The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-25-2021 - Agenda Packet MEDINA, WASHINGTON www.medina-wa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Virtual/Online Tuesday, May 25, 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 May 25th Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for May 25th 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/94054490889?pwd=NmJqaGs5S2xjQVlDdXBqYWt6VWcrQT09 Meeting ID: 940 5449 0889 Passcode: 719406 One tap mobile +12532158782,,94054490889#,,,,*719406# US (Tacoma) AGENDA Page 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Laura Bustamante, David Langworthy, Mark Nelson, Laurel Preston, Mike Raskin, Randy Reeves, and Shawn Schubring 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff/Commissioners 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 - 6 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021. Recommendation: Adopt Minutes. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Page 1 of 121 Page 4. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Individuals wishing to speak live during the Virtual Planning Commission meeting will need to register their request with the Planning Manager, Stephanie Keyser, via email skeyser@medina-wa.gov) or by leaving a message at 425.233.6416 before 12pm the day of the Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for the May 25th Planning Commission meeting on your correspondence. The Planning Manager will call on you by name or telephone number when it is your turn to speak. You will be allotted 3 minutes for your comment and will be asked to stop when you reach the 3-minute limit. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Time Estimate: 15 minutes 7 - 55 1. Bulk Development Code Amendments Recommendation: Approve Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Time Estimate: 15 minutes 56 - 71 2. Minor Code Amendments Recommendation: Approve. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 6. DISCUSSION Time Estimate: 90 minutes 72 - 121 1. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 7. ADJOURNMENT Next special meeting: June 22, 2021 at 4 PM. 8. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 2 PM, unless otherwise specified. UPCOMING MEETINGS Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Special Meeting at 4:00 PM Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Special Meeting at 4:00 PM Tuesday, August 24, 2021 No Meeting Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Special Meeting at 4:00 PM Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Special Meeting at 4:00 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 Page 2 of 121 Page 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 121 MEDINA, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ZOOM Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:00 PM MINUTES 1.CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The Planning Commission Special Meeting of April 27, 2021 was called to order at 2:01 p.m. by Chair Preston. Commissioners Present: Nelson, Raskin, Reeves, Schubring and Preston. Commissioners Absent: Langworthy Staff Present: Kellerman, Keyser, Minor, Wilcox, and Sauerwein 2.EXECUTIVE SESSION Planning Commission moved into Executive Session at 4:02 PM for an estimated time of thirty 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. ACTION: No action was taken following Executive Session. 3.ANNOUNCEMENTS Keyser made the following announcements: 1.Council confirmed new Planning Commissioner Laura Bustamante who will start in May. 2.Development Services Coordinator, Amber Taylor, is out on maternity leave for the next few months. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from March 23, 2021 Special Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring Approved: 5-0 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021.Page 4 of 121 5. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 6. PRESENTATIONS 1. Public Hearing Process – Planning Commission roles and responsibilities Assistant City Attorney Emily Minor discussed the role of the Planning Commissioners during public hearings. The Commissioners asked questions. Minor responded. 7. DISCUSSION 1. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Keyser discussed staff report. Commissioners discussed and asked questions. Staff responded. Nelson calls to motion to reduce legacy trees from 50 inches to 36 inches. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Reeves Commissioners discussed adjusting legacy tree mitigation to index for lot size and native tree species. Nelson withdraws motion to reduce legacy trees from 50 inches to 36 inches. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring Approved 4-1 (Reeves) Nelson calls to motion to instruct staff to analyze legacy tree size and mitigation requirements. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Schubring Approved: 5-0 Nelson calls to motion to approve fee-in-lieu section as presented in the staff report. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Reeves Approved: 3-2 (Raskin, Schubring) AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021.Page 5 of 121 2. Subject: Minor Code Amendments Keyser discussed Minor Code Amendments. Commissioners asked questions. Keyser responded. ACTION: Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on minor code amendments at the May 25th meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion Nelson Second Raskin; The Special Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM Minutes taken by: Stephanie Keyser AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021.Page 6 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 AGENDA BILL Subject: Bulk Development Code Amendments Category: Public Hearing Resolution Other Prepared By: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Summary: The attached amendment to Table 20.23.020(A) in Chapter 20.23 Bulk Development Standards of Medina’s Municipal Code is the result of over a year’s work and dedication from the Planning Commission. On January 26, 2021, Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend reducing structural coverage on lots larger than 16,000 square feet in the R-16 zoning district to match what is allowed for the same sized lot in R-20 and R-30. On February 8, 2021, Council voted unanimously to direct staff to begin the public process toward adoption of the attached amendment. The public process included notifying the Department of Commerce, doing SEPA, and having an open house. May 25th will be the first of two public hearings on this proposed amendment. Council will hold a second hearing and adoption on June 14th. Attachment(s): 5.1 Bulk Development Code Amendments Staff Recommendation: Approve Proposed Planning Commission Motion: Move to approve the bulk development code amendment as presented. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 7 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 2021 TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Bulk Development Code Amendment This memorandum outlines the many months of work and consideration Planning Commission gave to the topic of mitigating bulk. Although bulk as a topic was placed on the work plan in May 2018, other mandatory, time sensitive code amendments had to be completed first. It was not until the Low Impact Development Code, Wireless Code, and the Shoreline Master Program updates were completed that Planning Commission had room in its schedule to begin the bulk conversation in June 2019. On January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend modifying the R-16 structural coverage table (Table 20.23.020(A)) for lots larger than 16,000 square feet to match what is allowed for the same sized lots in the R-20/R-30/SR-30 zoning districts (Attachment A). On February 8, 2021, Council voted unanimously to direct staff to begin the public process toward adoption of the proposed amendment. The public process included notifying the Department of Commerce, doing SEPA, and having an open house on April 15th. May 25th will be the first of two public hearings on this proposed amendment. Council will hold a second hearing and adoption on June 14th. Background – What is Bulk? When we talk about bulk, we’re talking about both the quantitative and qualitative elements that make up a structure. The volume of a structure is comprised of its quantitative height, width, and depth while its bulk is typically considered the qualitative perception of these elements. These are elements that include its shape, scale, and massing. While the predominant pattern of development in Medina is such that older bungalow-style cottages are bought, demolished, and replaced by larger houses, what constitutes older is becoming more relative, as even houses that were built ten to fifteen years ago are often undergoing redevelopment. Development is regulated in the municipal code by Lot Development Standards (MMC 20.22) and Bulk Development Standards (MMC 20.23) with the constraints of what can be built on a lot being maximum height, setbacks, structural coverage, and impervious surface. Virtually all new construction is maximizing the allowable building envelope which can create an out-of-scale feeling within neighborhoods. This is not a problem that is unique to Medina and cities all across the country have been reevaluating their codes in an attempt to limit this occurrence. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 8 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1 STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ADJUSTMENT While there have been many changes to the development code throughout Medina’s 65 years (Attachment B), in order to gain a better understanding about what the code currently allows, a comprehensive analysis of the lots by zoning district had to be done. Once the analysis began, it quickly became clear there are significant differences in what is allowed to be built based on zoning alone, regardless of lot size. These discrepancies appear to be arbitrary and significant pieces in the generation of construction complaints. Considerations in R-16 Rebalancing Acts The R-16 zoning district is the largest district in the city and is comprised of approximately 720 lots, not including the post office, green store, and PSE power stations. Of those, 320 lots (44%) are larger than 16,000 square feet. In Attachment C, these parcels are highlighted in blue on top of the city’s zoning map. When viewed as one group, the impacts of redevelopment do not appear to be that substantial because many of these larger lots are clustered together. However, as we filter these parcels, what we discover is that the lot sizes vary from 16,001 to 52,707 square feet. In Attachment D, the parcels1 are further broken out into different colors: pink is 16,001-16,999, red is 17,000-17,999, blue is 18,000- 18,999, green is 19,000-19,999, yellow is 20,000-29,999, and purple is anything 30,000 and above. What we now see is a patchwork of inconsistency within blocks and neighborhoods that is unified by one metric in the code: all of these lots are granted the same 25% maximum structural coverage. When we look at similar sized lots in R-20 and R-30, what we find is that as the lot sizes increase, the allowable structural coverage decreases. The result of the current code is that a bigger structure being permitted if a lot is larger than 16,000 square feet and zoned R-16 instead of R-20 or R-30. It is staff’s belief that it was not the original intention of the code to grant these larger R-16 lots more structural coverage than their counterparts in R-20 and R-30. It seems reasonable that rebalancing the structural coverage based on lot size is a first concrete step toward mitigating bulk. It is probable that this is a significant contributing factor to the looming and out- of-scale complaints that some new construction generates. Rebalancing these lots would mean amending the code to reflect the same development capacity for larger lots in R-16 that R-20 and R-30 have. This would result in a sliding scale that decreases from 25-21% based on lot size. The impact of rebalancing the 320 lots is broken down below: 16,001 to 16,500 = 103 lots 16,501 to 17,000 = 19 lots 17,001 to 17,500 = 16 lots 17,501 to 18,000 = 16 lots 18,001 to 18,500 = 16 lots 18,501 to 19,000 = 13 lots 19,001 – 19,500 = 14 lots 19, 501 – 29,000 = 109 lots 30,000 and over = 14 lots 1 Full parcel data for this example may be found in Attachment E Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 9 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1 The resulting change would essentially be for the R-16 structural coverage table to be a combination of Table A and Table B (MMC 20.23.020), which is show in Attachment 1. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Public participation is a critical aspect of any code update. Two resident survey monkeys (Attachment F and G) were conducted (September 2019 and in June-July 2020) while one survey (Attachment H) was directed to architects, builders, and designers (June-July 2020) in order to better inform the conversation. Residential Surveys When Planning Commission first began to discuss bulk, staff sent a survey to residents with the goal being to help identify common complaints around new construction as well as to identify what traits residents find most important. Eighty-eight people responded and the majority (68%) had a tear down and rebuild on their street within the past three years. Of those, nearly half (48.24%) felt the new house was too large compared to the surrounding structures. In response to what matters, 89.78% felt privacy was important, 56.82% felt trees were important, and 40.91% felt having a mixture of architectural styles in their neighborhood was important. The second survey was intended to have residents help flush out some of the concepts Planning Commission had been discussing and sixty-three people responded. While the comprehensive plan talks about high quality residential character, what that means isn’t defined. How can we strive to uphold something that we have no common definition for? The most direct way to help us figure out what it means was to ask the residents. Some of the words residents used to define high quality residential character included: diverse architecture, low density, space between houses, houses proportional to the lot size, and well-maintained lots. When asked how they thought this character could be maintained, the responses included: restricting the size of houses, having code enforcement, and having more trees. With regard to form, 65.57% felt there are too many box-style houses being built and 59.02% felt the city should be encouraging more pitched roofs. The daylight plane was a popular choice (90.57%) when asked about specific ways to modify a structure’s form. The respondents were unfavorable to the suggestion of a neighbor being allowed to have more height if a change was made to the form (more height if setbacks increased – 76.19% no; more height if a pitched roof was used – 65.08% no; more height if second floor had fewer square footage than first – 71.43% no; more height as long as landscaping/trees camouflage it – 46.06% no). Architect Survey A survey was sent to architects, builders, and designers that have worked in Medina and sixteen people responded. The Planning Commissioners were interested in finding out their perspective on working with Medina’s current code. Although 64.29% felt it is more challenging to design in Medina, 81.82% did not feel it is impossible to design something that meets the code. The respondents were asked to clarify their statements regarding the impossibility of designing something and it should be noted that the examples given are a result of previous consultants or versions of the code that have since been amended. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 10 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1 They were also asked to comment on the changes to form that Planning Commission has been discussing. 56.25% were interested in a pitched roof if the structural coverage was reduced. 