunting obvious, with
little evidence of growth on smaller stems.
Leaf size and color reveals overall stress
in the plant. Insect or disease infestation
may be severe. Extensive decay or hollow
characteristics. Low life expectancy for the
species.
Poor tree for that species.
Highly irregular canopy
shape and undesirable form
make it unattractive and
dysfunctional on the site or
location.
.50-.30
Very Poor
Severe damage within the root plate and
root collar exhibits major defects that could
lead to tree death or failure. A majority of
the bark or trunk is affected, either decayed
or missing. Branching is extremely poor
or severely topped, with severe dieback
in canopy. Little or no opportunity for
mitigation of any tree parts.
More than 70% of the canopy is in severe
decline or dead. Canopy density is extremely
low, with chlorotic and necrotic tissue
dominating the canopy. Severe decay in the
trunk and major branches. Root plate damage
with a majority of roots damaged, diseased
or missing. Very low life expectancy for the
species.
Disagreeable tree for
that species, with highly
diminished function and
aesthetic appeal on the site or
location..30 -.10
Dead .10 or less
Table 1. Condition Rating for Landscape Trees
This table is a general representation to assist in formula values. The tree condition ratings described below encompass factors of a tree’s health, form, and above- and
below-ground structure. Each tree can have any combination of the following health or structural issues, as well as others not mentioned. The expression of symptoms and
signs is subjective. The appraiser should consider individual tree species characteristics and use existing circumstances as a reasonable scale to determine a tree’s condition.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 43 of 77
TREE20-049
Example 1
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 44 of 77
30
Example 1
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 45 of 77
1 00
9 0
8 5
1 0 5
9 5
1 15
1 10
MP 16*
CE30
D F 12CE12
DF 32
DF 32
M A12
CH8CH6
CE10
H E8 C E6
C E10
CE6
DF16
DF22
CE 18
H E14
DS22
M P14*
M P12
DF 30
D F 36
M A6
CE 10
CE10 D F 28
DF 32
D S26
D F 24
DF26
DF16
DF 22
DF32
DS8
DF36
DF26
DF26
DF26DF18
DF 16
DF 40DF14
D F 32
D F 28
CE 12
M A6
D F 32
DS 10
DF26
D F 24
DF30
D F 6
DF 30
DF36
74
7 6
7 8
8 2
8 4
8 6
8 8
9 2
94
96
98
102
104
106
108
112
11
4
118
74
78
8 2
8 4
8 6
88
9 2
9 4
9 6
9 8
1 0 2
1 0 4
1 0 6
10 8
6 8
7 2
7 4
7 6
7 8
8 2
8 4
8 6
8 8
9 2
94
102
1 0 4
10 6
10 8
112
1 1 4
1 1 6
118
122
96
98
102
1 0 4
6
4
66
8 0
9 0
100
110
120
7 0
80
90
1 0 0
11 0
7 0
8 0
90
1 0 0
110
120
10
0
10 0
10
0
90
90
80
8 0
7 0
80
29.0
'
14.6'
13.2'
25.6'
18.6'
7.
3'
10.7'
3.1'
5.0'
13.0'
7.7'
19.3'
N 3 4°21 '1 9 "E479.40'
T
W
O ST
ORY
HOU
SE
W/ BA
SEM
EN
T
CARP
O
R
T
DECK
ABO
VE
R
O
OF
OV
ERHAN
G
(TYPICAL)
BUILD
IN
G
OVERHAN
G
(TYPICAL)
DECK
DECK
DECK
TIM
BE
R
W
A
LL
FINISH FLOOR
BASEM
ENT
= 93.8'
FINIS
H FL
O
O
R
=
10
3.3'
RIDG
E HEIG
HT
=12
7.8'
DECK
SS
M
HRIM = 116.34'
INV S-N = 109.72'
CBRIM = 74.39'
INV S
W = 69.78'
INV N
E
= 69.51'
INV S
E = 71.1
8
'
TELEPHO
N
E PEDESTAL
PARCEL NO.383550-1955
PARCEL NO.383550-1951
FOU
ND BE
NT REBAR
0.69' N & 0.58' W
FIRE HY
DRAN
T
73'
3
0
'
3
0
'
ORI
GI
NAL
GRA
DE
NE 7T
H S
T
R
EE
T
O V E RL A K E D RIV E E
N74°32'49"E (M) N74°35'19"E (DEED)
133.79'
N
5
5
°
3
8
'
2
8
"
W
(
M
)
N
5
5
°
3
5
'
3
8
"
W
(
D
E
E
D
)
5
0
.
4
2
'
N3 4 °2 1 '32 "E
23 5.1 5 ' (M 0 24 2 .4 7' (D E E D )
R =5 3 1.6 3'
A=1 9 1.76 '
D = 20 °4 0 '0 0 "
P
HVAC
STEEP SLOPE AREA
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
9698
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118120120
118
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
O VERLAK
E
DR I VE
NE
7
T
H STREET
92
CONSTRUC
TION FENC
E LI
N
E
S I L T FEN C E L I NE
KEEP EXISTING CARPORT
RETAINING WALLS
1
0
'
M
I
N
.
B
U
F
F
E
R
BUFFER FENCE LINE TO
BE MARKED &
VERIFIED BY LICENSED
SURVEYOR
8658 NE 7
T
H
S
T
SD
SD
SD
SI L T F ENCE LIN E
CONSTRUCTION FENCE LINE
T2
T6
T7
T8
T9
T12
T11
T13
T15
T14
T21
T20T23
T1
T10
T16
R 20' - 0
"R 6 ' - 0 "
R 16' - 0"
R 4' - 0"
R 3' - 0"
R 12' - 0"
R 13' - 0"
R
1
4
'
-
0
"
R 16 ' - 0"R 5' - 0 "
R 5' - 0 "
R 3 ' - 0"
R 15' - 0"
R 7' - 0"
R
11
' -
0
"R 1 5 ' - 0 "
R 7 ' - 0 "
R 14' - 0"
R
1
6' -
0
"
R 9' - 0 "
R 13'
-
0"
NEIGHBOR'S TREE
DRIP LINE
ENCROACHMENT:
5'6"/20' = 28%
NEIGHBOR'S TREE
DRIP LINE
ENCROACHMENT:
3'"/13' = 23%
NOTE: SEE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND SECTIONS ON SHEETS
B5.0, B5.1-5.4 FOR DETAILS ON EXCAVATION ENCROACHMENT
AND RETAINING WALL LOCATION DETAILS.
CONSULT WITH ARBORIST BEFORE EXCAVATION.
STEEP SLOPE AREA
KEEP EXISTING
RETAINING
WALLSX
T1
T2
T3 XT4
XT5 T6
T7
T8T10
T9
T11
T12
T15 T14
T13
T16XT17
T21
T20
XT18
XT19
XT22
T23
XT24 XT25
XT26
XT27XT39 XT36
XT35
XT37 XT38
XT34 XT33
XT30
XT31 XT32
T28
T29 X
X
NEW RESIDENTIAL
PERVIOUS/IMPERVIOUS
AREAS
DO NOT REMOVE
T17 AND T22 STUMPS
TO MAINTAIN SLOPED
GRADES
REGISTERED
ARCHITECT
MARK CRUZ
STATE OF WASHINGTON
20105468
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
Sheet Title:
70
7
O
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
D
R
I
V
E
E
A
S
T
ME
D
I
N
A
,
W
A
,
9
8
0
3
9
PH
A
M
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
CRUZ ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN
T: 971.808.4777
MARK@CRUZAD.COM
CruzAD
3/32" = 1'-0"
10
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
0
3
:
1
8
:
0
4
P
M
B3.0
TREE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Checker
Author
07/07/2020
A110
3/32" = 1'-0"
01 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIGNATED SPACE SET ASIDE FOR THE PRESERVED TREES, AND THESE TREES ARE
PROTECTED AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ARE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. COMPLY TO STANDARDS SET FORTH UNDER BMP T101.
