The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-08-2020 - Agenda PacketPage 3-4 MEDINA, WASHINGTON www.medina-wa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Virtual/Online Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:00 PM With the passing of the City's Proclamation of Local Emergency and the Governor's Stay - at Home Proclamation, City Hall is closed to the public. Planning Commission participation in the special meeting will be by teleconference/online only. Members of the public may also participate by phone/online but please note that no contemporaneous public comment will be accepted. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/I/91422022539?pwd=bnpVYk5xS09HZVR5ZGJ3UGdUK2ZvQT09 Meeting ID: 914 2202 2539 Passcode: 244525 One tap mobile +12532158782„91422022539# US (Tacoma) AGENDA David Langworthy, Mark Nelson, Laurel Preston, Mike Raskin, Randy Reeves, Shawn Schubring and Jenny Smith Staff/Commissioners Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2020 Recommendation: Adopt Minutes. Staff Contact: Amber Taylor, Development Services Coordinator Due to remote conferencing there will be no contemporaneous public comments at the Planning Commission meeting. If residents or the public have questions, concerns or comments of Planning Commission business or issues, or the following Planning Commission agenda, kindly submit comments via email or regular mail to ataylorCa)medina-wa.gov by 1 PM on Page 1 of 45 Page Tuesday, December 8, 2020 to be read aloud by the Development Services Coordinator. 5-8 1. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 9 - 45 2. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Next special meeting: January 26, 2021. Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6 PM. However, due to shifts in work and life that have resulted from COVID-19, the meetings have been temporarily chanaed to 2r)m. 2021 SCHEDULED MEETINGS Tuesday, January 26, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Special Meeting at 2PM Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, April 24, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, May 25, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Special Meeting at 2 PM Tuesday, November 23, 2021 Regular Meeting Cancelled November 2021 Meeting Date TBD Tuesday, December 28, 2021 Regular Meeting Cancelled December 2021 Meeting Date TBD In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (425) 233-6410 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 2 of 45 Draft AGENDA ITEM 3.1 MEDINA, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ZOOM Tuesday, November 17, 2020 2:00 PM MINUTES The Planning Commission Special Meeting of November 17, 2020 was called to order at 2:06 p.m. by Chair Preston. Commissioners Present: Langworthy Nelson, Raskin, Reeves, Smith, Schubring and Preston Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Keyser, Taylor and Kellerman Keyser announced the 2021 work plan will be brought to Council in January. 1. Minutes from October 27, 2020 Special Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Motion Nelson Second Langworthy Approved 7-0 None 1. Subject: Tree Code and Mitigating Bulk Keyser continued the discussion of the tree code with Commissioners. The Commissioners provided input and asked questions. Staff responded. Chair Preston continued the discussion on mitigating bulk with Commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2020 Page 3 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Commissioners discussed and responded. ACTION: Keyser to come back with permit tree data. Schubring calls motion to allow eaves into setbacks by 1ft ACTION: Motion Schubring Second Smith Raskin calls to amend motion to allow the eaves into setbacks be up to 2ft. ACTION: Move Raskin Second Nelson Chair Preston opened discussion on amended motion Commissioners responded. ACTION: Approval of amended motion to allow eaves into setbacks up to 2ft 5-2 ACTION: Approval of motion to allow eaves into setbacks 5-2 None Motion Schubring Second Nelson; The Special Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 4:11pm Minutes taken by: Amber Taylor Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2020 Page 4 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 A4CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD I PO BOX 144 1 MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 1 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2020 TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Mitigating Bulk Council tasked Planning Commission with coming up with ways to mitigate bulk. Throughout many months of discussion, two general ideas evolved: adjusting structural coverage and creating incentives. At the October meeting, a vote was taken and it was agreed to recommend reducing structural coverage for lots larger than 16,000 square feet in R-16 to match what is allowed for the same sized lots in R-20/R-30. To meet the goal of having a complete recommendation in January, the potential pitched roof height bonus is presented below. The text was intentionally written in its most restrictive form of allowing three (3) additional feet to serve as a starting point for the discussions and motions. The yellow highlighted section is just to draw your attention to the fact that a height bonus for R-20/R- 30/SR-30 is alreadv in the code. It is staff's suggestion that a new section for bonus height standards be created and both the pitched roof for R-16 and the existing R-20/R-30/SR-30 bonuses be outlined in it. Height Bonus Summary: This option would grant additional 3 feet on top of the maximum zoning height (25 ft./28 ft.). in R-16 if a pitched roof is used. The text below is how it would appear in the code and is intended as a starting point for discussion. 