68.75% were not interested in a planting strip along the perimeter of the lot lines. They felt indifferent about requiring a daylight plane and a plane break (both 46.67%) however, surprisingly they were supportive (62.5%) of requiring different heights depending on roof forms (20 feet for flat and 25 feet for pitched). Recommendation and Timeline for Adoption Rebalance Structural Coverage in R-16 (Code Amendment by June 2021) On January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend modifying the structural coverage for lots larger than 16,000 square feet in the R-16 zoning district to match what is allowed for the same sized lots in the R-20/R-30/SR-30 zoning districts (Attachment A). Within the code, lots larger than 16,000 square feet that are zoned R-16 are able to build a larger house than the same sized lot in R-20/R-30/SR-30. This is an arbitrary discrepancy that is helping to generate some of the complaints that are received about the scale of new construction. The rationale for this amendment is that it restores balance and proportion among adjacent lots of varying sizes throughout the City and will reduce bulk. On February 8, 2021, Council voted unanimously to direct staff to begin the public process toward adoption of the proposed amendment. The public process included notifying the Department of Commerce, doing SEPA, and having an open house on April 15th. May 25th will be the first of two public hearings on this proposed amendment. Council will hold a second hearing and adoption on June 14th. Action Progress Planning Commission voted on recommendation January 26 Planning Commission recommendation presented to Council February 8 Notice of Intent to Department of Commerce Submitted February 9 Determination of Nonsignificance Issued (SEPA) February 11 Draft code available on City website February 12 Public Open House (via Zoom) April 15 Notice of Public Hearing (Planning Commission) April 30 Planning Commission to hold public hearing May 25 Council to hold final public hearing and adopt code amendments June 14 Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 11 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT A Attachment A 20.23.020 Structural coverage and impervious surface standards. A. Table 20.23.020(A) establishes the total structural coverage and total impervious surface allowed on a lot within the R-16 zone: Table 20.23.020(A): R-16 Zone Total Structural Coverage and Impervious Surface Standards Square Footage of the Lot Area Maximum Structural Coverage Maximum Impervious Surface 10,000 or less 30 percent 55 percent 10,001 to 10,500 29.58 percent 55 percent 10,501 to 11,000 29.17 percent 55 percent 11,001 to 11,500 28.75 percent 55 percent 11,501 to 12,000 28.33 percent 55 percent 12,001 to 12,500 27.92 percent 55 percent 12,501 to 13,000 27.5 percent 55 percent 13,001 to 13,500 27.08 percent 55 percent 13,501 to 14,000 26.67 percent 55 percent 14,001 to 14,500 26.25 percent 55 percent 14,501 to 15,000 25.83 percent 55 percent 15,001 to 15,500 25.42 percent 55 percent 15,501 to 15,999 25.21 percent 55 percent 16,000 or greater 25 percent 55 percent Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 12 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT A Square Footage of the Lot Area Maximum Structural Coverage Maximum Impervious Surface 16,001 to 16,500 24.5 percent 55 percent 16,501 to 17,000 24 percent 55 percent 17,001 to 17,500 23.5 percent 55 percent 17,501 to 18,000 23 percent 55 percent 18,001 to 18,500 22.5 percent 55 percent 18,501 to 19,000 22 percent 55 percent 19,001 to 19,500 21.5 percent 55 percent 19,501 to 29,999 21 percent 55 percent 30,000 and greater 21 percent 55 percent B. Table 20.23.020(B) establishes the total structural coverage and the total impervious surface allowed on a lot within the R-20, R-30 and SR-30 zones: Table 20.23.020(B): R-20, R-30 and SR-30 Zones Total Structural Coverage and Impervious Surface Standards Square Footage of the Lot Area Maximum Structural Coverage Maximum Impervious Surface R-20 Zone R-30/SR-30 Zones 16,000 or less 25 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 16,001 to 16,500 24.5 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 16,501 to 17,000 24 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 17,001 to 17,500 23.5 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 17,501 to 18,000 23 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 18,001 to 18,500 22.5 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 18,501 to 19,000 22 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 19,001 to 19,500 21.5 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 19,501 to 29,999 21 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 30,000 and greater 21 percent 52.5 percent 50 percent Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 13 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT A C. The total maximum structural coverage and impervious surface area allowed on a lot within the parks and public places and the neighborhood auto zones shall be pursuant to the special use provisions specified for uses within those zones. However, where structural coverage or impervious surface maximums are not specified under the special use provisions, the structural coverage and impervious surface area maximum for the R-20 zone in Table 20.23.020(B) shall apply as applicable. D. The maximum structural coverage and maximum impervious surface area allowed on a lot is determined by multiplying the square footage of the lot area by the corresponding structural coverage and impervious surface area maximum percentages specified in Tables 20.23.020(A) and (B) for the zone in which the lot is located (e.g., a 16,000 square foot lot zoned R-16 may have a maximum of 4,000 square feet (16,000 x 0.25 = 4,000) structural coverage and 8,800 square feet (16,000 x 0.55 = 8,800) impervious surface area per Table 20.23.020(A)). 20.23.030 Calculating structural coverage. A. Structural coverage is the total surface area of a lot covered by or beneath buildings and structures including but not limited to buildings, roof eaves including gutters, patios, decks, sports courts, swimming pools and spas, gazebos, gateways, and trellises. B. The maximum structural coverage and maximum impervious surface area allowed on a lot is determined by multiplying the square footage of the lot area by the applicable percentages specified in tables in MMC 20.23.020(A) and (B) for the zone in which the lot is located. C. When calculating the structural coverage on a lot, the following are excluded from the structural coverage limits: 1. Any pervious surface areas beneath roof eaves including gutters such as areas with living vegetation, but not including areas with pervious surfaces containing gravel, rocks or other similar hardscape materials wherever such materials cover more than 25 percent of the area directly below the roof eaves; 2. Areas beneath the roof eaves including gutters containing water features; 3. Areas beneath the roof eaves including gutters containing driveway surface that provides access to a nonpedestrian garage door entrance provided: a. The roof eave excluding gutters does not project more than two feet from the exterior wall of the building; and b. The driveway surface area not counted as structural coverage does not extend more than two feet in each direction horizontally from the outer edges of the garage door; 4. Uncovered structures, including, but not limited to, decks, patios, stairs and walkways where the height of the uncovered structure does not exceed 30 inches above the existing or finished grade, whichever is lower; 5. Structures located waterward of the ordinary high water mark as defined in RCW 90.58.030 and the Medina shoreline master program; 6. Fences and walls where the greatest width dimension of the fence or wall, including any features that are part of the wall or fence, does not exceed one foot (12 inches); Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 14 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT A 7. Retaining walls where the greatest width dimension of the structure, excluding underground foundation footings, does not exceed one foot (12 inches); 8. Garden-type structures, such as arbors, bowers, pergolas, trellises and similar open structures, provided the aggregate footprint of all such garden-type structures does not exceed one percent of the lot area; and 9. Structures placed entirely underneath the existing grade of the earth surface of the lot provided: a. No part of the underground structure protrudes above the ground surface of the finished grade, except: i. Decks, patios, and walkways that are over the underground structure and for which the height of such structures does not exceed 30 inches above the existing or finished grade, whichever is lower; and ii. Openings in the ground surface that are necessary to provide ingress and egress to the underground structure and where such openings are the minimum necessary to provide ingress and egress; b. Provisions for impervious surface area continue to apply. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 15 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT B Medina’s Development History Dec. 11, 1955 •Maximum height 30 ft. from the highest point of finished grade •Structural coverage: 30% of the lot Feb. 17, 1976 •Maximum height: 30 ft. from original grade to highest point of roof proper but not more than 36 ft. from lowest point of original grade •Structural coverage: 30% of the lot April 14, 1986 •Lot coverage excludes private lanes and easements •Maximum height: 30/36 •R-16 & R-20 structural coverage reduced to 17.5% of the lot •R-30 structural coverage reduced to 15% of the lot •Bonus structural coverage of 25% of the lot if height is reduced to 20/26 Sept. 8, 1986 •R-16 maximum height limited to 25 ft. from lowest point of original grade •Structural coverage: 25% of the lot April 12, 1999 •R-20 & R-30 setbacks increased for larger lots •13% structural coverage with maximum height 30/36 •21% structural coverage with maximm height 25ft. from original grade •2% bonus for uncovered decks March 10, 2008 •Lots moved to gross coverage (easements and private lanes included in structural coverage calculations) August 11, 2008 •Substandard lots in R-16 (less than 16,000 sq. ft.) given additional structural coverage Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 16 of 121 R-16 16,000 and above Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 17 of 121 R-16 Breakdown 16,001-16,999 17,000-17,999 18,000-18,999 19,000-19,999 20,000-20,999 30,000-greater Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 18 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E Parcel Data - R-16 Lots greater than 16,000 sq. ft. Parcel No. Zoning Sq. Ft. House No.Street 2525049084 R16 16,001 7844 NE 10TH ST 2525049271 R16 16,001 836 82ND AVE NE 5425700075 R16 16,001 2628 82ND AVE NE 5425700005 R16 16,002 2402 82ND AVE NE 2525049264 R16 16,002 7644 NE 8TH ST 2525049265 R16 16,002 7648 NE 8TH ST 3262300122 R16 16,002 2434 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2018700046 R16 16,004 8208 OVERLAKE DR 3025300186 R16 16,006 7675 NE 14TH ST 5425700045 R16 16,007 8265 NE 26TH ST 2525049120 R16 16,010 7851 NE 10TH ST 3262300605 R16 16,019 2459 78TH AVE NE 3262300120 R16 16,019 2432 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300745 R16 16,020 2603 78TH AVE NE 3262300125 R16 16,020 2410 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300123 R16 16,020 2420 EVERGREEN POINT RD 5425700170 R16 16,023 2415 82ND AVE NE 5424700136 R16 16,023 Behind 8424 NE 6th ST 3625049108 R16 16,034 7742 OVERLAKE DR 5425700025 R16 16,035 8255 NE 26TH ST 2540700166 R16 16,037 8606 NE 10TH ST 3262300750 R16 16,045 2601 78TH AVE NE 3262300015 R16 16,050 2710 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300005 R16 16,050 2790 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2525049125 R16 16,051 7650 NE 10TH ST 3625049096 R16 16,054 8215 NE 8TH ST 2540700255 R16 16,058 8424 NE 10TH ST 2540700165 R16 16,064 8604 NE 10TH ST 2525049233 R16 16,065 7815 NE 12TH ST 2525049235 R16 16,065 7821 NE 12TH ST 2525049088 R16 16,065 7827 NE 12TH ST 3738000090 R16 16,065 924 88TH AVE NE 5425700026 R16 16,071 8240 NE 25TH ST 3262301015 R16 16,071 2254 78TH AVE NE 5425700030 R16 16,074 8245 NE 26TH ST 3262300020 R16 16,074 2740 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300010 R16 16,074 2770 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2210500150 R16 16,078 8809 NE 10TH ST 2540700150 R16 16,080 8607 NE 12TH ST 2525049238 R16 16,082 7807 NE 12TH ST 4000500035 R16 16,083 7329 NE 18TH ST 3262300058 R16 16,085 2618 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3625049101 R16 16,087 8235 NE 8TH ST 3262300057 R16 16,087 2616 EVERGREEN POINT RD Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 19 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 2525049027 R16 16,091 7630 NE 10TH ST 3262300042 R16 16,093 2610 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300205 R16 16,104 2254 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2525049197 R16 16,116 7848 NE 10TH ST 3025300127 R16 16,126 7632 NE 12TH ST 3262300045 R16 16,152 2614 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2525049249 R16 16,154 7648 NE 10TH ST 3025300121 R16 16,164 7626 NE 12TH ST 2540700026 R16 16,200 8421 NE 12TH ST 5424700220 R16 16,200 443 86TH AVE NE 3025300129 R16 16,200 1312 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3625049059 R16 16,212 631 84TH AVE NE 3625049065 R16 16,215 7606 OVERLAKE DR 3625049063 R16 16,215 7702 OVERLAKE DR 2018700065 R16 16,218 601 84TH AVE NE 2525049199 R16 16,220 817 82ND AVE NE 3262300420 R16 16,236 2030 77TH AVE NE 3262300410 R16 16,236 2042 77TH AVE NE 3262300645 R16 16,238 7700 NE 24TH ST 3262300505 R16 16,238 7719 NE 24TH ST 3262300655 R16 16,238 7720 NE 24TH ST 3262300595 R16 16,238 7721 NE 24TH ST 3262300955 R16 16,238 7800 NE 24TH ST 3262300275 R16 16,238 2233 77TH AVE NE 3262300285 R16 16,238 2243 77TH AVE NE 3262300515 R16 16,238 2244 77TH AVE NE 3262300635 R16 16,238 2420 77TH AVE NE 3262300665 R16 16,238 2415 78TH AVE NE 3262300615 R16 16,238 2461 78TH AVE NE 3262300625 R16 16,238 2463 78TH AVE NE 3262301085 R16 16,238 2233 79TH AVE NE 3262301105 R16 16,238 2255 79TH AVE NE 3262300235 R16 16,238 2222 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300225 R16 16,238 2230 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300215 R16 16,238 2240 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300105 R16 16,239 2450 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300180 R16 16,239 2460 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300725 R16 16,240 2637 77TH AVE NE 3262300740 R16 16,240 2615 78TH AVE NE 3262300777 R16 16,240 2633 78TH AVE NE 3262301520 R16 16,240 2608 79TH AVE NE 3262301518 R16 16,240 2612 79TH AVE NE 3262301517 R16 16,240 2616 79TH AVE NE 3262301515 R16 16,240 2650 79TH AVE NE 3262300305 R16 16,287 2054 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300245 R16 16,289 2206 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3262300396 R16 16,303 7619 NE 22ND ST 2540700168 R16 16,306 8608 NE 10TH ST 2540700170 R16 16,334 8612 NE 10TH ST Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 20 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 5425700210 R16 16,355 2625 82ND AVE NE 3262301115 R16 16,362 2058 78TH AVE NE 3025300128 R16 16,368 1306 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3025300050 R16 16,375 7845 NE 14TH ST 3262301205 R16 16,378 2055 79TH AVE NE 3025300122 R16 16,392 In front of 7626 NE 12th ST 3262301025 R16 16,406 2240 78TH AVE NE 5426300050 R16 16,422 2402 80TH AVE NE 6447300185 R16 16,432 309 UPLAND RD 2540700257 R16 16,476 8428 NE 10TH ST 5425700215 R16 16,505 2635 82ND AVE NE 5425700051 R16 16,513 8240 NE 26TH ST 5424700080 R16 16,534 8650 NE 7TH ST 2525049087 R16 16,538 7805 NE 12TH ST 6447300265 R16 16,573 515 UPLAND RD 2018700030 R16 16,574 624 81ST AVE NE 2540700015 R16 16,586 1036 84TH AVE NE 5424700230 R16 16,621 8405 NE 7TH ST 2525049085 R16 16,641 838 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2210500228 R16 16,675 8660 NE 10TH ST 3262300155 R16 16,675 7620 NE 24TH ST 2210500201 R16 16,900 8670 NE 10TH ST 2525049166 R16 16,900 1051 80TH AVE NE 2525049261 R16 16,900 826 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2540700256 R16 16,934 8426 NE 10TH ST 5425700205 R16 16,953 2605 82ND AVE NE 5424700020 R16 16,962 8424 NE 7TH ST 3262300060 R16 16,963 2750 EVERGREEN POINT RD 5425700180 R16 16,990 2501 82ND AVE NE 3025300304 R16 17,005 1428 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2525049094 R16 17,010 7629 NE 