1. ALL RETAINED TREES WILL HAVE A "TREE PROTECTION ZONE" OR TPZ OF 1 FOOT PER DIAMETER INCH AROUND THE DRIPLINE OF THE REMAINING TRESS.
2. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE ERECTED PER THE PLAN ON THIS SHEET PRIOR TO MOVING ANY HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON SITE. DOING THIS WILL SET
CLEARING LIMITS AND AVOID COMPACTION OF SOILS WITHIN ROOT ZONES OF RETAINED TREES.
3. EXCAVATION LIMITS SHOULD BE LAID OUT IN PAINT ON THE GROUND TO AVOID OVER EXCAVATING.
4. EXCAVATIONS WITHIN THE DRIP LINES OF RETAINED TREES SHALL BE MONITORED BY A QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL SO NECECESSARY PRECAUTIONS
CAN BE TAKEN TO DECREASE IMPACTS TO TREE PARTS. A QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL SHALL MONITOR EXCAVATIONS WHEN WORK IS AUTHORIZED IN
THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE.
5. TO ESTABLISH SUB GRADE FOR FOUNDATION, CURBS AND PAVEMENT SECTIONS NEAR THE TREES, SOIL SHOULD BE REMOVED AWAY FROM THE ROOT
SYSTEM AND NOT AT 90 DEGREE ANGLES TO AVOID BREAKING AND TEARING ROOTS THAT LEAD BACK TO THE TRUNK. ANY ROOTS DAMAGED DURING
THESE EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE EXPOSED TO SOUND TISSUE AND CUT CLEANLY WITH A SAW. CUTTING TOOLS SHOULD BE STERILIZED WITH ALCOHOL.
6. AREAS EXCAVATED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF RETAINED TREES SHOULD BE THROUGHLY IRRIGATED WEEKLY DURING DRY PERIODS.
7. PREPARATIONS FOR FINAL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY HAND WITHIN THE DRIP LINES OF RETAINED TREES. LARGE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
KEPT OUTSIDE OF THE TREE PROTECTED ZONES.
8.REMOVE IVY GROUND COVERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COMPLETION.
9.COVER EXPOSED GROUND WITH WOOD CHIPS TO RETAIN GROUND MOISTURE.
10.RE-PLANT REMOVED HEALTHY TREES AS FEASIBLE
3/32" = 1'-0"
01 - EXISTING SITE - TREES ID
No. Description Date
6'-2
"
5'
-
4
"
5'-3"
6'-3"
2'-1"
2
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
4
"
5'-9
"
5'-
5
"
2
'
-
8
"
4'-4
"
6'
-
7
"
Approved Medina Tree
Activity Permit Plan
12/18/2020
Tom Early
Medina Tree Consultant
Example 1
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
4
6
o
f
7
7
CITY OF MEDINA | 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD, MEDINA, WA 98039 | PHONE: (425) 233-6400
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of the above property or the duly authorized agent of the owner(s) and that all
applicable information furnished in support of this application is true, correct and complete.
Print Name:__________________________________________________ Owner Agent (check one)
Signature:___________________________________________________ Date:_______________________________
City Use Only
Application Fee: Receipt # Planning Review: / /
Tech Fee: Date paid: Tree Consultant Review: / /
Advanced Deposit: Check if issued same
day as submittal Final Inspection: / /
Rev. 07.31.2015
CITY OF MEDINA
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
425-233-6414
425-233-6400
Administrative Tree
Activity Permit T-01
Instructions: Complete this form for the following:
•The property is designated as under development (MMC 20.52.100)
•Removal of any significant tree on private property having a 6-inch DBH and larger size that is not a legacy tree
•Removal of any non-significant tree on private property within 200 feet of the shoreline having a 6-inch DBH and larger size that is
not a legacy tree
•Removal of a hazard tree from the city right-of-way
New Application
Supplemental Staff
Only Date Received: By: Permit No.
Property Information
Property Address: Check if tree is:
Within 200 feet of shoreline
Within a critical area (MMC 20.50) Tax Parcel No.
Legal Property Owner Information
Name: Email:
Mailing Address: City State Zip Phone:
Contact/ Agent Information
Name: Email:
Address: Phone:
Contractor Information Email & Phone:
Project Information
Is the property under development?
Yes No Check One: Application is for tree performance standards (attach form T-01a)
Application is for tree restoration standards (attach form T-01b)
Application Submittal Checklist
The following materials are required for a complete application:
Copies Material to be submitted Applicant N/A City
2 This form completed………………………………………………………………………………
1 Proof of ownership………………………………………………………………………………….
1 Declaration of Agency……………………………………………………………………………..
2 Completed T-01a form if performance standards apply (See MMC 20.52.130)…………….
2 Completed T-01b form if restoration standards apply (See MMC 20.52.150)……………….
2 Tree removal and planting plan (required for tree performance standards)…………………
2 Tree protection measures (required for properties under development)…………………….
1 Critical Areas Report (if applicable)………………………………………………………………
1 City Hazard Tree Assessment (if applicable)…………………………………………………….
Tree 20-013
9/16/2020
Example 2
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 47 of 77
CITY OF MEDINA | 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD, MEDINA, WA 98039 | PHONE: (425) 233-6416
Instructions: Complete and attach this form to T-01 for the following:
•The property is designated as under development pursuant to MMC 20.52.100
•The applicant is using the tree performance standards in MMC 20.52.130
File No.
New
Revision
STEP 1: Inventory existing
tree units Conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the boundaries of the lot.
No. Tree DBH No. Tree DBH
1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6 12
STEP 2: Calculate Existing
Tree Units
From Table 20.52.130(C): add together the number of significant trees in each range below
and multiply by the corresponding value to produce Existing Tree Units.
A. Total number of trees at least 6 inches, but less than 10
inches DBH X 0.75 = D.TOTAL EXISTING TREE UNITS
(A + B + C)
B. Total number of trees 10 inches DBH and larger X 1.00 =
C. Total number of conifer trees 50 inches DBH and larger X 1.25 =
STEP 3: Inventory removed trees List the significant trees that are proposed for removal. This information will be used in Step
4 and 7 (if applicable).
No. Tree DBH No. Tree DBH
STEP 4: Calculate Net
Existing Tree Units
To calculate Net Existing Tree Units, add together the number of significant trees in each
range below that are proposed for removal and multiply by the corresponding value. Then
follow H and I.
E. Total number of trees removed at least 6
inches, but less than 10 inches DBH X 0.75 = H.TOTAL TREEUNITS TO BE
REMOVED(E + F + G)F. Total number of trees removed 10 inches
DBH and larger X 1.00 =
G. Total number of conifer trees 50 inches
DBH and larger X 1.25 = I.Net Existing
Tree Units
(subtractH from D)STEP 5: Calculate Required
Tree Units
To calculate Required Tree Units, perform the
calculations in J through M.
Lot Area (sq. ft.) Divide J by 1,000 Tree Density Ratio (check one) M.REQUIRED TREE
UNITS
(Multiply K x L)
(round up)
J. K. L. 0.35 (residential)
____Table 20.52.130.B
STEP 6:
Determine if
Supplemental Trees
are required
Subtract the Tree Units in M from the Tree Units in I.