12TH ST 626900051 R16 17,030 911 87TH AVE NE 5424700150 R16 17,036 607 86TH AVE NE 2525049226 R16 17,058 7831 NE 10TH ST 6447300100 R16 17,067 8467 MIDLAND 6447300320 R16 17,094 8715 MIDLAND 3625049100 R16 17,132 8245 NE 8TH ST 3025300271 R16 17,160 7630 NE 14TH ST 3835502230 R16 17,160 518 UPLAND RD 2525049248 R16 17,199 7642 NE 10TH ST 2525049241 R16 17,200 7800 NE 10TH ST 4000500025 R16 17,210 1810 73RD AVE NE 2525049026 R16 17,273 7802 NE 10TH ST 3999900055 R16 17,286 1634 RAMBLING LN 2525049115 R16 17,363 7834 NE 10TH ST 4000500040 R16 17,559 7319 NE 18TH ST 2525049031 R16 17,574 7728 NE 8TH ST 3625049070 R16 17,600 7739 NE 8TH ST 3999900110 R16 17,600 7409 RAMBLING LN Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 21 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 6447300130 R16 17,633 8411 MIDLAND 5424700215 R16 17,680 433 86TH AVE NE 2018700045 R16 17,701 8210 OVERLAKE DR 3025300250 R16 17,709 7664 NE 14TH ST 3835502544 R16 17,824 329 OVERLAKE DR 2525049242 R16 17,825 7801 NE 12TH ST 2210500016 R16 17,889 830 84TH AVE NE 2525049239 R16 17,902 8048 NE 8TH ST 2525049247 R16 17,904 850 80TH AVE NE 6447300225 R16 17,919 8404 MIDLAND 3025300126 R16 17,940 1302 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2540700027 R16 18,000 8425 NE 12TH ST 2525049102 R16 18,021 7812 NE 8TH ST 3625049069 R16 18,049 7720 OVERLAKE DR 2525049270 R16 18,069 7724 NE 8TH ST 2525049086 R16 18,115 8234 NE 8TH ST 2525049237 R16 18,118 7803 NE 12TH ST 6447300300 R16 18,126 8710 OVERLAKE DR 2540700075 R16 18,141 1034 84TH AVE NE 2525049126 R16 18,155 836 82ND AVE NE 2525049236 R16 18,186 7861 NE 10TH ST 2210500005 R16 18,300 8411 NE 10TH ST 2210500006 R16 18,300 842 84TH AVE NE 2525049081 R16 18,316 8040 NE 8TH ST 2525049127 R16 18,410 840 80TH AVE NE 2525049072 R16 18,430 8032 NE 8TH ST 5424700084 R16 18,434 8645 NE 7TH ST 2018700050 R16 18,498 8206 OVERLAKE DR 2540700110 R16 18,564 8627 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 5424700115 R16 18,569 8457 NE 7TH ST 3835502628 R16 18,580 8740 NE 2ND PL 5424700085 R16 18,590 8641 NE 7TH ST 3835502260 R16 18,615 N of 442 87th Ave NE 2525049113 R16 18,713 7715 NE 12TH ST 2525049165 R16 18,720 1034 EVERGREEN POINT RD 5424700250 R16 18,722 8401 NE 7TH ST 3625049068 R16 18,725 610 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3999900090 R16 18,732 1625 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3625049105 R16 18,831 7620 OVERLAKE DR 2525049205 R16 18,885 7887 NE 10TH ST 5425700230 R16 18,928 2639 82ND AVE NE 2525049128 R16 19,002 7655 NE 10TH ST 2210500012 R16 19,078 836 84TH AVE NE 6447300285 R16 19,120 425 86TH AVE NE 3625049113 R16 19,120 7736 OVERLAKE DR 2525049029 R16 19,197 848 EVERGREEN POINT RD 6447300325 R16 19,220 227 UPLAND RD 2525049130 R16 19,240 841 82ND AVE NE 2525049112 R16 19,247 7641 NE 12TH ST Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 22 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 6447300366 R16 19,250 101 OVERLAKE DR 2525049257 R16 19,329 7813 NE 10TH ST 2018700010 R16 19,337 8212 OVERLAKE DR 2018700015 R16 19,338 8216 OVERLAKE DR 3835502510 R16 19,430 8723 NE 4TH ST 2525049137 R16 19,434 7806 NE 10TH ST 2525049092 R16 19,602 7626 NE 10TH ST 3025300301 R16 19,652 1420 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2018700115 R16 19,695 8222 OVERLAKE DR 2210500007 R16 19,700 816 84TH AVE NE 2540700200 R16 19,800 8632 NE 10TH ST 2525049254 R16 19,816 7816 NE 8TH ST 3025300242 R16 19,827 7814 NE 14TH ST 3025300100 R16 19,844 7634 NE 12TH ST 3025300095 R16 19,844 7640 NE 12TH ST 3025300155 R16 19,845 7631 NE 14TH ST 3025300160 R16 19,848 7633 NE 14TH ST 3025300090 R16 19,850 7648 NE 12TH ST 3025300165 R16 19,850 7649 NE 14TH ST 3025300085 R16 19,852 7652 NE 12TH ST 3025300170 R16 19,852 7657 NE 14TH ST 3025300080 R16 19,854 7658 NE 12TH ST 3025300175 R16 19,854 7661 NE 14TH ST 3025300075 R16 19,855 7804 NE 12TH ST 3025300180 R16 19,855 7665 NE 14TH ST 3025300070 R16 19,857 7808 NE 12TH ST 3025300245 R16 19,857 7804 NE 14TH ST 3025300065 R16 19,859 7816 NE 12TH ST 3025300060 R16 19,862 7826 NE 12TH ST 3025300235 R16 19,862 7822 NE 14TH ST 3025300195 R16 19,862 7823 NE 14TH ST 3025300055 R16 19,864 7830 NE 12TH ST 3025300200 R16 19,864 7829 NE 14TH ST 3025300226 R16 19,865 7838 NE 14TH ST 3025300225 R16 19,865 7836 NE 14TH ST 3025300220 R16 19,868 7842 NE 14TH ST 5424700135 R16 19,879 8424 NE 6TH ST 3025300255 R16 19,897 7668 NE 14TH ST 3625049042 R16 19,897 7728 OVERLAKE DR 2525049110 R16 19,905 801 80TH AVE NE 3025300260 R16 20,020 7658 NE 14TH ST 2210500050 R16 20,049 8623 NE 10TH ST 3835502509 R16 20,150 8725 NE 4TH ST 3835502395 R16 20,190 438 UPLAND RD 2525049201 R16 20,280 1011 80TH AVE NE 2525049148 R16 20,412 7635 NE 12TH ST 3025300145 R16 20,412 7623 NE 14TH ST 2540700025 R16 20,430 8417 NE 12TH ST 3025300281 R16 20,457 1400 EVERGREEN POINT RD Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 23 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 3835501951 R16 20,532 707 OVERLAKE DR 3835502385 R16 20,700 442 87TH AVE NE 3262300540 R16 20,946 2216 77TH AVE NE 3835502680 R16 20,990 223 OVERLAKE DR 3999900085 R16 21,080 1633 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2525049255 R16 21,152 7846 NE 10TH ST 2525049250 R16 21,152 1081 80TH AVE NE 3625049085 R16 21,340 7749 NE 8TH ST 3835502165 R16 21,378 8659 NE 7TH ST 4000500095 R16 21,400 1617 73RD AVE NE 2018700276 R16 21,567 247 84TH AVE NE 2525049178 R16 21,587 854 EVERGREEN POINT RD 2540700280 R16 21,600 8430 NE 10TH ST 2018700060 R16 21,625 619 84TH AVE NE 2018700005 R16 21,625 625 84TH AVE NE 4000500075 R16 21,720 1651 73RD AVE NE 3025300265 R16 21,810 7660 NE 14TH ST 2525049057 R16 21,866 8050 NE 8TH ST 2540700085 R16 21,870 1032 84TH AVE NE 2525049040 R16 21,875 816 EVERGREEN POINT RDPost Office 3025300106 R16 21,922 7620 NE 12TH ST 2525049269 R16 21,932 7833 NE 12TH ST 2525049256 R16 21,954 7808 NE 10TH ST 3738000050 R16 22,050 915 88TH AVE NE 3835502430 R16 22,240 414 87TH AVE NE 3835502720 R16 22,317 8826 NE 2ND PL 3025300270 R16 22,440 7632 NE 14TH ST 6447300135 R16 22,454 322 84TH AVE NE 2210500225 R16 22,525 8649 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 2525049098 R16 22,881 8024 NE 8TH ST 3835502250 R16 22,935 508 UPLAND RD 2525049119 R16 23,078 7899 NE 10TH ST 2210500010 R16 23,115 834 84TH AVE NE 3999900060 R16 23,248 1631 RAMBLING LN 2525049078 R16 23,262 7653 NE 10TH ST 2018700095 R16 23,384 8106 OVERLAKE DR 3025300185 R16 23,710 7677 NE 14TH ST 2525049043 R16 23,735 7627 NE 10TH ST 5424700015 R16 23,784 8400 NE 7TH ST 2525049159 R16 23,808 7841 NE 10TH ST 3625049014 R16 23,885 8115 NE 8TH ST 2525049056 R16 24,000 7621 NE 10TH ST 2540700100 R16 24,000 8615 NE 12TH ST 2525049028 R16 24,047 7600 NE 10TH ST 2525049032 R16 24,095 7811 NE 10TH ST 2525049023 R16 24,291 7831 NE 12TH ST 2210500226 R16 24,331 8650 NE 10TH ST 2525049117 R16 24,355 7657 NE 10TH ST 2018700026 R16 24,381 8120 OVERLAKE DR Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 24 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT E 2525049162 R16 24,501 853 83RD AVE NE 3835501955 R16 24,550 8658 NE 7TH ST 2525049144 R16 24,927 7720 NE 8TH ST 6447300270 R16 25,632 8400 NE 4TH ST 3835501952 R16 25,840 777 OVERLAKE DR 5424700240 R16 25,912 600 84TH AVE NE 2525049030 R16 25,912 7640 NE 8TH ST 2525049044 R16 26,255 1040 EVERGREEN POINT RD 3999900075 R16 26,540 1641 EVERGREEN POINT RD 4000500045 R16 26,775 1636 73RD AVE NE 5424700225 R16 26,794 8443 NE 6TH ST 6447300240 R16 26,946 439 UPLAND RD 2525049100 R16 27,357 7842 NE 8TH ST 6447300239 R16 27,822 435 UPLAND RD 3625049064 R16 28,000 7701 NE 8TH ST 3625049071 R16 28,112 7725 NE 8TH ST 2540700095 R16 28,800 8601 NE 12TH ST 2525049022 R16 29,080 7857 NE 12TH ST 5424700175 R16 29,251 8626 NE 6TH ST 2525049025 R16 29,369 7820 NE 10TH ST 2210500152 R16 30,510 851 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 2540700120 R16 30,694 8633 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 3835502406 R16 31,880 426 87TH AVE NE 2540700180 R16 32,400 8622 NE 10TH ST 3262300580 R16 32,485 2231 78TH AVE NE 3262300170 R16 32,692 2432 77TH AVE NE 3835502440 R16 35,640 402 UPLAND RD 6447300290 R16 36,537 423 86TH AVE NE 2525049151 R16 36,592 820 83RD AVE NE 626900090 R16 42,818 804 86TH AVE NE 3999900129 R16 52,707 1625 RAMBLING LN Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 25 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 1 of 13 Survey Monkey Responses Monday September 9, 2019- Wednesday September 18, 2019 10 questions; 88 responses Median time spent on the survey: 5m 21s 1.There has been a construction project on my street within the past three years. (87 answered; 1 skipped) Yes: 93.10 % (81) No: 5.75% (5) Unsure: 1.15% (1) 2.The project was (check all that apply) (88 answered) A tear down and rebuild: 77.27% (68) An addition to the existing house: 26.14% (23) Other: 17.05% (15) I don’t know what they were doing: 10.23% (9) I have not had construction on my street within the past three years: 5.68% (5) 3.New development in my neighborhood (87 answered; 1 skipped) Is too large compared to the surrounding houses: Absolutely disagree: 10.59% (9) Disagree: 23.53% (20) I haven’t noticed: 17.65% (15) Agree: 23.53% (20) Absolutely agree: 24.71% (21) Has removed too many trees: Absolutely disagree: 11.76% (10) Disagree: 27.06% (23) I haven’t noticed: 21.18% (18) Agree: 20% (17) Absolutely agree: 20% (17) Looks too close to the street Absolutely disagree: 12.05% (10) Disagree: 31.33% (26) I haven’t noticed: 24.10% (20) Agree: 16.87% (14) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 26 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 2 of 13 Absolutely agree: 15.66% (13) 4.If I could change one thing about my neighborhood it would be (79 answered; 9 skipped) •We live on BUSY NE 24th St. It's like living directly on a freeway on Mon. thru Fri. Apparently, it is also designated to be a "truck route." Please enforce speeders, and also huge concern about crosswalk by Indian Trail. With new families moving on our street: I worry that a child/biker/walker will get hit by a car. Need slightly raised, cobblestone-type crosswalk going across NE 24th by Indian Trail to SLOW DOWN traffic. Also: please consider routing trucks, commercial vehicles to use NEAREST thru street vs. directing every single truck all the way down Evergreen Point to reach NE 24th. Not a good and equitable situation. Thanks. •Cut through traffic on 78th to BCS and speeding on same. Enforce property owner maintenance of right of way e.g. 24th and 78th •Rules and specifications bring created and enforced for neighbors who plant trees that grow above the hedge or house height, thereby impacting the view (and value) if others property. •Maintain lot level of new construction to that of adjacent property. Excavation/leveling to accommodate "basement" garage and 3-story dwelling results in gradual subsidence of adjacent property with resultant cracks, shifts in closures in that building and sliding landscape. •Preserve more older homes. If building new, increase setbacks and reduce amount of allowable impermeable surfaces, and limit excavation that may affect adjacent properties and trees. •More stringent quiet hours like 7:30. We have cement trucks outside our house with the cement twirling at 6:45AM. The projects are lasting way too long to whit - the 4 year Whitten project - still on-going! •An enforced ordinance that would restrict living fences to a respectable height. •Less construction on the streets themselves. •Reduce the amount of tourist traffic looking for Bill Gates' house. •besides trees mentioned above, speeds on our street •More programs like block watch or programs to encourage neighbors to get together and know one another. •Street traffic has become even faster after the city put in a sidewalk to make it "safer". Drivers see it as a major street now because of the sidewalk and speed. •Construction truck traffic and idling •Under grounding utility poles. •underground wiring •Different system for the bikers crossing the path over the 520 lid. There have been SO many close calls w/bikers & cars. •Fewer empty investment homes owned by people living abroad. •That it would be quieter. Construction trucks go by repeatedly and leaf blowers start up at 7 am. This used to be a quiet place -- no longer. •Not go bankrupt •Nothing comes to mind •Noise level is too high Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 27 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 3 of 13 •We would have a central gathering place to get to know one another •Less restrictive tree rules •Cant say it but I would like to see some of the new owners take better care of their property •Safer place to walk than in the street •Add a traffic calming, speed reduction measure where the Indian Trail crosses NE 24th St. Vehicles race through that location at excessive speeds day and night, especially large dump trucks, endangering children and pets. A highly visible speed hump is needed at that dangerous crossing to keep both workers and speed enthusiasts closer to the 25 mph limit. •Requiring that homes be owner occupied, or taxed as investments. •Less out of area traffic speeding through. Residents also need to control their speed. Too much traffic pushed onto Evergreen Point Road, like bicycle and school traffic. •Burying power lines and being able to cut down trees •Take away the Arbor designation and allow for small parcel size. •Eliminate the building of houses too big for their lots, and total elimination of cube-style houses. •Have the police wave back to me more often! •Less development by BDR •I love my neighborhood •Keep most of the significant trees. Force construction workers to be more respectful of existing residents •Make all the sidewalks ADA compliant and keep the vegetation overgrowth trimmed back •Less stucco •No change •empty lot with little landscaping and maintenance across my driveway •Eliminate gas powered blowers •More consistency on houses. 86th Avenue NE needs paving •Nothing •Driving too fast on residential streets •I suppose bury the utilities, but I really do not like the 2 houses that are being built on 14th right up to the front of the property line--we came back from San Jose CA and we don't want this lovely place to become that. I'm surprised those were approved •I can't pick one, I will offer two: 1. That unoccupied homes are expected to maintain a level of upkeep. They look unoccupied which detracts from the pride of ownership the rest of us strive for and 2. That owners of homes adjacent to walking paths/sidewalks maintain their foliage so as to keep our sidewalks clear. •Get electricity under ground •Quicker redevelopment of lower end homes, falling into disrepair. •Fewer absentee owners •The new construction on 16th and EPR is disturbing to look at •Keep neighborhoods the same by strictly enforcing lot size and set back requirements •don't build so close to the lake •forbid parking on street ; no black top parking lane for individual lots. •Have city now parking strips or make owners do it. •sidewalk improvement Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 28 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 4 of 13 •City involved in inspection if complied with set backs according to deeds pertaining to lots and sufficient turnarounds provided and speeds on private road determined. No sign offs until complied with. •Would like to fewer tall growing trees be contained in new plantings •No overhead wires •When new power, sewer (storm) and gas line construction occur we need to know in advance what damage is expected to occur to our property and quicker restoration work to be done. •Stop cut through speeding dangerous traffic on our streets •better management of bikers on the streets and crossing Evergreen Point at 520 -- DANGEROUS. Someone is going to get hurt. •Stop these big boxes from being developed and maintain some of the original design and integrity of existing homes. •We would a neighborhood again. Too many buyers are buying up the homes and are either vacant or used for renters. The lawns are not cared for and so many vacant lifeless homes create and an empty lost neighborhood that once was full of life, community and pride. •Get power and telecom utility cables below ground •Prohibiting tour buses, lots remain as one lot, not subdivided, houses cannot be built to the perimeter, there should be some yard to allow for privacy. •(1) Barrier for bikers