•If the difference is zero or a positive number - stop. No supplemental
trees are required.
•If the difference is a negative number then go to Step 7.
N.
See Page 2 for Step 7 and for additional inventory tables
Rev July 31, 2015
CITY OF MEDINA
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
425-233-6414
425-233-6400
Tree Performance
Worksheet T-01a
Example 2
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 48 of 77
TREE SCHEDULE
ONSITE TREES:
SYM DBH TYPE REMARKS
1 18" FIR REMOVE
2 44" FIR REMOVE
3 7" CEDAR SA VE
4 6" CEDAR SAVE
5 B" CEDAR SA VE
6 8.5" CEDAR SAVE
7 9.5" APPLE REMoVE
B 7" FIR SAVE
9 B" PLUM REMOVE
11 28" FIR REMOVED
12 26" FIR REMOVE
13 24" FIR REMOVE
SSMH
RIM=101. 77'
CENTER OF 8" OI
CHANNEL(W,E&S)=93.47'
14 10" ENGLISH HAWTHORNE REMOVE
OFFSITE TREES:
SYM DBH TYPE REMARKS
A 6" MAP SAVE
F 28" FIR SA VE
M 6" CED SAVE
N 6" CED SAVE
Q 6" CED SAVE
R 6" CED SAVE
S 6" CED SAVE
T 8" CED SAVE
I I'I
I '
' I
'
I
SITE PLAN NEB 0 5' 10' 20'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
OWNER
ACH HOMES LLC / CONTACT: MARISSA GOSS 9675 SE 36TH STREET, SUITE 105 / MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 PH: 206.588.1147 EX 107 EMAIL: MARISSA@AMERICANCLASSICHOMES.COM
SITE ADDRESS
7815 NE 28TH ST, MEDINA WA 98039 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
HERRONS ADD W 1/2, PLAT BLOCK: 9, PLAT LOT: 19-20 PARCEL NUMBER
326230-0903
ZONING
R-16
MIN FRONT SETBACK: 25' -0"
MIN REAR SETBACK: 25' -o•
MIN SIDE SETBACK: 10'-0"
MAX BLDG HEIGHT:
FROM ORIGINAL GRADE 25'-o"
FROM FINISHED GRADE 28'-0"
MAX STRUCTURAL COV'G: 30%
MAX IMPERVIOUS AREA: 55%
STRUCTURAL COV'G
GROSS LOT AREA:
BLDG FOOTPRINT:
PORCHES:
TOTAL LOT COV'G AREA:
% OF LOT AREA:
ALLOWED LOT COV'G AREA:
ALLOWED % OF LOT AREA:
IMPERVIOUS
LOT AREA:
ROOF & GUTTERS AREA:
CONC WALKS AREA:
DRIVEWAY AREA:
UNCOVERED PATIO AREA:
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA:
% OF LOT AREA:
ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS AREA:
ALLOWED % OF LOT AREA:
8,118 SF
2,162 SF
265 SF
2,427 SF
=29.89%
2,435 SF
=30.00%
8,118 SF
2,782 SF
38 SF
445 SF
196 SF
3,461 SF
=42.6 %
4,465 SF
=55.00%
<( :z:-Cl w
� :::c :zI-::500 a.. w w :z:
00
R£1/ISED
1.17.2020
3.12.2020 5.11.2020
1 "=1 o' -o"
SCALE
1.6.2020
OA1£
COIIPU1£R Fil£ NAME SITE
SI/EH NUJIBER
XTO BE REMOVED
Approved Medina Tree
Activity Permit Plan
09/16/2020
Tom Early
Medina Tree Consultant
12
f
t
12 ft
6
f
t
5
f
t
12 ft
6 ft
tree protection
fencing, typ.
SS connection on site shall be
downstream of tree protection fencing
per coordination at pre-con meeting
Example 2
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
4
9
o
f
7
7
tree #22 to be
removed per
8/17/2016
conversation with Jim
Sanders
Tree #5 to be retained
per 8/18/2016
conversation with Jim
Sanders
Example 3
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
0
o
f
7
7
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 51 of 77
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 52 of 77
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 53 of 77
A Douglas fir, 28"
DBH to be removed
per email exchange
with Chad Kulper
9/5/2017
X
a 7.8" DBH
Atlas
cedar,
considered
tree #21.a
11
f
t
8 ft
19
f
t
30 ft
10 ft
1
5
f
t
2 ft
wrap tree on exposed side with 8' long
2x4's using straps for duration of
construction; loosen straps
approximately 1/2 inch each year in
March to accommodate trunk growth
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
4
o
f
7
7
1
2
16
17
18
19
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
4647
48
49
56
55
54
52
53
57
58
59
60
63
62
41
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
1
.
1
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
1
.
2
JOB No:
DRAWING FILE No:
DATE:
DESIGNER:
BY
DA
T
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DRAWN BY:
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
OF
DRAWING No:
SHEET No:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
SEAL:
APPROVED BY:
11
4
8
N
W
L
E
A
R
Y
W
A
Y
,
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
A
9
8
1
0
7
P:
2
0
6
-
7
0
8
-
1
8
6
2
SC
J
S
T
U
D
I
O
L
A
.
C
O
M
PERMIT SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Se
a
t
t
l
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
3
5
Me
d
i
n
a
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
T
r
u
s
t
MG
MG
JULY, 2018
2578
LG
05
12
2
8
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
M A R K S . GA
R
F
F
N
O
.
8
88 EX P . 0 1 /0 5 /2 021
L
A
N
D
S
C
A P E A R C H I T EC
T
LG
08
.
2
2
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
LG
10
.
0
5
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
02
JL
05
.
2
0
.
2
0
1
9
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
03
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
R
E
E
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
LA1.1
1
1. TREE LOCATIONS BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY,
TERRANE, DATED 07/27/16.
2. TREE NUMBERS BASED ON ARBORIST REPORT & MAP,
ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING
ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
NOTES:
TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
0 feet20
1" = 10'
10 30 40
SHEET DESCRIPTION
LA1.1 PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PLAN
LA1.2 PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PLAN
LA2.1 PLANTING PLAN
LA2.2 PLANTING PLAN
LA3.1 PLANTING DETAILS
SHEET INDEX
LOT COVERAGE = 65,556 SF
65,556 SF / 1,000 = 65.56
65.56 x .35 (TREE DENSITY RATIO) = 22.95 REQUIRED TREE UNITS = 23
TREE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
Example 1
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
5
o
f
7
7
63
62
64
65
66
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
1
.
1
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
1
.
2
JOB No:
DRAWING FILE No:
DATE:
DESIGNER:
BY
DA
T
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DRAWN BY:
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
OF
DRAWING No:
SHEET No:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
SEAL:
APPROVED BY:
11
4
8
N
W
L
E
A
R
Y
W
A
Y
,
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
A
9
8
1
0
7
P:
2
0
6
-
7
0
8
-
1
8
6
2
SC
J
S
T
U
D
I
O
L
A
.
C
O
M
PERMIT SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Se
a
t
t
l
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
3
5
Me
d
i
n
a
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
T
r
u
s
t
MG
MG
JULY, 2018
2578
LG
05
12
2
8
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
M A R K S . GA
R
F
F
N
O
.
8
88 EX P . 0 1 /0 5 /2 021
L
A
N
D
S
C
A P E A R C H I T EC
T
LG
08
.
2
2
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
LG
10
.
0
5
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
02
JL
05
.
2
0
.
2
0
1
9
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
03
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
R
E
E
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
LA1.2
2
1. TREE LOCATIONS BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY,
TERRANE, DATED 07/27/16.
2. TREE NUMBERS BASED ON ARBORIST REPORT & MAP,
ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING
ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
NOTES:
TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
0 feet20
1" = 10'
10 30 40
TREE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
LOT COVERAGE = 65,556 SF
65,556 SF / 1,000 = 65.56
65.56 x .35 (TREE DENSITY RATIO) = 22.95 REQUIRED TREE UNITS = 23 PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL IN 125' SHORELINE SETBACK
NO. SPECIES DBH
66 FIR 10"
TREE NUMBERS BASED ON THE ARBORIST'S REPORT & MAP, ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
PROPOSED TREE REPLACEMENT IN 125' SHORELINE SETBACK
1 TSUGA MERTENSIANA 6' HT. MIN.
MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK
BOTANNICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE/SPACINGQTY.
TREES REQUIRED = 1
TREES PROVIDED = 3
EVERGREEN TREES REMOVED = 1
240 SF OF NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION REQUIRED
+ 350 SF OF NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION PROVIDED-
DECIDUOUS TREES REMOVED = 0
2 SALIX LASIANDRA 6' HT. MIN.
PACIFIC WILLOW
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL IN 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION
NO. SPECIES DBH
62 CHERRY 18"
TREE NUMBERS BASED ON THE ARBORIST'S REPORT & MAP, ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
63 HAWTHORN 10"
64 COTTONWOOD 20"
65 FIR 10"
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
6
o
f
7
7
3 TE
3 TE2 7 TE
3 TE2
7 TE
3 TE2
7 TE
3 TE2
7 TE
3 TE2
7 TE
3 TE2 3 TE 3 TE
7 TE
3 TE
3 TE2
7 TE 3 TE2 7 TE 3 TE2 7 TE 3 TE2 7 TE
3 TE2
7 TE 3 TE2
7 TE
3 TE2
3 AC
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
2
.
1
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
2
.
2
JOB No:
DRAWING FILE No:
DATE:
DESIGNER:
BY
DA
T
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DRAWN BY:
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
OF
DRAWING No:
SHEET No:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
SEAL:
APPROVED BY:
11
4
8
N
W
L
E
A
R
Y
W
A
Y
,
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
A
9
8
1
0
7
P:
2
0
6
-
7
0
8
-
1
8
6
2
SC
J
S
T
U
D
I
O
L
A
.
C
O
M
PERMIT SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Se
a
t
t
l
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
3
5
Me
d
i
n
a
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
T
r
u
s
t
MG
MG
JULY, 2018
2578
LG
05
12
2
8
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
M A R K S . GA
R
F
F
N
O
.
8
88 EX P . 0 1 /0 5 /2 021
L
A
N
D
S
C
A P E A R C H I T EC
T
LG
08
.
2
2
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
LG
10
.
0
5
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
02
JL
05
.
2
0
.
2
0
1
9
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
03
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
LA2.1
3
0 feet20
1" = 10'
10 30 40
TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CAL SIZE REMARKS
AC 3 ACER CIRCINATUM 2.5" CAL. B&B / CONT. 3 STEMS MIN.
VINE MAPLE NATIVE & DROUGHT TOLERANT
CT 3 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS `TINY TOWER` TM 6`-8` HT. B&B / CONT. SPECIMENS
TINY TOWER ITALIAN CYPRESS NON-NATIVE
LC 4 LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA `NATCHEZ`2.5" CAL. 10` HT. MIN. 3 STEMS MIN.
NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE SPECIMEN
NON-NATIVE, DROUGHT TOLERANT
TE 111 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `EMERALD GREEN` B&B/CONT. 6`-8` HT.SPECIMEN
EMERALD GREEN ARBORVITAE NATIVE & DROUGHT TOLERANT
TE2 46 THUJA PLICATA `EXCELSA`B&B/CONT. 6`-8` HT.SPECIMEN
WESTERN RED CEDAR NATIVE & DROUGHT TOLERANT
PLANT SCHEDULE 1. ALL TREES, DECIDUOUS & EVERGREEN, TO HAVE A 3'-0" DIA. MULCH RING. DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE STAKED, VERIFY STAKING OF
POSSIBLE NEED TO STAKE EVERGREEN TREES W/L.A.
2. PROVIDE 6" DEPTH OF COMPOSTED MULCH PRODUCT AS AN AMENDMENT TO EX. SOIL IN SHRUB BED AT TOP OF ROCK BULKHEAD.
INCORPORATE & EVENLY MIX INTO EX. SOIL TO A DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO PLANTING.
3. VERIFY METHOD OF STAKING WILLOW TREES SO THAT THEY HANG & GROW OVER THE ROCKERY TO PROVIDE HABITAT.
4. PROVIDE 2" MIN. DEPTH OF "SCREENED COMP MULCH" (SUCH AS, PACIFIC TOPSOIL'S SCREENED COMP MULCH) AS A TOPDRESSING
IN SHRUB BEDS, TYP.
5. PLANTS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEGRATED RESTORATION & PERMITTING PROGRAM: 2 TREES FROM APPENDIX D, IRPP
PLANT LIST REQUIRED. 2 TREES PROVIDED 2 DIFFERENT SHRUB SPECIES FROM APPENDIX D, IRPP PLANT LIST REQUIRED. 2 SHRUB
SPECIES REQUIRED 1,OOO SF OF BUFFER PLANTING REQUIRED, 1,463 SF PROVIDED, WIDTH OF PLANTING STRIP CAN BE NO LESS
THAN 5'-0".
NOTES:
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
7
o
f
7
7
10 VO
3 AS
2 HD
1 SP
378 DT
196 AU
9 AF
21 AF
106 IC
6 VO
3 HD
1 SP
217 DT
6 VO
6 AS
3 SA
3 TE
3 TE2
28 AU
OHWL
OHWM
OHWM VEGETATION LINE
1 TM
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
2
.
1
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
L
A
2
.
2
JOB No:
DRAWING FILE No:
DATE:
DESIGNER:
BY
DA
T
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DRAWN BY:
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
OF
DRAWING No:
SHEET No:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
SEAL:
APPROVED BY:
11
4
8
N
W
L
E
A
R
Y
W
A
Y
,
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
A
9
8
1
0
7
P:
2
0
6
-
7
0
8
-
1
8
6
2
SC
J
S
T
U
D
I
O
L
A
.
C
O
M
PERMIT SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Se
a
t
t
l
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
3
5
Me
d
i
n
a
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
T
r
u
s
t
MG
MG
JULY, 2018
2578
LG
05
12
2
8
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
M A R K S . GA
R
F
F
N
O
.
8
88 EX P . 0 1 /0 5 /2 021
L
A
N
D
S
C
A P E A R C H I T EC
T
LG
08
.
2
2
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
01
LG
10
.
0
5
.
2
0
1
8
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
02
JL
05
.
2
0
.