barreling across Evergreen Point Road on the 520 Trail. I have had discussions with City officials about this issue and understand the liability concerns, but hope that a solution can be found before a biker IS KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED THERE! The fact that the City will (presumably) not be liable when that happens will be of little solace to the family of the biker and to the driver who hit him or her. (2) SIDEWALKS and better lighting on Evergreen Point Road north of the 520 lid. •Stop the hideous McMansion incursion. This isn't California. •The number of trees required on small, 8000 sq ft lots. We need more flexibility to remove very old, sick trees. •Sidewalks. There are 20 kids on my street there aren’t enough and the ones that e it’s are in poor repair. Better street lights to deter car prowls and break ins. People’s hedges are impacting the right of way on sidewalks. People parking on 28th to go to the park and ride because there aren’t enough stalls. •Foreign nationals have taken over who have no connection to area and don’t take care of homes. Turning them into rentals to have an address •Tree regulations on private property. •Stop the building of monster-size houses! •Limited noise problem relate to construction •Smaller houses and more green!!! •Can't think of anything off hand. •Trim more trees. The past couple years have not been as bad, but prior to that power would get interupted at least twice each year due to limbs/trees falling on power lines. The tree regulations are totally unrealistic and overwhelm the reasonable removal/trimming of trees. •Add sidewalk to Overlake drive east. Very dangerous walking on the street. •Big box stucco Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 29 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 5 of 13 •No parking for construction vehicles. Neighbors keep up their landscaping!!!! •I would bury the power lines 5.I want to build a new addition to my home or redevelop my lot within the next three years (88 answered) Yes: 12.5% (11) No: 76.14% (67) Maybe: 11.36% (10) 6.How important are the following to you? (88 answered) The privacy I have on my lot: I never think about this: 1.14% (1) Not so important: 1.14% (1) Somewhat important: 7.95% (7) Very important: 38.64% (34) Extremely important: 51.14% (45) The trees in my neighborhood: I never think about this: 2.27% (2) Not so important: 14.77% (13) Somewhat important: 26.14% (23) Very important: 29.55% (26) Extremely important: 27.27% (24) The mix of architectural styles being used in my neighborhood: I never think about this: 10.23% (9) Not so important: 17.05% (15) Somewhat important: 31.82% (28) Very important: 30.68% (27) Extremely important: 10.23% (9) To not be disturbed by outside noise: I never think about this: 0% (0) Not so important: 3.41% (3) Somewhat important: 21.59% (19) Very important: 40.91% (36) Extremely important: 34.09% (30) To not have a lot of non-resident traffic driving up and down my street: I never think about this: 1.14% (1) Not so important: 4.55% (4) Somewhat important: 17.05% (15) Very important: 40.91% (36) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 30 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 6 of 13 Extremely important: 36.36% (32) 7.I want my neighborhood to: (73 answered; 13 skipped) •drivers be considerate of speed limit on my street NE 24th. Be kept tidy. Continue to use street sweeper truck service - much appreciated. •not suffer the blight of absentee owner/landlords/tenants who do not maintain their properties/ right of way,etc. •Enforce landscaping limits on badges and trees that exceed the house height limit and impact the overall view of each property. •be comfortable, walkable, friendly, quiet, green, mature trees, low traffic, well-maintained by owners, not over-developed. •be quiet, walkable and friendly with limited development. •Limit the number of vacant homes by imposing a tax on unoccupied homes much like Vancouver, BC did. •Not have so many vacant homes. This takes away from the community spirit. These homes should be taxed. •Get to know each other better... •Have enough vegetation to feel lush and cozy, be safe, friendly, neighbors that care about each other and the environment, have reduced noise from the 520 bridge expansion grates. •be more kept up------we need to have everyone be proud of how their lot looks in Medina •well patrolled, safe, quiet, traditional ambiance •Be a quiet place and neighborly place to live •Feel more rural. •Not to look like a place where its wall to wall houses. Set backs could be greater. Light pollution should be limited. Medina is not a cosmo city, its a small town and should not look like Bellevue. •Have nicely maintained houses, lots of greenery (ideally native plants), and limited noise pollution. •Be safe •Be safe •Reaquire the quaint character it had when I first moved here 25 years ago. •Be calm and quiet •Not remind me of the 520 expansion joints every time I go outside •Be respectful •Have stricter ordinances and enforcement of noise restrictions •Know each other. Have community opportunities for families that are simple. Medina Days is too crazy and complex. Simple get together at the school, the PO parking lot (we own it, right?) the beach. The parks? •be a home to people who live here and care about the community •Be safe for people and pets and provide a habitat for wildlife including eagles and other birds. •Be safe. That includes moderating traffic flow, minimizing criminal activity, and educating Three- Points elementary parents that talking on their handheld cell phones while speeding to their Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 31 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 7 of 13 coffee dates is not acceptable behavior. Also, workers need to get speeding warnings and citations until word gets out that it is too costly to speed in Medina. (Works for Clyde Hill.) •be an owner occupied and engaged community. •Evaluate the size (very large) of homes put on very small lots. •Be secure, be reasonable about construction, be safe, have maintained roads and sidewalks, and bury overhead power. •Flourish and generate enough revenue to grow. •remain shady, private, quiet -- Medina. •Be safe •Be family friendly •Can’t think of anything •Feel like a neighborhood where people walk, children play that maintains, doesn’t increase, the density and therefore doesn’t elevate traffic, traffic noise or reduce trees and green spaces. •Be dynamic, accommodate a variety of residents, prioritize pedestrians, prioritize tree canopy •Be safe •Dance •To be well kept •Enforce tree code •Be quieter •Duplicate top Medina style and presence . No larger than 80% of largest home in neighborhood •Remain the same •Be a refuge from the busyness of Bellevue and Seattle. I want us to be very thoughtful about the type of development that is occurring. The spec homes are really obvious (and generally ugly) and not well landscaped. •To reflect pride of ownership, be a safe place for my children to explore with autonomy and have a sense of community amongst our neighbors. •Stay quiet and peaceful •Always be a place where all feel welcome. •Stay safe and beautiful – watch public areas. •Maintain our neighborhood friends by looking out for each other, which we do •discourage bicycle groups from entering medina streets after crossing from 520 bridge •Take care of their property •Be safe •have enjoyable, pleasant neighbors and mutual respect for each other. •Safe •to be as quiet as possible and to control parking on residential streets. •Enforce speed limits •To be quaint, charming and diverse. I love trees, but our house is very dark as a result. I don't propose cutting every tree down but it would make a tremendous difference for us if we had a little more flexibility without the exhorbitant costs. •Have laws in place for building style, preserving trees and privacy and furthermore put laws in place that deter less foreign buyers looking to just have a vacant house or use it as a vrbo or air b & b. I am supportive of foreign buyers looking to buy to actually live in the house and support Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 32 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 8 of 13 and become part of the neighborhood. To us, Medina is experiencing what Vancouver went through. Foreign buyers looking to park money and lots of vacant homes. We need laws in place to detract this. •Quiet and peaceful •Not sell to foreign investors and/or have an empty house. •Be safe. Be green. Be friendly. •Retain its charm. Having (especially) Asians come into the neighborhood, tear out all flora, and replace it with concrete is not the way Medina should be developing. •Safe, pretty, "lived-in". •Be a community that is easy for everyone on my street to be able to be safely out and engaged. •safe from crime •Be quiet, pretty, and safe with lots of trees. •Retain the privacy that we used to enjoy. There are a lot of “weekend” cyclists traveling via 520 to our neighborhood and I did see a lot more garbages than before (though they may not associate, to be fair). •Green/ friendly/ private •remain quite and non intrusive (although we hear 520, it's not an issue). •Modernize while retaining its classic charm and quiet seclusion. I also want my neighborhood to recognize that sometimes it is necessary to remove trees - especially those that have died due to disease, without incurring penalties or fines for having to remove what nature already removed!! •Improve landscaping along the street. •feel like a community •Be beautiful and inviting 8.How happy are you living in your neighborhood? (86 answered; 2 skipped) Not at all happy: 1.16% (1) It’s okay: 3.49% (3) Somewhat happy: 9.3% (8) Happy: 48.84% (42) Extremely happy: 37.21% (32) 9.Is there anything else you’d like to share? (59 answered; 27 skipped) •Please refer to above comments made. My top concerns: speeders on NE 24th St., NE 24th St being designated as main truck route in-and-out of Medina (I've followed trucks coming all the way down Evergreen Pt. to reach NE 24th for in-and-out - rather ridiculous when they could easily use NE 12th, raised crosswalk desperately needed on NE 24th St. by Indian Trail (Bridle Trails main street put in perfect ones on 130th Ave NE (just north of NE 24th St. in the Cherry Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 33 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 9 of 13 Crest Neighborhood). Really reduced speed of cars & made drivers aware of crosswalk. Can you confirm re. budget concerns for Medina: does MERIT PAY exist for city employees? •The increase in bike traffic and pedestrians along Overlake Drive East. Many walk/ride on water side and have no reflective gear or lights. As we enter winter darkness, I’m concerned about visibility to cars. Additionally, having bikes obey Stop signs and other “Rules of the Road”. They are making dangerous decisions. •Hope the City of Medina will not lose remaining hints of its once rural character, including undeveloped areas, big trees, birds and blackberry vines. •Medina Park would be enhanced with a boardwalk. The bocce ball court needs to be maintained with the proper surface. People are speeding on Overlake Construction workers make noise before their hours. Project go on for too long. •No •Revise Code so that Alternative Setbacks Rule should apply to a "lot at terminal end of a street or that adjoins a private lane” and "consider the orientation of the other homes on the street" . There are only a few homes that fall into this category and the current setback rule unfairly restricts such lots. •the city needs to do a better job of helping construction projects up front to make it easier to build in Medina. Our city tends to wait until the end to see if they can catch anything instead of being a help at the start. •No •No •Everyone doing work must understand Medina's noise code. •The survey is not very conclusive to those of us that live on a busy street and may not be living in what is defined as a typical neighbor hood, although we have similar issues. Medina is small enough that the survey should not be isolating questions to neighbor hoods per say. Perhaps defining the neighborhoods in sections like they do for Medina Days. •It would be great to limit or even ban gas-powered blowers and mowers in Medina. Gardeners here should move to electric. •Our neighbors subdivided their lot, squeezing a very large house into the newly divided property. The owners now are trying to tear down the original old home and build another large house. There have been all kinds of problems now with our easement getting down to our home, costing us thousands of dollars in legal fees. There is nothing neighborly about this, they are out of country owners, here to sell and make money. •more control of construction worker parking •No •Medina is a wonderful place to live. Let’s keep it that way! •Fix the surveillance cameras at entrances to Medina. My car was stolen during a burglary of my house and there was no video of either the theft or the high speed police chase (24th & 84th) the following night. •Limit the overnight parking of commercial vehicles •Excessive noise levels is making the neighborhood less desirable •Dang those airplanes are noisy. When it’s our turn, it starts at 6am. No sleeping through that . •No Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 34 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 10 of 13 •Many people drive too fast on our streets and it’s dangerous for pedestrians. This is true of residents and non residents. •An attractive, gentle brick speed hump or two along NE 24th would slow traffic without having to use police time and manpower. Also, there is no reason for construction trucks from areas south of NE 16th St go north on to EPR to NE 24th to reach 84th Ave NE; they should use NE 12th St., which is largely a non-residential street, instead of the primarily residential NE 24th St. Finally, the Indian Trail south of NE 24th St needs to be less of a cow pasture and have some shrubbery adjacent to the path. •There should be regulations to ensure that yards are appropriately maintained. •Medina local government needs to advocate for Medina residents more strenuously when it comes to traffic, bicycles, aircraft fly overs and rental properties that don’t keep up the property. •It is too expensive to cut down eyesore and unhealthy trees. It is ridiculous to keep planting replacements in the park. I am also sick of the grossness of medina Park as a dog bathroom for all of downtown and west Bellevue. It is unsanitary and reeks after a rain. Pet owners from outside do not adhere to the rules. Off leash is a hazard for those that do not know how train their pets. It used to be a good picnic park but no longer. Just a dog walking, pet training ground for too many hired walkers. In Medina Park, The fitness stops are dilapidated. Other than that. Love our Police officers. The maintenance crew and our community. •Thank you for asking these extremely important questions. Even those who don't really care about maintaining the quality of Medina should care about the erosion of their property values as the nature of our town is allowed to be "harvested" by rapacious development. •I appreciate sidewalks being maintained! •The past height and other restrictions added unnecessary costs which was wasteful! •Not sure 8 registered. I love my neighborhood •I worry that many houses are not regularly occupied by owner. I believe this can have a negative impact on the neighborhood in reducing the vibrancy of the neighborhood and may impact neighborhood safety. •We are too car centric •No •How can neighbors take trees down illegally and not replace like trees? •Eliminate planted trees that block our water view. •Need better build rules we were treated unfairly but builders seem to do whatever they want. •Keep construction parking away from house e.g. 100 yards or more. •No •Thanks for looking into this. We need to do a better job of making sure the homes being built are not overbuilt for their lots and are not just a bunch of boxes with some ornamentation stuck on. And they MUST replace the trees they take out! •Thank you City Management, Staff and Elected Officials for all your efforts in making Medina a great place to live. •No •] •we need safe walking lanes rather than walking in