2
0
1
9
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
03
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
LA2.2
4
0 feet20
1" = 10'
10 30 40
TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CAL SIZE REMARKS
SP 2 SALIX LASIANDRA 6`-8` HT.VERIFY STAKING
PACIFIC WILLOW FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
TM 1 TSUGA MERTENSIANA B&B/CONT. 6` MIN. HT.SPECIMENS
MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HT.REMARKS
AS 9 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA 5 GAL 30" HT.FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
SERVICEBERRY NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
HD 5 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR 5 GAL FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
OCEAN-SPRAY NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
SA 3 SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS 2 GAL 18" SPREAD FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
COMMON WHITE SNOWBERRY NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
VO 22 VACCINIUM OVATUM 2 GAL 18" HT.FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
SHRUB AREAS CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS
AF 30 ASTER X FRIKARTII 1 GAL 18" o.c. FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
ASTER NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
DT 595 DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA 1 GAL 12" o.c. FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
TUFTED HAIR GRASS NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
IC 106 IRIS X CALIFORNICAE 1 GAL 12" o.c. FULL, BUSHY GROWTH
PACIFIC COAST IRIS NATIVE & DROUGHT
TOLERANT
GROUND COVERS CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS
AU 255 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI 4"POT 15" o.c.
KINNIKINNICK
PLANT SCHEDULE
1. ALL TREES, DECIDUOUS & EVERGREEN, TO HAVE A 3'-0" DIA. MULCH RING. DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE STAKED, VERIFY STAKING OF
POSSIBLE NEED TO STAKE EVERGREEN TREES W/L.A.
2. PROVIDE 6" DEPTH OF COMPOSTED MULCH PRODUCT AS AN AMENDMENT TO EX. SOIL IN SHRUB BED AT TOP OF ROCK BULKHEAD.
INCORPORATE & EVENLY MIX INTO EX. SOIL TO A DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO PLANTING.
3. VERIFY METHOD OF STAKING WILLOW TREES SO THAT THEY HANG & GROW OVER THE ROCKERY TO PROVIDE HABITAT.
4. PROVIDE 2" MIN. DEPTH OF "SCREENED COMP MULCH" (SUCH AS, PACIFIC TOPSOIL'S SCREENED COMP MULCH) AS A TOPDRESSING
IN SHRUB BEDS, TYP.
5. PLANTS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEGRATED RESTORATION & PERMITTING PROGRAM: 2 TREES FROM APPENDIX D, IRPP
PLANT LIST REQUIRED. 2 TREES PROVIDED 2 DIFFERENT SHRUB SPECIES FROM APPENDIX D, IRPP PLANT LIST
REQUIRED. 2 SHRUB SPECIES REQUIRED 1,OOO SF OF BUFFER PLANTING REQUIRED, 1,463 SF PROVIDED, WIDTH OF PLANTING
STRIP CAN BE NO LESS THAN 5'-0".
NOTES:
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL IN 125' SHORELINE SETBACK
NO. SPECIES DBH
66 FIR 10"
TREE NUMBERS BASED ON THE ARBORIST'S REPORT & MAP, ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
PROPOSED TREE REPLACEMENT IN 125' SHORELINE SETBACK
1 TSUGA MERTENSIANA 6' HT. MIN.
MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK
BOTANNICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE/SPACINGQTY.
TREES REQUIRED = 1
TREES PROVIDED = 3
EVERGREEN TREES REMOVED = 1
240 SF OF NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION REQUIRED
+ 350 SF OF NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION PROVIDED
-
DECIDUOUS TREES REMOVED = 0
Xref 2578_X-CIVIL.dwg
2 SALIX LASIANDRA 6' HT. MIN.
PACIFIC WILLOW
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL IN 125-200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION
NO. SPECIES DBH
62 CHERRY 18"
TREE NUMBERS BASED ON THE ARBORIST'S REPORT & MAP, ROBERT W. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS DATED 5/22/17.
63 HAWTHORN 10"
64 COTTONWOOD 20"
65 FIR 10"
Example 4
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
5
8
o
f
7
7
Example 5
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 59 of 77
Example 5
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 60 minutes. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requireme...Page 60 of 77
Approved Medina Tree
Activity Permit Plan
07/30/2020
Tom Early
Medina Tree Consultant
Example 5
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ti
m
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
:
6
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
T
r
e
e
C
o
d
e
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
.
.
.
Pa
g
e
6
1
o
f
7
7
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 27, 2021
TO: Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: Minor Code Amendments
Minor text amendments intended to clean-up the code, streamline process for staff and applicants,
and align the City with recommended legislative direction have been included below. Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing on these at the May 25th meeting and Council will adopt
them at the June 14th meeting.
Table of Amendments
Section Title Proposed Amendment
MMC 20.22.030 Lot Development
Standards
Clarify lots at the end of a terminal street to
be allowed a logical orientation, similar to
lots on a private lane
MMC 20.22.030 Lot Development
Standards
Clarify property line designations figure
MMC 20.22.040 Protrusions into Setback
Areas
Allow uncovered decks and patios to
protrude into setback (consistent with
shoreline jurisdiction)
MMC 20.30.010 Fences, Walls and Gates Repeal 5’ buffer from property line that
limits fence, wall and gate height to 4’ (this
will make fence height 6’ by right)
MMC 20.34.020 Accessory Dwelling
Units
Remove minimum square footage
requirement for ADUs (HB2343)
MMC 20.34.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit Remove ADU owner occupancy requirement
(HB2343)
MMC 20.34.040 Accessory Recreational
Facilities
Clarify indoor accessory recreational
facilities do not require an administrative
special use permit
MMC 20.70.070 Administrative
Approvals
Remove owner occupancy requirements
from accessory dwelling unit registration
(HB2343)
AGENDA ITEM 7.2
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 62 of 77
MMC 20.73.085 Review Procedures and
Approvals
Repeal. Section expired December 31, 2014.
MMC 20.73.165 Subdivision Vesting
After Approval
Repeal. Section expired December 31, 2014.
MMC 20.80.060 Type 1 Decisions Amend code of conduct for CAP permits ≤
$499,999
MMC 20.80.060 Type 2 Decisions Amend CMP Level 1 for CAP ≥ $500,000
and/or on a private lane
MMC 20.80.060 Type 3 Decisions Repeal CMP Level 2
Summary of Proposed Amendments
1. MMC 20.22.030 – Lot Development Standards. The purpose of these two amendments is
to provide clarification to the code. The first being that lots that are located at the end of a
terminal street are allowed the same logical orientation as lots on private lanes and the
second is to clarify a property line designation when a lot has three fronts.
2. MMC 20.22.040 – Protrusions into Setback Areas. The purpose of this amendment is to
provide upland lots the same rights to an on-grade patio that lots in the shoreline
jurisdiction are afforded.
3. MMC 20.30.010 – Fences, Walls, and Gates. The purpose of these amendments is to
streamline the permitting process for fences along the front property line.
4. MMC 20.34.020 – Accessory Dwelling Units. The purpose of these amendments is to
update the Accessory Dwelling Unit section of the code to conform to HB 2343.
5. MMC 20.34.040 – Accessory Recreational Facilities. The purpose of these amendments
is to clarify that if an accessory recreational facility is located indoors, an administrative
special use permit is not required.
6. MMC 20.70.070 – Administrative Approvals. The purpose of these amendments is to
update the Accessory Dwelling Unit section of the code to conform to HB 2343.
7. MMC 20.73.085 – Review Procedures and Approvals. The purpose of this amendment is
to repeal an expired section.
8. MMC 20.73.165 – Subdivision Vesting After Approval. The purpose of this amendment
is to repeal an expired section.
9. MMC 20.80.060 – Type 1 Decisions. The purpose of this amendment is to replace the
construction code of conduct with the CAP process for projects that are equal to or less
than $499,999.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 63 of 77
10. MMC 20.80.060 – Type 2 Decisions. The purpose of this amendment is to replace the
Level 1 Construction Mitigation Plan with the CAP process for projects that are equal to
or greater than $500,000 and/or are on a private lane or access easement.