streets Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 35 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 11 of 13 •Trimming a hedge by the city down to the dead stump is ridiculous after allowing resident to ignor it for years. •comply with city codes and building restrictions being adhered to, Ordinances on the books followed up on. Trash cans remaining on street year after year as an exanple. •In my neighborhood a new mega home was required to put in new utility lines and we were promised little damage would result because of underground lateral drilling and now open ditching. that occurred with the gas lines and the new technology was great, however they came right after and upgraded the storm sewer lines and they left a great deal of damage with open trenching. There was no notice that this was to occur, they just arrived and started one morning. •Make streets safer •We also need to enforce people taking care of their property. We have a home on our street that has 5 ft weeds growing in all sides.. and people are living there! •I would like to keep Amazon and Microsoft commuter buses out of our neighborhoods and stick to their office routes in the city. •Our building code is very restrictive and very convoluted. We recently completed a major remodeling project, and were dismayed to find at least one architect and one contractor who refused to work on our home because of their previous experience (or possibly rumors about others' experience) dealing with the Medina City Code. •Medina is a great place. Let's not turn it into the worst parts of Redmond. •Way too many houses are unoccupied. The condition of the houses and lots are deteriorating. Fences are falling down, grass is un-mowed, etc. Rental houses are allowed to literally be unmaintained. •I like my street and know that there is a lot of development happening. But I don’t view new house construction as a problem. Do I like every style of architecture? No. Do I want the city telling me what kind of house I can build? No, as a property owner I want to be able to build a house that I find pleasing and meets my needs. If the city intends to begin down the road of CCRs then I will vote to remove everyone of you. •Medina needs to really take a look at the new houses people want to build and make sure they fit with the neighborhood. Also, we’re losing more and more trees - Medina needs to fix this, as well. •We lost the quietness and the small town feel. Lots of new houses of mega size, consider leaving •the tree ordinance is too restrictive. New development needs to take into account neighboring properties and not be obtrusive. •TREE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN POORLY AND ENFORCED EVEN MORE POORLY! We have had several paper birches die due to an invasive pest, yet we are on the hook for replacement of these trees. If nature kills the trees, I shouldn't have to replace them. It's insane •Clear the blackberries and uncontrolled vegitation along the streets •No 10.Tell us about you (77 answered; 8 skipped; 2 incomplete answers; 1 outside Medina) •7719 NE 24th St. 98039 •78th Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 36 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 12 of 13 •8461 Ridge Road •851 80th Ave NE •851 80th Ave NE •8338 Overlake Drive West •Overlake Drive West •1617 73rd Ave NE •10th Street •Evergreen Point Road •7806 NE 10th St •80th Ave NE •8633 Lake Washington Blvd NE •82nd Ave NE •7660 NE 14th Street •Evergreen Point Road •NE 10th St •32nd St •1081 80th Ave NE •1791 Evergreen Point Road •79th •Overlake Drive •847 83rd Ave NE •840 80th Ave NE •3640 Evergreen Point Road •7719 NE 24th Street •Midland Road •Evergreen Point Road •82nd Ave NE •647 Evergreen Point Road •2025 77th Ave NE •7657 NE 10th St •PO Box •NE 8th Street •Evergreen Point Road •9906 Lake Washington Blvd NE •88th Ave NE •1848 77th Ave NE •8401 NE 7th St •8832 Overlake Drive W •522 86th Ave NE •Lake Washington Blvd NE •10th Street •7915 NE 22nd Street •7632 NE 14th Street Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 37 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT F Page 13 of 13 •Evergreen Point Road •816 84th Ave •2461 78th Ave NE •2025 77th Ave NE •7721 NE 24th Street •2602 78th Ave NE •2415 78th Ave NE •Evergreen Point Road •3302 78th PL NE •Overlake Drive •77th Ave NE •Groat Point •7821 NE 28th ST •NE 12th ST •Evergreen Point Road •77th Ave NE •79th Ave NE •Rambling Lane •NE 8th St •3401 Evergreen Point Road •78th Ave NE •2433 78th Ave NE •Medina •Evergreen Point Road •NE 14th St •82nd St •1081 80th Ave NE •NE 28th •Overlake Drive East •77th Ave NE •Midland Road •Hunts Point Road •Lake Washington Blvd Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 38 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT G High Quality Residential Character in Medina Survey Monkey Responses Friday, June 26, 2020 – Monday, July 20, 2020 10 questions; 63 responses Median time spent: 10m 30s 1.One of the goals of Medina’s Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the high-quality residential setting and character. a.What does high-quality residential character look like to you? (51 answered; 12 skipped) •It’s a personal choice •Excellent architectural design, well proportioned on the lot (not overpowering), beautiful landscaping, affords privacy from neighbors •No trash in the streets, some street lighting •Allowing people to build according to their needs •Privacy, lack of density, architectural consistency •Friendly •A neighborhood that differentiates itself from other neighborhoods in the surrounding area through thoughtful and careful planning •Some parks and unbuilt areas, houses that have a reasonable relationship to their lots. Nice gardens around houses, not all concrete •House size reasonable for lot, decent amount of vegetation and trees, reasonable house height •Homes in a variety of architectural styles, greenery that camouflages house from street and neighborhood, setback adequate from the street •It certainly doesn’t look like the mess the city does around hacking down local trees and bushes •It looks like an area where one house does not impose on its neighboring house •Homes with unique architecture instead of cookie cutter designs •Tree lined streets, underground wiring, spacious lots •Traffic taming. Low fence height in front yard, the houses on Evergreen Point Road diminish the quality of our residential character •I think this is too subjective a term to truly try to describe. This is arbitrary and too open to personal taste and opinion. What I may feel is not what another feels. This is based on feelings and is not quantifiable •Less density, trees, sidewalks, neighborhood feel •Aesthetically pleasing and not cookie cutter, big boxes •Tidy yards and streets, sidewalks, diversity of high quality architecture •Family homes, not estates, with preservation of trees •No utility poles, lots of trees, plantings on street side of sidewalks on busy street •An interesting diverse mixture of architectural design that is high quality both in design and construction and it not allow to impact existing neighboring properties •Walkways throughout the neighborhood with street lights and well manicured yards. It would be favorable to have walkways that carry through all the streets in our small town Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 39 of 121 Page | 2 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Plenty of mature trees, space between houses, and GOOD architecture that’s appropriate to a residential setting •Houses proportional to a lot with unique architectural features and nice landscaping •Well-balanced structure and green space/landscaped area •Fewer homes over 5000, less stucco •Cohesive neighborhoods of well spaced, well maintained properties •Space between well-designed homes •Property maintained •Aesthetically pleasing homes that don’t look like a giant box plopped on a piece of land all the way up to the setbacks •Well maintained, architecturally diverse, without massive walls and/or overgrown trees and shrubs •To be consistent with the overall landscape of Medina as well as surrounding architecture •Mixed but timeless architecture, well-maintained, proportional – doesn’t eat up the entire lot •Graceful homes, property sized for the building lot, and well maintained quality landscaping •Home size proportional to lot size. Adequate set back with required landscaping. No Street Parking Strips. Paved sidewalks with trees street side •Green belt appearance with clean lighted streets •Custom homes •Lush, expansive, nature-filled green space that brings nature and everything that makes the location special to the forefront •1) No massive homes that can home 4 different “but related” families. Or a single family with 20 members. High quality, fit is with other homes nearby. Example, most homes are “close to” English Tudor and someone wants a large white box •The setting in which the house sits is spacious, lush with mature plantings, natural fencing or upscale fencing •Nice homes and yards, spacious lots, well maintained public spaces (roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.) •Well maintained homes and gardens •Maintained yards including the publicly owned right of ways, diversity in architectural styles, well-maintained buildings, off street parking, preferably garaged vehicles, trees. Would be wonderful to have underground utilities throughout, excellent street appeal, sidewalks throughout •Well kept roads, public areas, removal of litter, removal of dead trees, and mutual respect of neighbors in community •Unique design without building to property lines. Allow for ample vegetation surrounding house and privacy •Old growth trees, attractive, older structures •Mixture of looks •Like the home has been there for a long time Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 40 of 121 Page | 3 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Retain character from destroying it by too big of homes on stripped lots •Size appropriate for the lot, well designed in a single characteristic (i.e. Dutch colonial, Craftsman, etc.) well maintain and “lived in” appearance b.Is there an area of the city (house, street, block, neighborhood) you think exemplifies this character? (41 answered; 22 skipped) •Houses on the golf course have a good mix of architecture •Many individual houses; I’d have to make a tour to identify a block or neighborhood •Laurelhurst area of Seattle, Eastside (Manhattan, NYC) •Vancouver, BC (Marpole, Shaughnessy, West End neighborhoods) •Absolutely sure •Evergreen Point •Those where houses have been for many years, very few newer houses that tend to be too large •Most of Medina fits this character. The area East of Evergreen Point Road and West of the golf course generally fits this •77th between 16th and 22nd Ave •Overlake Drive and 81st Ave. corner are used to look so pretty until the city hacked away all the rosebushes •Most of Medina has character but recently BDR homes is building cookie cutter hommes which is a bad development •With the exception of underground wiring…this characterizes most of the city •NE 10th between Evergreen and 80th •Again, if I were to say what I like that is not something that can be defined by a code •10th St •NE 10th •Overlake Drive, Evergreen Point Road •12th Street. A mix of homes, not just estates •Medina heights, parts of Evergreen Point Road where plantings between sidewalk and street •77th Ave NE has a fairly diverse architectural style at this point. IT appears that many trees were removed a long time ago and landscaping isn’t as natural as other areas •North of the Golf Club, East of Evergreen Pt. Rd. and Medina Heights •Medina Heights •Some parts of Medina Heights, Overlake •77th •77th •Various areas •I think 77th Ave bordering the gold course (mostly) and parts of Medina Heights •NE 2nd Place •77th Ave •Medina Heights, NE 2nd PL, 77t (exception: the big new white house on the west side of the street, which is out of scale to the rest of the street) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 41 of 121 Page | 4 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Medina Heights •Much of Evergreen Point Road, Medina Park circumference •88th Street •Yes, east side of Evergreen Rd. between 12th and entrance to Overlake G&CC •Medina Heights •78th Place NE •77th Ave NE between 16th St. & 22nd St. Tere are probably a number of others •Medina park and most streets •I love Medina Heights for this – there are plenty of trees, beautiful homes, and walkability with smaller street and a cozy feel •Homes that are not in direct view don’t count but there are too many LARGE mega homes taking up entire lot •The Heights c.How do you think this character can be maintained? (46 answered; 17 skipped) •Up to the property owners to maintain •Some street lights on major streets •Eliminate zoning and building code except for that related to safety and quality of construction •Disallow box shapes •Keeping our mayor and all the officers staying with us continually •As a city, we need to limit developers ability to tear down older homes and replace them with gargantuan houses that have no yard and are stacked on top of one another. We are losing our neighborhoods charm and character •Allowing less lot coverage, requiring more greens, less impervious surfaces •Keep the houses proportional to the lots, restrict height •Restrict size of houses, regulate tree removal for construction, regulate setback and height •Do not hire seasonal workers who don’t know their job •Reasonable setbacks •Encouraging unique architecture. Not allowing lots to be subdivided •Zoning, strict tree preservation/restoration codes and set-back codes based on timely, updated county-performed property surveys •Zone low fence height front yard •If you are talking about CCR’s that is a non-started •Strict enforcement of setbacks and zoning, design review process for new home builds •Smaller houses, more varied architecture •Encouraging maintenance of front yards •Lower property taxes, special tax on people who are not citizens, maximum square footage •Undergrounding the utility poles •Depends on new regulation and enforcement •Strengthen the tree protection requirements, and require proportional coverage of lots Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 42 of 121 Page | 5 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Nope •Clear building code and limits on size, height and design •Guidelines as well as mandates with penalties not limited to financial •Stricter building codes and maintenance requirements •More flexible rules, with more focus on goals •Owners maintain •Set restrictions on building size proportionate to lot size; maintain a % of trees on lot outside of house footprint (if there are any) •Architectural review of building plans; tree and shrub height and breadth restrictions •New buildings should consider the “look” of the neighborhood not only the “unique” features of the house they are going to build •Block-by-block neighbor input in advance of planning/building •So far – so good… •Neighborhood surveillance volunteer groups and fines for those who leave garbage dumpsters beyond collection days and substantial fines for street parking especially present on 78th Ave NE between 24th and 28th Street •House setbacks maintained •Minimum lot size (no further subdividing) •By not building mega-mansions that destroy the view and clear out nature •Have a citizen architect review board like a very many communities do •Increase setback regulations •Pride in possession •Owner maintenance and attention to remodels and new construction, continue with current zoning code for SF residential •I think Medina can do a better job picking up litter, especially around the school. My daughter and I actually did some of this ourselves when she was younger •Keep the trees, limit the new construction of massive structures on smaller lots, make sure monoliths are overly large/tall homes are at a minimum as well •Don’t let builders cram houses on a lot •Stricter codes for new construction •Better home design review with city review board d.Is there anything else related to high-quality residential character you’d like to share? (36 answered; 27 skipped) •Medina heights also has a good mix of architecture and street appeal •Materials and practices that respect the environment are important too •Strict rules about trees and signs and other stuff is dictatorial