11. MMC 20.80.060 – Type 3 Decisions. The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the
Level 2 Construction Mitigation Plan.
Adoption Timeline
Action Due Progress
Planning Commission to hold public hearing May 25 Upcoming
Council to hold final public hearing and adopt
code amendments
June 14 Upcoming
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 64 of 77
Chapter 20.22
Lot Development Standards
20.22.030 Building and structure setbacks.
…
E. Where a lot adjoining a private lane or at the terminal end of the street has a condition where the
orientation of the dwelling on the lot, or the orientation of dwellings on adjacent properties, logically
suggests setbacks that do not correspond to the longer and shorter dimensions of the lot, the setbacks shall
be established using the logical orientation rather than the dimensions of the lot.
…
Figure 20.22.030(B): Setback Property Line Designations
(See “Property Line” definitions in Chapter 20.12 MMC)
…
20.22.040 Protrusions into setback areas.
The following structures may be located within a setback area, excluding setbacks from Lake
Washington, which are subject to Chapter 20.63 MMC:
A. Utilities which are located underground and accessory to a principal use, except the requirement for
undergrounding is not required if the limitation in MMC 20.50.200(I)(6) applies;
B. Walkways, stairs and steps, and driveways, not including parking spaces, which do not exceed 30
inches above the existing or finished grade, whichever grade is lower;
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 65 of 77
C. Uncovered decks and patios, provided:
1. No part of the structure exceeds 30 inches in height above the existing or finished grade,
whichever grade is lower; and
2. The following setbacks are maintained:
a. A minimum 15-foot setback is maintained from the front property line;
b. A minimum 10-foot setback is maintained from the rear property line; and
c. A minimum side-yard setback equal to one-half (1/2) the required distance pursuant to Table
20.22.030
CD. Window wells that do not project more than six inches above the ground level and do not protrude
more than four feet into the setback area;
DE. Fences and freestanding walls which comply with the requirements set forth in MMC 20.30.010;
EF. Irrigation systems at or below finished grade, including yard hydrants, sprinkler heads and similar
features that do not exceed 36 inches above the finished grade;
FG. Ramps and similar structures installed to a single-family dwelling to provide access for elderly and/or
disabled persons;
GH. Foundation footings where the footing structure does not protrude more than two feet into the
setback area and is located entirely below the ground surface;
HI. Improved surface areas for off-street parking provided:
1. The protrusion is limited to the setback area from a front property line;
2. The parking area is designed in a manner that is clearly distinguishable from the driveway;
3. A minimum 15-foot setback is maintained from the front property line;
4. The top of the parking surface does not exceed 30 inches above the existing or finished grade,
whichever is lower;
IJ. A chimney provided:
1. The protrusion is limited to the setback area from a side property line;
2. The maximum horizontal width of the chimney inside the setback area is five feet; and
3. The chimney does not protrude more than two feet into the setback area;
JK. Small accessory structures and outdoor mechanical equipment provided:
1. The protrusion is limited to the setback area from a rear property line;
2. The highest point of the accessory structure or outdoor mechanical equipment does not exceed
eight feet in height above the finished grade;
3. The accessory structure or outdoor mechanical equipment does not occupy a footprint greater than
100 square feet;
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 66 of 77
4. Solid landscape screening pursuant to MMC 20.30.060 is planted that screens the structure or
mechanical equipment from adjoining properties; and
5. A minimum 15-foot setback from the rear property line is maintained;
KL. Open play structures without roofs or walls provided:
1. The protrusion is limited to setback areas from a rear property line;
2. The maximum height of the play structure does not exceed 10 feet above the finished grade;
3. The play structure does not occupy a footprint greater than 100 square feet;
4. A minimum 10-foot setback from the rear property line is maintained;
LM. Swimming pools, spas and hot tubs as provided for in MMC 20.34.040;
MN. Raised planting bed boxes, which do not exceed 30 inches above the existing or finished grade,
whichever grade is lower;
NO. Low impact development best management practices or treatment best management practices
provided:
1. The best management practice shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with
the stormwater manual adopted under MMC 20.43.200.
2. Best management practices, including associated vegetation, shall be located entirely on private
property.
3. The maximum height of any structural element associated with the best management practice shall
not exceed 30 inches above the existing or finished grade, whichever grade is lower.
4. The best management practice shall be designed to manage or treat stormwater runoff solely from
the building site and from less than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface.
5. Examples of acceptable best management practices, as those practices are defined in Chapter 20.12
MMC, include but are not limited to the following:
a. Rain garden;
b. Bioretention;
c. Dispersion; and
d. Biofiltration treatment.
…
Chapter 20.30
City-Wide Uses
20.30.010 Fences, walls and gates.
A. General Provisions.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 67 of 77
1. “Walls,” as referred to in this section, means freestanding walls meeting the definition in MMC
20.12.070, and retaining walls and rockeries meeting the definitions in MMC 20.12.190.
2. Fences, walls and gates may be located within a setback area provided the fence, wall or gate does
not exceed the maximum height requirements set forth in subsection (B) of this section.
3. Fences, walls and gates shall be located entirely inside the property lines of a lot, unless both
property owners agree the wall or fence may be placed on a common property line.
4. The property owner is responsible for confirming all fences, walls and/or gates are placed inside
the property lines on their property.
5. Gates located near an opened street right-of-way shall be set back from the edge of the pavement
pursuant to MMC 20.40.125.
6. All lighting devices shall be subject to the height limitations prescribed by this section.
7. Where a permit is required pursuant to subsection (G) of this section, the director may require the
property owner to have a land survey performed to identify the property boundaries if:
a. The fence, wall or gate is adjacent to a street right-of-way; or
b. In the opinion of the director, it is not clear the proposed fence or wall is located entirely
within the property lines on the owner’s property.
B. Height (See Figures 20.30.010(B)(1), (B)(2) and (D)).
1. The maximum height of a fence, wall, combination of fence and wall, or gate shall not exceed four
feet if the structure is located:
a. Within a horizontal distance of five feet from a front property line that adjoins a public street
not designated as a collector or minor arterial street pursuant to Chapter 10.08 MMC; and
b. Within a horizontal distance of five feet from any property line that intersects a front property
line that adjoins a public street as described in subsection (B)(1)(a) of this section and extending
30 feet from the front property line.
21. Except as provided in subsection (B)(1) of this section, tThe maximum height of a fence, wall,
combination of fence and wall, or gate shall not exceed six feet in all other within setback areas.
32. Fences, walls and gates not located within setback areas may be constructed to the height
limitations of other buildings and structures in the zoning district in which the fence, wall or gate is
located.
43. For purposes of the height maximums set forth in this section, height shall be measured at the
exterior side of the fence or wall facing outward from the property, from the lower of the existing or
finished grade to the highest point of the fence or wall (including any light fixtures, caps, or other
objects mounted on the top of the fence or wall).
54. Fences and walls shall be considered combined for the purpose of measuring height where the
horizontal separation is five feet or less between the closest points of the fence and wall; except, if a
property line is located between the fence and wall, the fence and wall shall not be considered
combined. These requirements shall also apply to gates and walls.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 68 of 77
Figure 20.30.010(B)(1): Height Limits for Fences and Walls
Figure 20.30.010(B)(21): Measuring Fence/Wall Height
C. Fence and Wall Height Exception. The placement of a guard rail on top of a retaining wall may exceed
the maximum height for fences and walls by up to four feet provided:
1. The building official determines a guard rail is required pursuant to the building codes set forth in
Chapter 20.40 MMC; and
2. The solid component parts of the guard rail are evenly distributed and cover no more than 50
percent of the total surface area of the side elevation of the guard rail.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 69 of 77
…
20.34.020 Accessory dwelling units.
This section establishes the development criteria that apply to accessory dwelling units.
A. Accessory dwelling units meeting the requirements of this section are excluded from density and
minimum lot area requirements.
B. Accessory dwelling units shall be fully contained within and attached to a single-family dwelling, or
must be located within a detached accessory building containing another permitted accessory use.
C. Accessory dwelling units are prohibited as the only use in a detached accessory building.
D. Only one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on a lot per each single-family dwelling located on
the same lot.
E. The property owner of record must occupy either the single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling
unit as a legal residence. Legal residency must be evidenced by actual residency. Legal residency shall
terminate by reason of absence in excess of one year. Legal residency shall immediately terminate upon
the payment or receipt of rent for both units.
F. Development Standards.
1. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the development standards of the zoning where the
accessory dwelling unit is located;
2. The accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 square feet of gross floor area;
32. The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than the lesser of 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area, or 40 percent of the total square footage of the gross floor area of the single-family
dwelling and accessory dwelling unit combined;
43. All of the structures on the property shall have the appearance of a single-family dwelling and
any other permitted accessory structures;
54. The entry door to the accessory dwelling unit shall be screened from the street by portions of the
structure or by dense evergreen vegetation;
65. There shall be no sign or other indication of the accessory dwelling unit’s existence other than an
address sign and a separate mail box;
76. The exterior finish of the accessory dwelling unit shall be identical to the residence or accessory
structure in which it is contained; and
87. A certification by city of Bellevue utilities is required indicating that water supply and sanitary
sewage are available to adequately serve the accessory dwelling unit.
G. There shall be one off-street parking space provided for the accessory dwelling unit, which shall be in
addition to any off-street spaces required for the principal single-family dwelling.
H. Garage space may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit only if the number of covered spaces
eliminated by the conversion is replaced by the same number of covered spaces elsewhere on the
property.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 70 of 77
I. An accessory dwelling unit must contain:
1. Bathroom facilities that include a toilet, sink and a shower or bathtub; and
2. Kitchen or food storage and preparation facilities and a sink.
J. A property owner seeking to establish a legal accessory dwelling unit shall apply to register the
dwelling unit with the city pursuant to MMC 20.70.070. The application shall include an agreement by
the property owner to occupy either the single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit and to
maintain the accessory dwelling unit in compliance with the standards set forth in this section.
K. After the accessory dwelling unit is approved, a registration form signed by the record holders of the
property shall be recorded with the King County auditor’s office. Said registration form shall contain:
1. The street address and legal description of the property; and
2. Description of the requirement for owner occupancy; and
32. The requirement for maintaining the accessory dwelling unit in compliance with the requirements
of this section.
L. The registration of the accessory dwelling unit may be canceled pursuant to MMC 20.70.070 by the
property owner by recording a certificate of cancellation in a form satisfactory to the city with the King
County department of records and elections. The city may record a notice of cancellation upon failure to
comply with the standards set forth in this section.
…
20.34.040 Accessory recreational facilities.
This section establishes the development criteria that apply to outdoor accessory recreational facilities,
including minor accessory recreational facilities.
A. Accessory recreational facilities are categorized as either major or minor pursuant to the following:
1. Major accessory recreational facilities include the following and require approval of an
administrative special use permit pursuant to MMC 20.71.030, provided a major accessory
recreational facility is exempt from this section when completely located within a single-family
residence or an accessory building:
a. Active sports courts such as tennis, paddle tennis, basketball, and similar facilities;
b. Swimming pools;
c. Hot tubs and spas, except as allowed in subsection (B) of this section; and
d. Other similar sports facilities that provide active outdoor recreational activity and with similar
2. Minor accessory recreational facilities such as a basketball hoop and temporary game nets do not
require approval of an administrative special use permit provided:
a. Installation of the facility does not require additional paved surface area;
b. No illumination beyond normal house lighting is installed for use of the facility;
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 71 of 77
c. The facility is not located inside any setback areas, except as allowed for major recreational
facilities in subsection (C)(3) of this section; and
d. Maximum noise level requirements in Chapter 8.06 MMC are followed.
…
20.70.070 Accessory dwelling unit registration.
A. Applicability. Any owner installing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) pursuant to MMC 20.34.020
shall apply for an accessory dwelling unit registration.
B. Review Procedures. Approval of an accessory dwelling unit is processed as a Type 1 decision pursuant
to the requirements set forth in Chapter 20.80 MMC.
C. Approval Criteria. The decision authority may approve an ADU only when the following criteria are
met:
1. The ADU meets the requirements set forth in MMC 20.34.020; and
2. The property owner enters into a written agreement with the city to occupy the primary single-
family dwelling, or the ADU pursuant to subsection (D) of this section; and
32. The property owner agrees to maintain the ADU in compliance with the requirements in MMC
20.34.020.
D. Written Agreement.
1. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the ADU, the property owner shall complete, sign,
have notarized, and record an ADU registration form.
2. The contents of the ADU registration form shall include the following:
a. The street address and legal description of the property where the accessory dwelling unit is
located;
b. The written agreement for occupancy as prescribed in subsection (C)(2) of this section;
cb. The written agreement to maintain the ADU as prescribed in subsection (C)(32) of this
section; and
dc. Any other relevant information determined necessary by the decision authority.
3. The property owner shall record the ADU registration with King County recorder’s office. A copy
of the recorded document and recording number shall be provided to the city.
4. The ADU registration may be cancelled under the following conditions:
a. The property owner may cancel the ADU registration if:
i. The ADU is permanently removed from the property; or
ii. The property owner provides to the city evidence that the use has been removed and
obtains approval from the city to cancel the ADU registration; and
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 72 of 77
iii. The property owner records a certificate of cancellation with King County recorder’s
office and provides a copy of the recorded certificate of cancellation to the city.
b. The city may cancel the ADU registration if the property owner fails to comply with the
general requirements in MMC 20.34.020. Cancellation of the ADU registration shall be in
accordance with the following procedures:
i. The city provides a notice of cancellation to the property owner who shall have a right to
appeal the decision to cancel pursuant to MMC 20.80.220 for a Type 1 decision;
ii. Once a decision to cancel becomes final, the city shall record a certificate of cancellation
with King County recorder’s office;
iii. A copy of the recorded certificate of cancellation shall be provided to the property owner
after which the use as an accessory dwelling unit shall cease.
E. Lapse of Approval. Approval of an accessory dwelling unit shall expire if the building permit for the
accessory dwelling unit expires and substantial construction of the accessory dwelling unit has not started.
Approval of an accessory dwelling unit shall also expire if the use is abandoned during its existence, or if
a certificate of cancellation is recorded.
…
20.73.085 Review procedures and approvals.*
Each lot line adjustment and division of land is processed as a different action type as described in MMC
20.80.060 and summarized as follows:
A. Approval of a lot line adjustment application is a two step process, which includes final approval by
the director and recording with the King County auditor.
B. Approval of a division of land is a four step process including preliminary approval, installation or
bonding of required improvements, final approval, and recording with the King County auditor. The
process summarizes as follows:
1. Short Subdivision.
a. A preliminary short subdivision is processed as a Type 2 decision pursuant to Chapter 20.80
MMC.
b. Installation of infrastructure improvements as determined by the city, or providing a form of
security as determined by the city to ensure such improvements are installed.
c. A final short subdivision is processed as a Type 1 decision pursuant to Chapter 20.80 MMC.
d. The final short subdivision shall be submitted to the director within five years of the date that
the preliminary approval became final or the short subdivision shall become null and void.
e. The director’s signature is required on the final short plat.