and doesn’t help increase quality of residential character •Current red tape discourages homeowners to build anything or even cut down a diseased tree (easier to wait until it’s dead) •Bulk on a lot should be permissible to the extent that it does not interfere with others sight lines, require setback/privacy trees above a certain bulk but allow square footage •Respect Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 43 of 121 Page | 6 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Walkways are important, glad to see we are adding them •No more box houses like the one on the corner of 16th and EPR! Took out so many trees to build that box. The house next to it being built is a good example of how to build unique houses and keep vegetation •Making it easy for home owners to remove dead trees •Arterials overviewed by city maintenance •Raised crosswalks to slow traffic in front of parks and schools •Raised crosswalks to slow traffic in front of parks and schools •If you are looking to try to restrict architecture and style of home based on taste that is ridiculous. What I like may not be what others like and to dictate to residents what they can and cannot design a house to look like is going to severely impact everyone’s property •Quality construction, landscaping, distance from street •Power lines should be underground •Don’t force residents to keep trees they don’t want •Keep the parks and paths well-maintained. Turn Chevron station into a park… •There are too many oversized homes on small lots. They look bad and certainly impact their neighbors, many of whom have been residents for decades •What can be done about the 520 lid traffic and overflow parking in the street towards the North point? •Property rights over emotion •Proper maintenance of driveways and property for existing homes is also needed •No •When the planning commission requires landscape and building maintenance is surprising how the city does not enforce standards like other homeowner groups •Refrain from subdivision of lots which put houses at the maximum setbacks. Establish city code which allows for enforcement of yard and right of way maintenance •Non contiguous swimming pools, tennis courts or other concrete monstrosities should not be allowed. High quality residential neighborhoods mean homes with well concealed “extras” •It is really important to keep distances between houses, having sidewalks, and trees •Spec builders need to be controlled. Avoid needless tree removal. Great grounds •No – please continue to monitor the exterior colors allowed •Tree rules followed •Landscaping of like character (above) •No cement sidewalks, natural, gravel, or black top paths or none at all •SIDEWALKS and STREET LIGHTS on Evergreen Point Road (north of 520) •No trash cans left on street year after year •I know you’ve reminded homeowners – all need to maintain the ROWs that abut their properties •I think the mutual respect of most people who reside and work here, including our friendly police team show the high quality of our neighborhood! •The entire lot is taken up by the house, virtually no yard! Do not allow that Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 44 of 121 Page | 7 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •Make sure that foreign investment homes do not sit empty 2.Current Development Projects: Have too many boxed style houses; there should be more modulation and not just flat walls: (61 answered; 2 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 13.11% (8) b.Disagree: 1.64% (1) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 19.67% (12) d.Agree: 39.34% (24) e.Absolutely Agree: 26.23% (16) Are too big; there should be a scaling back of allowable square footage: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 17.46% (11) b.Disagree: 12.70% (8) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 9.52% (6) d.Agree: 31.75% (20) e.Absolutely Agree: 28.57% (18) Are clearing too many trees and shrubs; there should be more of a natural landscaped buffer between lots: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 11.11% (7) b.Disagree: 7.94% (5) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 9.52% (6) d.Agree: 28.57% (18) e.Absolutely Agree: 42.86% (27) 3.The City should be encouraging more pitched roofs: (61 answered; 2 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 9.84% (6) b.Disagree: 4.92% (3) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 26.23% (16) d.Agree: 31.15% (19) e.Absolute Agree: 27.87% (17) 4.As far as having something built in Medina, I have Heard that Medina’s development code is difficult to understand: (60 answered; 3 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 5% (3) b.Disagree: 1.67% (1) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 33.33% (20) d.Agree: 38.33% (23) e.Absolute Agree: 21.67% (13) Heard that it is difficult to have exactly what you want built: (60 answered; 3 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 3.33% (2) b.Disagree: 11.67% (7) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 46.67% (28) d.Agree: 21.67% (13) e.Absolute Agree: 16.67% (10) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 45 of 121 Page | 8 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 Personally experienced that it is difficult to get what you want built: (58 answered; 5 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 6.9% (4) b.Disagree: 10.34% (6) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 44.83% (26) d.Agree: 15.52% (9) e.Absolute Agree: 22.41% (13) Not encountered this at all: (58 answered; 5 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 17.24% (10) b.Disagree: 10.34% (6) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 44.83% (26) d.Agree: 22.41% (13) e.Absolute Agree: 5.17% (3) 5.I would welcome the following next-door to my house (please check as many as you’d like): (53 answered; 10 skipped) a.Plane Break: 20.75% (11) b.Daylight Plane: 90.57% (48) c.Second Floor Sq. Ft. Reduction: 49.09% (26) 6.One concept that has been discussed is the idea of allowing additional height if there was a constraint placed on form (*this would NOT be applicable in the Medina Heights Overlay). Would you be okay if your next-door neighbor Built a house that was taller than the existing maximum height as long as it was farther away from my side yard: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 50.79% (32) b.Disagree: 25.4% (16) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 3.17% (2) d.Agree: 12.7% (8) e.Absolute Agree: 7.94% (5) Built a house that was taller than the existing maximum height as long as it had a pitched roof: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 41.27% (26) b.Disagree: 23.81% (15) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 14.29% (9) d.Agree: 11.11% (7) e.Absolute Agree: 9.52% (6) Built a house that was taller than the existing maximum height as long as the second floor had fewer square feet than the first: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 39.68% (25) b.Disagree: 31.75% (20) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 14.29% (9) d.Agree: 7.94% (5) e.Absolute Agree: 6.35% (4) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 46 of 121 Page | 9 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 I don’t care what they build as long as I can’t see it or it’s camouflaged by landscaping: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 15.87% (10) b.Disagree: 30.16% (19) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 28.57% (18) d.Agree: 15.87% (10) e.Absolute Agree: 9.52% (6) I am absolutely not okay with my neighbor being able to build a taller house than the existing maximum height: (62 answered; 1 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 16.13% (10) b.Disagree: 6.45% (4) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 9.68% (6) d.Agree: 16.13% (10) e.Absolute Agree: 51.61% (32) 7.A benefit of having a heavily landscaped lot is that it can provide visual and acoustic privacy between neighbors. The City should encourage or incentivize more landscaping around the perimeter of the lots: (63 answered) a.Absolutely Disagree: 3.17% (2) b.Disagree: 3.17% (2) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 15.87% (10) d.Agree: 31.75% (20) e.Absolute Agree: 46.03% (29) 8.I think some of the things brought up in this survey depend on where the lot is located. For example, additional height would be less impactful on upland lots compared to shoreline lots: (61 answered; 2 skipped) a.Absolutely Disagree: 13.11% (8) b.Disagree: 31.15% (19) c.Neither Agree nor Disagree: 19.67% (12) d.Agree: 24.59% (15) e.Absolute Agree: 11.48% (7) 9.How long have you lived in Medina? (63 answered) a.0-1 year: 1.59% (1) b.1-5 years: 4.76% (3) c.5-10 years: 11.11% (7) d.10-20 years: 28.57% (18) e.20+ years: 52.38% (33) f.I don’t live in Medina: 1.59% (1) 10.Is there anything else you’d like to share? (45 answered; 18 skipped) be maintained? (46 answered; 17 skipped) •Tree regulations are bad. It makes it hard to get rid of a diseased tree. Easier to let the disease spread. If a tree is too tall, it should be cut down without a permit. All trees Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 47 of 121 Page | 10 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 eventually die and fall over but it’s expensive to have yearly inspection and expensive to follow the code. Medina should stop being a busy body strict homeowner’s association. Medina is too small to save the planet even if the entire city were converted to a tree plantation. •Extremely tall trees are a hazard. They should be banned. •Neighborhood character is fragile and change to code should be made very conservatively if at all •N/A •Please stop neighbors and especially developers from planting Leland Cyprus along property lines. They are cheap and grow fast, but quickly become a giant cost and nuisance to neighbors living on the other side. I would encourage you to prohibit the planting of this tree in our neighborhood. Especially along property lines. It seems unreasonable to me that the adjoining neighbor should have to spend thousands of dollars a year to maintain someone else trees when they are growing over the fence. I have personal experience with this problem. Two sides of my lot have Leland Cyprus trees along the property lien and we spend thousands of dollars every year to maintain something we didn’t plant or want in our yard. •We need to protect those few reminders of old Medina that are remaining. Water towers, i.e. and other vestiges of early Medina, those can never be replaced and make for extra charm •I’m concerned about the # of homes sitting empty. If the maintain the yard, it’s better, but it’s sad. Two at least on my street •All the questions are situational •Legacy Trees should be kept or mandate replant on lot •I don’t want to see a design review committee, so while I may not like a “box” type house, others may so I don’t want to restrict what it looks like. That being said, a newly built house should not impose on the neighboring houses. Landscape buffers look nice, however in my experience they do not provide noise buffers •The tree code is still too onerous and requires too many trees on a lot which can reduce access to light. The shoreline code is very restrictive—the previous building manager told me I couldn’t put up a kids swing set on my property by the lake, which seems anti-family and children •At current land-only, real-market value/square foot there is no room for error. Survey data of a property should be no more than 30 days old for a pending listing/sale and be performed by a governing assessor’s team…no private surveyors! •If you intend to put restrictions on the architectural styles of home available in Medina then you are asking for a lawsuit. This is not a CCR community and to impose those upon the residents present and future is absolutely not in line with the property rights of individuals. I should be able to build what I want architecturally as long as my structural follows coverage and height restrictions. If I like Modern, Farmhouse, Craftsman, etc is no business of anyone else’s. What is next colors of paint? Grass maintenance? What if I don’t like my neighbor’s shade of green on his house??? Being “impacted” has to be quantified. You can’t because it is emotional, This is purely emotional. I hate the style of Hogwarts on Evergreen Point Road. But I am not going to say the owners can’t build it. They have to live there. Not me. They Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 48 of 121 Page | 11 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 probably hate my craftsman. So what?? If you want continuity of style by a track house somewhere else. •I appreciate the time taken to survey the residents on this topic. There are many small communities that have placed restrictions on development in an effort to maintain the unique character of their community. I believe it's important that our city government play a role in maintaining the Medina we all cherish and protect its attributes for future generations. There is a lot of pressure of development in our area and these are not easy fights to fight. I believe you have most of the city on your side. •Thank you for sending out the survey •Bury the ugly power lines •Green, community and low impact homes create a quality place to live. Fenced estates create barriers. Please mitigate for noise and toxic fumes •Keep/enhance the charm of Medina. Avoid box-like houses and underground utility lines •Too large of homes are allowed on small lots. Evergreen Point Road is not treated as a residential street like the rest of Medina. It needs protection from speeding and misuse by cyclists and pedestrians. This too impacts quality of life •Keep the city semi-rural as is current concept I believe •Is there any chance we could FINALLY bury the power lines? The benefits are obvious—far less destruction of existing beautiful graceful mature trees, far less danger of power outage (and need for generators) and a much more attractive overall appearance •No emotional laws view and sunlight was the lesson •Code should encourage custom architectural design •Required replacement of tree coverage when house structure covers most of lot results in use of borders of tall trees such as pine which are fragile, messy and, as trucks are denuded with branch loss, ugly •Better management of construction parking. My street has been overrun with construction parking for a remodel for the last 4 months •Unmaintained existing structure bring down overall neighborhood character and should be addressed •No •I am disappointed that major trees can be illegally trimmed or killed to create a view (not preserve) and the city does very little to enforce codes •It would be nice if the city would enforce view rights •I really don’t like the newly built “monster” houses •The waterfront properties that plant big trees should not be permitted •I don’t understand questions #5 – Please do NOT allow Leland Cypress hedge plantings •Paved parking or pebbled parking strips along street should not be allowed. Along 78th Ave NE between 24th and 28th many of these are use for long term parking and commercial cars and trucks which gives the appearance of a parking lot. This is unsightly as well as very unsafe •No •Tired of Bellevue allowing mega-mansions that cost millions of dollars, drive up the prices/affordability of homes, and are larger than 2,500 sq. feet. If you want less traffic on Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 49 of 121 Page | 12 Survey Monkey Analysis – Resident Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 roads, want less homeless and more housed, don’t want this to turn into a concrete city and want to retain nature and everything that makes the area amazing and worth living in, please reconsider how many large companies (1000+ employee companies) are being allowed to stack themselves on top of each other in a tiny space where only multimillion dollar houses exist. PLEASE start taking future generations into account!!! Thank you for your time. •Feel that Medina is being fed half truths about # of family members in a single family swelling and 2) builders building spec homes will chat, lie or steal to maximize sq. ft. on a given zoned lot. This happened to us 25 years ago. •Wouldn’t it be nice now that we are living with COVID tat kids in Medina actually had a yard to play in. Oh, well •The development code is too restrictive, confusing, and unhelpful to homeowners. It discourages not only building reasonable homes but even the maintenance of shared spaces, including safety-related enhancements in the Right of Way •Roof being changed. Skirting light pole changed without consulting neighbors •Thanks for offering this survey. It was interesting to think about buildings in Medina as I completed it. I look forward to learning about the results •No •Horrible application of the code interpretation screwed our remodel. Process was a joke then you let Steven Smith Construction build an eyesore across the street from us •PLEASE do something about yards that are not being maintained! So many more rentals in Medina that are not doing any maintenance. Two homes on my street are like this. Eyesores! Unacceptable. Slum lords. •Impose a tax on foreign purchased homes for investments •Not related to building code: I wish the city would address lots that appear un-lived in. Overgrown landscape, dangerous material, etc. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 50 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ATTACHMENT H Designing in Medina Survey Monkey Responses Wednesday, June 24, 2020 – Monday, July 20, 2020 10 questions; 16 responses Median time spent: 8m 1s 1.My experience designing something that meets the code in Medina has been: Easy a.Often: 50% (5) b.Sometimes: 20% (2) c.Never: 30% (3) Slightly annoying, but manageable a.Often: 38.46% (5) b.Sometimes: 38.46% (5) c.Never: 23.08% (3) Frustrating a.Often: 30.77% (4) b.Sometimes: 46.15% (6) c.Never: 23.03% (3) Impossible a.Often: 9.09% (1) b.Sometimes: 9.09% (1) c.Never: 81.82% (9) 2.Designing in Medina compared to other jurisdictions: I often hear people say it’s more difficult a.Agree: 78.57% (11) b.Disagree: 14.29% (2) c.N/A: 7.14% (1) I’ve never heard people say that it’s more difficult a.Agree: 15.38% (2) b.Disagree: 69.23% (9) c.N/A: 15.38% 2 I personally think that it’s more challenging a.Agree: 64.29% (9) b.Disagree: 35.71% (5) c.N/A I don’t find it any more challenging a.Agree: 50% (6) b.Disagree: 50% (6) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 51 of 121 Page | 2 Survey Monkey Analysis – Architect, Builder, and Designer Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 c.N/A I don’t think about this a.Agree: 0 b.Disagree: 36.36% (4) c.N/A: 63.64% (7) 3.The code seems to promote box-style houses a.Agree: 37.50% (6) b.Disagree: 31.25% (5) c.Haven’t noticed: 31.25% (5) 4.My client wasn’t able to get exactly what they wanted because of the code a.Agree: 68.75% (11) b.Disagree: 25% (4) c.N/A: 6.25% (1) 5.If your client was unable to get exactly what they wanted because of the code, can you provide an example of what that was: •Tree code with previous tree consultant. Not Tom Early, he has been exceptional •Setbacks/lot coverage made house small •The height limit and original ground process make designing a conventional 2 story house with expected ceiling heights almost impossible •N/A •Obscure original grade determination not seen in other jurisdictions and reduced height limit on top of it •Additional covered deck. Note – we used the height bonus that then limits lot coverage, which covered decks/patios would count against that in most instances would not increase the bulk and mass of the structure •Second story decks counting toward FAR •Our client was not able to match the existing roof height when doing an upper floor addition to add a bathroom. This was due to a more stringent application of the original grade determination than when the house was originally built. The result was that we had to do a flat roof on the addition which was not ideal in terms of roof drainage or aesthetics. The code is creating less ideal design solutions. •Mainly, the height restrictions. 5 more feet would be nice •The height limit and the front setbacks are unlike any other community •A small covered deck addition to an existing non-conforming waterfront home (closer to the shoreline and one property line than currently allowed) •Wanted to drop the garage to be more level with the street but could not because height is measured from grade at every section and not midpoint of average grade like all other cities 6.I have designed something for a client in Medina within the past a. Six months: 33.33% (5) b. Year: 26.67% (4) c. Two years: 33.33% (5) d. Five years: 6.67% (1) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 52 of 121 Page | 3 Survey Monkey Analysis – Architect, Builder, and Designer Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 e. I can’t even remember: 0% 7.I would be interested in the following: Additional height if a pitched roof was used by structural coverage was reduced a. Definitely not! What are you thinking? 0% b. Nope: 18.75% (3) c. Meh, I don’t have an opinion either way: 25% (4) d. This would work: 37.5% (6) e. Absolutely implement something like this! 18.75% (3) A planting strip along 50% of the rear and side yard setbacks for lots that exceed the maximum lot size requirement a. Definitely not! What are you thinking? 6.25% (1) b. Nope: 62.5% (10) c. Meh, I don’t have an opinion either way: 25% (4) d. This would work: 6.25% (1) e. Absolutely implement something like this! 6.25% (0) Daylight Plane a. Definitely not! What are you thinking? 13.33% (2) b.Nope: 20% (3) c. Meh, I don’t have an opinion either way: 46.67% (7) d. This would work: 13.33% (2) e. Absolutely implement something like this! 6.67% (1) Plane Break a. Definitely not! What are you thinking? b. Nope: 20% (3) c. Meh, I don’t have an opinion either way: 46.67% (7) d. This would work: 13.33% (2) e. Absolutely implement something like this! 6.67% (1) Different height requirements based on the roof form (e.g. 20 ft. for a flat roof and 25 ft. for a pitched roof) a. Definitely not! What are you thinking? 6.25% (1) b. Nope: 25% (4) c. Meh, I don’t have an opinion either way: 6.25% (1) d. This would work: 25% (4) e. Absolutely implement something like this! 37.5% (6) 8.I have designed the following for clients in Medina (check all that apply) a. Additions: 53.33% (8) b. Single-family residences: 66.67% (10) c. Shoreline appurtenances (e.g. docks, cabanas): 20% (3) d. Landscaping and related features (e.g. pergolas, water features, outdoor kitchens): 26.67% (4) e. Other: 13.33% (2) Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 53 of 121 Page | 4 Survey Monkey Analysis – Architect, Builder, and Designer Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 9.I work primarily as a(n) a. Architect: 62.5% (10) b. Builder: 18.75% (3) c. Landscape Architect: 6.25% (1) d. Designer: 0 e. Other: 12.5% (2) 10.Is there anything else you would like to share: •The staff does an excellent job answering code related questions and working with clients on projects •Staff is friendly •The staff is nice •Kudos to you for having Stephanie on your staff – she was great to work with, accommodating, communicative, attentive, cordial •Codes defining style and limiting creativity should be reviewed. A reasonable height limitation without original grade determination would allow a variety of housing styles and give some freedom roof forms •Some kudos to the staff and consultants. I have found them to be very responsive and helpful. I think the ‘original grade’ process is onerous difficult to predict outcomes for clients. If the whole house design has to change because of something that is uncovered during excavation that differs from the initial determination, there are SIGNIFICANT additional cost and delay to a project. Recommendation would be O.G. per Clyde Hill or resort to what most municipalities use for average grade based on existing or proposed (whichever is lower). •I have designed in many different municipalities. In a hilly neighborhood, allowing a sloped roof bonus definitely results in more attractive views of roofs below. People who own uphill lots are generally focused on maintaining height limits for fear of blocking views, but within a sloped roof bonus (and with restrictive height limits), boxy flat-roof design solutions will predominate. This creates a condition where uphill lots may have a view, but look out over unattractive flat roofs. Seattle’s sloped roof bonus has done a lot to encourage more attractive roof forms. Also, the calculation of height limit based on lowest original grade is ridiculous and illogical, especially for previously developed parcels (which is all of them at this point). To hold homeowners to a highly variable original grade determination based on unseen underlying geology (which predate any development and disregards the elevation of existing roofs & infrastructure) makes no sense. Both new and existing homeowners are negatively affected. Nothing good is coming from this process. •Once you know the process, it’s a nice city to work with •The height limit calc method & front yard setbacks are unique & unsuccessful in supporting quality design in fact the height limit drives poor design choices. Why have a restrictive height limit on lots with no potential for any views? Additionally the review timelines are extremely long. My recommendation would be to outsource your permitting to the city of Bellevue completely. Their system is efficient and predictable. You could have your own specific planning requirements but you could eliminate nearly the entire permitting department and streamline the process for better quality results. Owners would be able to spend more of their budgets on improving their homes instead of the soft costs associated with a protracted permitting process. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 54 of 121 Page | 5 Survey Monkey Analysis – Architect, Builder, and Designer Questions Planning Commission July 21, 2020 •These questions seem to be geared toward pushing the city in a more suburban direction that limits development. That’s unfortunate given Medina’s proximity to the city’s major employment centers. There seems to be no effort on the part of the city to take on its share of density and change that is necessary to make our region sustainable. •I found working with the City building department folks was delightful, they were very helpful! •Make permit process online and simple. Way too much paperwork and can’t check status unless emailing all reviewers, and not even sure who reviewers are. It would be nice to be given all reviewers needed, reviewer name, and status of each. Bulk Development Code Amendments Page 55 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 AGENDA BILL Subject: Minor Code Amendments Category: Public Hearing Resolution Other Prepared By: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Summary: It is staff’s goal to bring on an annual basis, small code amendments that are intended to: 1) clean-up and clarify the existing code 2) streamline process for both staff and applicants 3) and incorporate new direction from the legislature. The proposed amendments were sent out via GovDelivery and have been available on the city’s website since April 1, 2021. Staff hosted a virtual open house on April 15th and has met with one resident virtually to answer questions on the proposal. May 25th will be the first of two public hearings on this proposed amendment. Council will hold a second hearing and adoption on June 14th. Attachment(s): 5.2 Minor Code Amendments Staff Recommendation: Approve Proposed Planning Commission Motion: Move to approve the minor code amendments as presented. Minor Code Amendments Page 56 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 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. The proposed amendments were sent out via GovDelivery and have been available on the city’s website since April 1, 2021. Staff hosted a virtual open house on April 15th and has met with one resident virtually to answer questions on the proposal. May 25th will be the first of two public hearings on this proposed amendment. Council will hold a second hearing and adoption on June 14th. 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 20.30.020 Signs Clarify when to average surface area to determine the sign area. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 57 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 MMC 20.70.070 Administrative Approvals Remove owner occupancy requirements from accessory dwelling unit registration (HB2343) 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 20.30.020 – Signs. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify when a sign that has two sides needs to be averaged to determine surface area and make it consistent with the sign area definition in MMC 20.12.200. 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. Minor Code Amendments Page 58 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 59 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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; Minor Code Amendments Page 60 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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; Minor Code Amendments Page 61 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 3. The accessory structure or outdoor mechanical equipment does not occupy a footprint greater than 100 square feet; 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. … Minor Code Amendments Page 62 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 … 20.30.020 Signs. C. General Sign Provisions. 10. Support Structures for Freestanding Signs. … c.When a sign contains information on two sides, only one side is counted in determining sign area, except A-board signs where the average area of the two surface areas shall be used to determine surface area. … 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; Minor Code Amendments Page 63 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 64 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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; 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; Minor Code Amendments Page 65 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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. Minor Code Amendments Page 66 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 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. 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. Minor Code Amendments Page 67 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 … 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. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 68 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Permit Decision Authority Procedure Requirements DOC NOA NOH NOD 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. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 69 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Permit Decision Authority Procedure Requirements DOC NOA NOH NOD 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. 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 Minor Code Amendments Page 70 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Permit Decision Authority Procedure Requirements DOC NOA NOH NOD 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. Minor Code Amendments Page 71 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 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. The following topics have been updated or are new additions based on requested direction: 1. Legacy Trees a. What number DBH qualifies as one – reduce from 50” to 36” b. Sliding scale for legacy tree mitigation based on lot size 2. Creation of a third tier of trees a. Last month it was suggested an additional layer of protection be placed on those large trees that have a DBH of 100+ inches. Staff is proposing the city create an exceptional category of tree that satisfies that requirement. These trees will have the highest requirement of mitigation if one is to be removed. 3. Amending Table 20.52.130(C) Existing Tree Unit a. This wasn’t fully explored last month. 4. Location Requirement a. This has yet to be fully discussed. Attachment(s): 6.1 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Staff Recommendation: Discussion Proposed Planning Commission Motion: N/A Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 72 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 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 as we continue to work through this topic. To draw the reader’s attention to those sections with new information, the word UPDATED, CONTINUED 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). Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 73 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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: Exceptional, legacy, and significant (UPDATED) Planning Commission has discussed creating better legacy tree protection in the form of reducing the threshold for what qualifies as a legacy tree as well as creating an additional layer of protection for those trees that have a diameter breast height of 100” and greater. It seems that in Medina, there are really three standards of trees: significant (those 6” DBH and greater); legacy (those either 36” or 50” DHB up to less than 100”); and then exceptional (those 100” DBH and greater). By creating an additional status of tree, that would then establish a hierarchy of retention with exceptional trees having the most stringent mitigation requirements. This would send a clear direction that the city does not want to lose these trees (it should be noted that if an exceptional tree became a hazard tree, it would be allowed to come down). It has not been decided whether to lower the threshold of a legacy tree from 50” to 36” DBH. During the April meeting Planning Commissioners expressed concern about the amount of mitigation that would be required, particularly for smaller lots. To address this concern, it was requested that staff return with a scale that was relative to lot size for legacy tree removal. If it is agreed that the city should reduce legacy trees to 36”, the required mitigation needs to ensure balance. While no one wants a code that is excessively onerous on a property, we also do not want to make it too lenient and end up back where we are in three years. In the proposal, lot sizes are broken out into 5 groups which are the same numerical groups that are used for the setback requirements (MMC 20.22.030). The square footage groupings are: less than 10,001; from 10,001 to 13,000; from 13,001 to 15,000; from 15,001 to 20,000; greater than 20,000. The required replacement DBH is a sliding scale from 10% up to 50%. Quick examples from each grouping may be found below. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 74 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 Lot size: 10,000 sq. ft. Legacy tree DBH removed: 36” Required replacement inches: 10% removed DBH Required trees = 3.6 = 4 rounded up (36 x .1 = 3.6 = 4) Lot size: 12,000 sq. ft. Legacy tree DBH removed: 36” Required replacement inches: 15% removed DBH Required trees = 5.4 = 6 rounded up (36 x .15 = 5.4 = 6) Lot size: 15,000 sq. ft. Legacy tree DBH removed: 36” Required replacement inches: 25% removed DBH Required trees: 9 (36 x .25 = 9) Lot size: 18,000 sq. ft. Legacy tree DBH removed: 36” Required replacement inches: 35% removed DBH Required trees: 12.6 = 13 rounded up (36 x .35 = 12.6 = 13) Lot size: 20,000 sq. ft. Legacy tree DBH removed: 36” Required replacement inches: 50% removed DBH Required trees: 18 (36 x .5 = 18) Fee-in-Lieu (COMPLETED – APPROVED APRIL 27th: 3-2) 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. Medina Tree Fund (NEW) At the last meeting, the question of what the city does with the money received from owners opting to use the fee-in-lieu (or payment into the Medina tree fund) option was asked. The Public Works department oversees the fund and they use it to cover the costs of tree trimming, removal of hazard Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 75 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 trees, and new plantings on city property. One thing the city should do is create a plan and prioritize where future plantings should occur. Amending tree credit value section MMC 20.52.130(C) (increase or decrease) (CONTINUED) 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 76 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 Tree Type Diameter Breast Height of Existing Tree Tree Unit 36 inches and greater 1.25 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) Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 77 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 78 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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) Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 79 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 80 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 81 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 82 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 83 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 84 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 85 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 86 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 87 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 88 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 89 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 90 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 91 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. 2. At least 15 percent of the required significant trees as determined by MMC 20.52.130 shall be retained within the site interior. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 92 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 and exceptional tree protection measures. This section applies to trees designated as legacy and exceptional trees, which are native trees that because of their age, size and condition are recognized as having exceptional outstanding value in contributing to the character of the community. Legacy and exceptional trees within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated in MMC 20.66.050. A. A legacy or exceptional tree meeting all of the following criteria shall be designated as a legacy tree by meeting all of the following criteria: 1. Legacy tree: 1a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; and 2b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 5036 inches or larger but less than 100 inches; and 3c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a likelihood of surviving more than 10 years based on assumptions that: ai. The tree is properly cared for; and bii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is unenhanced by any proposed development; and 4d. The tree is not: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 93 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 ai. A hazard tree pursuant to MMC 20.52.200; or bii. 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 ciii. 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. 2. Exceptional tree: a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species”; and b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 100 inches or larger; and c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a likelihood of surviving more than 10 years based on assumptions that: i. The tree is properly cared for; and ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is unenhanced by any proposed development; and d. The tree is not: i. A hazard tree pursuant to MMC 20.52.200; or ii. 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 iii. 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 and exceptional trees shall be preserved and retained unless replacement trees are planted in accordance with the following: 1. Legacy tree: 1a. The quantity of replacement trees is calculated by multiplying the diameter breast height of the subject legacy tree by 50 percent the required percentage standards in Table 20.52.120(B) 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 94 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 3b. 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)(a) and (2) of this section. Table 20.52.120(B) Legacy Tree Replacement Requirements Square Footage of the Lot Area Required number of replacement caliper inches Less than 10,001 10% removed DBH From 10,001 to 13,000 15% removed DBH From 13,001 to 15,000 25% removed DBH From 15,001 to 20,000 35% removed DBH Greater than 20,000 50% removed DBH Do we need an example here of how to calculate the replacement inches using the table??? 2. Exceptional tree: a. The quantity of replacement trees is calculated by multiplying the diameter breast height of the subject exceptional tree by 100 percent to establish the minimum number of replacement inches; and b. When more than one exceptional tree is removed, the placement inches for each exceptional tree being removed shall be added together to produce a total number of tree replacement inches; and c. 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)(2)(a) and (b) 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: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 95 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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); 2. The tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall apply to the removal of a legacy tree in lieu of and in addition to requirements for removing nonlegacy trees; 3. The tree replacement requirements set forth in this section for a legacy tree shall not be used to satisfy requirements for removing nonlegacy trees or a pre-existing tree unit gap; 4. If the minimum performance standards in MMC 20.52.130 are used, and if supplemental tree units are required, the tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall together count as one supplemental tree unit; 5. Off-site tree planting as described in MMC 20.52.140(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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 96 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 97 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density Ratio Nonresidential other than specifically listed 0.25 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 98 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. Table to be discussed/clarified Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 99 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 e. See Diagram 20.52.130 for an example of calculating supplemental trees. 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 100 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 a. To be eligible as a supplemental tree, the tree species must be selected from the appropriate list set forth in the “City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species” established in MMC 20.52.050; b. Trees shall be planted on the subject lot; c. Each supplemental tree shall have a minimum caliper of two inches or, if the tree is coniferous, it shall have a minimum height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city; d. Trees shall be planted in a manner of proper spacing and lighting that allows them to grow to maturity; e. Existing trees within the boundaries of the lot having less than six inches diameter breast height may count as supplemental trees provided the tree meets all other requirements applicable to a supplemental tree; f. Supplemental trees replacing existing significant trees shall have at least one tree be of the same plant division (coniferous or deciduous) as the significant tree it is replacing; and g. The owner of the subject lot shall take necessary measures to ensure that supplemental trees remain healthy and viable for at least five years after inspection by the city and the owner shall be responsible for replacing any supplemental trees that do not remain healthy and viable for the five years after inspection by the city. E. All trees used to satisfy the supplemental tree requirements of this chapter shall be included as a significant tree for purposes of this chapter. F. In lieu of the supplemental tree requirements prescribed by this section, an owner may satisfy the requirements for supplemental trees by meeting the requirements for off-site tree planting set forth in MMC 20.52.140. 20.52.140 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; Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 101 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 3. Existing trees within the boundaries of the lot having less than six inches diameter breast height may count as supplemental trees provided the tree meets all other requirements applicable to a supplemental tree; 4. Supplemental trees replacing existing significant trees shall have at least one tree be of the same plant division (coniferous or deciduous) as the significant tree it is replacing; and 5. The owner of the subject lot shall take necessary measures to ensure that supplemental trees remain healthy and viable for at least five years after inspection by the city and the owner shall be responsible for replacing any supplemental trees that do not remain healthy and viable for the five years after inspection by the city. B. All trees used to satisfy the supplemental tree requirements of this chapter shall be included as a significant tree for the purpose of this chapter. C. Where supplemental trees are required pursuant to MMC 20.52.130(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. 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 102 of 121 AGENDA ITEM 6.1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 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. Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 103 of 121 TREE20-049 Example 1 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 104 of 121 30 Example 1 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 105 of 121 1 0 0 9 0 8 5 1 0 5 9 5 1 1 5 1 1 0 MP 16* C E30 D F 12CE12 D F 32 DF32 MA 12 CH8CH6 CE 10 HE8 CE6 CE 10 CE6 DF 16 DF22 C E 18 HE 14 DS 22 M P14 * M P12 D F 30 DF36 M A6 C E10 CE 10 D F 28 DF32 DS 26 DF24 DF26 DF16 D F 22 DF32 D S8 D F 36 DF26 D F 26 DF26DF18 DF16 DF40DF14 D F 32 DF28 CE 12 M A6 DF32 DS 10 DF26 D F 24 D F 30 DF6 DF30 D F 36 74 7 6 7 8 8 2 8 4 8 6 8 8 9 2 94 96 98 102 104 106 108 112 114 118 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 1 0 8 6 8 7 2 7 4 7 6 7 8 8 2 8 4 8 6 88 9 2 94 102 1 0 4 1 0 6 1 0 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 1 1 0 7 0 8 0 90 1 0 0 110 120 10 0 10 0 100 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 °2 1 '1 9 "E479.4 0 ' T W O STORY H O USE W/ BASE MENT CARP O RT DECK ABO VE R OOF OVER HAN G (TYPICAL) BUILDIN G OVERHAN G (TYPICAL) DE CK DECK DECK TIM BER W ALL FINISH FLOO R BASEM ENT = 93.8' FINISH FLO OR = 103.3' RIDGE HEIGHT =127.8' DE CK SS M HRIM = 116.34' INV S-N = 109.72' CB RIM = 74.39' INV S W = 69.78' INV N E = 69.51' INV SE = 71.18' TELEPHO NE PEDESTAL PARCEL NO.383550-1955 PARCEL NO.383550-1951 FO UND BENT REBAR 0.69' N & 0.58' W FIRE HYDRANT73' 3 0 ' 3 0 ' ORIGINAL GRADE NE 7TH STREET O V E R L A K E D R I V 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 ' N 3 4 °2 1 '3 2 "E 2 3 5 .1 5 ' (M 0 2 4 2 .4 7 ' (D E E D ) R =5 3 1.6 3' A =19 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 V E R L A K E D R I V E NE 7TH STREET 92 CONSTRUCTION FENCE LINE S I L T F E N C E L I N E 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 7TH ST SD SD SD S I L T F E N C E L I N 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 0 6 o f 1 2 1 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 107 of 121 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 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 108 of 121 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 0 9 o f 1 2 1 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 0 o f 1 2 1 Example 4 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 111 of 121 Example 4 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 112 of 121 Example 4 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 113 of 121 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 4 o f 1 2 1 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 5 o f 1 2 1 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 6 o f 1 2 1 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 7 o f 1 2 1 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 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 1 8 o f 1 2 1 Example 5 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 119 of 121 Example 5 Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 120 of 121 Approved Medina Tree Activity Permit Plan 07/30/2020 Tom Early Medina Tree Consultant Example 5 Tr 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 n t s Pa g e 1 2 1 o f 1 2 1