2. Subdivision.
a. A preliminary subdivision is processed as a Type 3 decision pursuant to Chapter 20.80 MMC.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 73 of 77
b. Installation of infrastructure improvements as determined by the city, or providing a form of
security as determined by the city to ensure such improvements are installed.
c. A final subdivision is processed as a Type 2 decision pursuant to Chapter 20.80 MMC.
d. The final subdivision shall be submitted to the director within seven years of the date that the
preliminary approval became final or the subdivision shall become null and void.
e. The following signatures on the final plat are required before the director can submit the final
plat to the city council for their action:
i. Director: whose signature approves compliance with all terms of the preliminary plat
approval of the proposed plat subdivision or dedication.
ii. City engineer: whose signature approves the layout of streets, alleys and other rights-of-
way, design of bridges, sewage and water systems and other structures.
iii. City of Bellevue utilities: whose signature approves the adequacy of the proposed means
of sewage disposal and water supply.
iv. King County treasurer: whose signature confirms a statement that all taxes and delinquent
assessments for which the property may be liable as of the date of certification have been
duly paid, satisfied or discharged.
v. Property owner: whose signature confirms a statement that the subdivision has been made
with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owner.
f. The city council may authorize the mayor to sign an approved final plat.
* This section shall expire December 31, 2014, pursuant to SSB 6544; Chapter 79, Laws of 2010.
…
20.73.165 Subdivision vesting after approval.*
Subdivisions shall be governed by the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of
complete application for preliminary subdivision and will continue to be vested for a period of seven
years after the final subdivision approval. (Ord. 854 § 2, 2010)
* This section shall expire December 31, 2014, pursuant to SSB 6544; Chapter 79, Laws of 2010.
Chapter 20.80
Project Permit Review Procedures
…
20.80.060 Project permit procedures.
The procedures for processing a project permit application may include a determination of completeness,
notice of application, notice of hearing, and notice of decision. The following tables establish the decision
type, the person or body authorized to make the decision, the general review procedures, and notice
requirements that are applicable to each project permit application.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 74 of 77
A. Table 20.80.060(A) sets forth project permits that are categorized as Type 1 decisions with the
applicable corresponding review procedures.
Table 20.80.060(A) – Type 1 Decisions
Project Permit Decision
Authority
Procedure Requirements
DOC NOA NOH NOD
Building, reroof and construction permits
not listed/no SEPA
BO Yes No No Yes
Mechanical permit BO Yes No No Yes
Demolition permit/no SEPA BO Yes No No Yes
Grading and drainage permit/no SEPA BO Yes No No Yes
Fence permit BO Yes No No Yes
Final short subdivision D No No No No
Administrative tree activity permit D Yes No No Yes
Hazardous tree designation D Yes No No Yes
Right-of-way permit E Yes No No Yes
Lot line adjustment D Yes No No Yes
Zoning code interpretation D No No No Yes
Accessory dwelling units D Yes No No Yes
Administrative sign approval D Yes No No Yes
Code of conduct approval Construction
activity permit for projects ≤ $499,000
E D Yes No No Yes
SEPA letter of exemption D1 No No No Yes
Shoreline letter of exemption D No No No Yes
Shoreline master program interpretation D No No No Yes
Temporary use permit D No No No Yes
Notes:
“DOC” – determination of completeness required pursuant to MMC 20.80.100
“NOA” – notice of application required pursuant to MMC 20.80.110
“NOH” – notice of hearing required pursuant to MMC 20.80.120
“NOD” – notice of decision required pursuant to MMC 20.80.200
“BO” means building official has authority to make the decision
“D” means the director has authority to make the decision
“E” means the city engineer or designee has authority to make the decision
1“Director” here means the person designated as the responsible official
B. Table 20.80.060(B) sets forth project permits that are categorized as Type 2 decisions with the
applicable corresponding review procedures.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 75 of 77
Table 20.80.060(B) – Type 2 Decisions
Project Permit Decision
Authority
Procedure Requirements
DOC NOA NOH NOD
Building permit/with SEPA BO/D1 Yes Yes No Yes
Demolition permit/with SEPA BO/D1 Yes Yes No Yes
Grading and drainage permit/with SEPA BO/D1 Yes Yes No Yes
Administrative right-of-way tree activity
permit
D Yes Yes No Yes
Administrative special use permit D Yes Yes No Yes
Administrative variance D Yes Yes No Yes
Minor deviation D Yes Yes No Yes
SEPA threshold determination D1 Yes Yes2 No Yes
Preliminary short subdivision D Yes Yes No Yes
Tailored construction mitigation plan –
Level 1 Construction activity permit for
projects ≥ $500,000 and/or on a private lane
or joint driveway
D Yes Yes3 No Yes
Final subdivision CC No No No Yes
Notes:
“DOC” – determination of completeness required pursuant to MMC 20.80.100
“NOA” – notice of application required pursuant to MMC 20.80.110
“NOH” – notice of hearing required pursuant to MMC 20.80.120
“NOD” – notice of decision required pursuant to MMC 20.80.200
“BO” means building official has authority to make the decision
“D” means the director has authority to make the decision
“CC” means the city council makes the decision
“E” means the city engineer or designee has authority to issue a decision
1“Director” here means the person designated as the responsible official
2A NOA is not required for a SEPA threshold determination issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(1)
3The NOA for a construction activity permit for projects greater than or equal to $500,000 and/or projects
on a private lane or joint driveway shall include the date and time of the open house pursuant to MMC
20.75.070 and MMC 20.75.080
C. Table 20.80.060(C) sets forth project permits that are categorized as Type 3 decisions with the
applicable corresponding review procedures.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 76 of 77
Table 20.80.060(C) – Type 3 Decisions
Project Permit Decision
Authority
Procedure Requirements
DOC NOA NOH NOD
Nonadministrative special use permit HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Conditional use permit HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Historical use permit HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nonadministrative variance HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site-specific rezone PC/CC1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reasonable use exception HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nonadministrative right-of-way tree activity
permit
HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nonadministrative tree activity permit HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site plan review PC Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tailored construction mitigation plan Level
2
PC Yes Yes Yes Yes
Preliminary subdivision HE/CC2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shoreline substantial development permit HE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shoreline variance HE3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shoreline conditional use permit HE3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
“DOC” – determination of completeness required pursuant to MMC 20.80.100
“NOA” – notice of application required pursuant to MMC 20.80.110
“NOH” – notice of hearing required pursuant to MMC 20.80.120
“NOD” – notice of decision required pursuant to MMC 20.80.200
“HE” means the hearing examiner has authority to make the decision
“PC” means the Medina planning commission has authority to make the decision
“CC” means the city council makes the decision
1The planning commission holds the open-record hearing and makes a recommendation to the city
council. The city council decides the rezone at a closed-record meeting.
2Hearing examiner holds the open-record hearing and makes a recommendation to the city council. The
city council decides the preliminary subdivision at a closed-record meeting.
3If the hearing examiner’s action on shoreline variances and shoreline conditional use permits is to
approve the application, the approval shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology
for approval, approval with conditions, or denial pursuant to WAC 173-27-200.
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Time Estimate: 15 minutes. Minor Code Amendments Page 77 of 77