20.23.050 Maximum building and structure height standards. A. Application of Maximum Height Standards. 1. Table 20.23.050(A) establishes the maximum height standards for buildings and structures within each zone. 2. Areas not identified in Table 20.23.050(A) are subject to the height standards specified for the R-20/R-30 zone. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 5 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 b. if the lot afea is 16,000 square feet of less, the total stnaetufal eevefage an the 11� !!112 !!11�!!11 i'h�z20.23.7t0, Table 20.23.050(A): Maximum Height Standards Measurement Points Zoning/Height Overlay Maximum Height R-16 Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 6 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 1.1 IN .. . 20.23.060 Bonus height standards. Where Table 20.23.050(A) specifies eligibility for a height bonus, the following zoning -based development standards shall apply: A. A property owner in the R-16 zone may elect to apply the bonus height standards in Table 20.23.060(A) provided: 1. The roof shall be pitched at a rate of not less than 4:12; and 2. The total structural coverage on the lot does not exceed seventeen and one-half percent 1( 7.5%) Table 20.23.060(A): R-16 Pitched Roof Bonus Height Development Standard Measurement Points Maximum Height Maximum Structural Coverage Original Grade High Point 28 feet 17.5% of the lot Low Point Finished Grade Hi h Point 31 feet Low Point B. A property owner in the R-20/R-30 and SR-30 zone may elect to apply the bonus height standards in Table 20.23.060(B) provided: 1. The total structural coverage does not exceed 13 percent, excluding the structural coverage bonus set forth in MMC 20.23.040; or 2. If the lot area is 16,000 square feet or less, the total structural coverage on the lot does not exceed seventeen and one-half percent (17.5%), excluding the structural coverage bonus set forth in MMC 20.23.040. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 7 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 Table 20.23.060(B): R-20/R-30 and SR-30 Bonus Height Development Standard Measurement Points Maximum Height Maximum Structural Coverage Ordinal Grade High Point 30 feet 36 feet 30 feet 36 feet 13% of the lot Low Point Finished Grade Hi h� Low Point ***This is already in the code. The proposal will simply move it into a new section: 20.23.060 Bonus height standards*** Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 8 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 A4CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD I PO BOX 144 1 MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 1 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2020 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. The work plan language that Council adopted in September is below: Task: Review the 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 the new single-family site redevelopment. First steps: 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). To help the discussion, the data from tree permits submitted to the city since the adoption of the code in 2015 has been provided. Additionally, the relevant sections of the tree code and the 2014 tree canopy study are attached. Submitted Tree Permits 2015-Present Since the tree code went into effect in 2015, there have been 105 tree activity permits submitted to the city. Of those, 6 were withdrawn, 4 were for commercial properties, 1 expired, 1 application Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 9 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 was never uploaded to our portal, and 4 are currently waiting on corrections. This leaves a total of 89 permits available to be analyzed. Out of those, 2 were for properties not under development (they did not meet the land under development criteria in MMC 20.52.100). Out of the 89 submitted tree permit applications, 59 properties (66%) were not required to plant supplemental trees, however 6 properties did anyway for a total of 135 trees. It should be noted that one property alone was responsible for planting 102 new trees around the perimeter of their property in 2018. Removing the properties that chose to plant trees when they didn't have to, this leaves 60% (53 properties) of the applications that have been submitted since 2015 that removed trees and did not plant anything supplemental. Trees in the tree code are broken out into units, which do not necessarily equate to a one-to-one replacement ratio. Depending on the kind of tree and its size, an applicant might have to plant two trees for one tree credit. Of the 89 applications, 30 properties (34%) were required to plant supplemental trees which translated into 121 actual trees (99 tree units required). The permit data is below. The project on 79th that caused some controversy has been highlighted in red. Per the code, that parcel is only required to have 9 tree credits. This allowed them to remove 32.75 tree units from their property. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 10 of 45 c LT `m m m 0 0 Q m m m 0 v Q x m v 0 m m m c m m a AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Total Tree Sig. Tree Sig. Tree Required Required Actual Sq. Ft. Units Units Units Tree Supplemental Supplemental Removed Remain Units Tree Units Trees Planted TREE-15- 2403 76TH AVE NE 60.5 20.5 40 19 None required 0 52,345 023 TREE-15- 7916 NE 22ND ST 21.5 3 18.5 9 None required 0 24,487 024 TREE-15- 1425 80TH AVE NE 5.75 1 4.75 4 None required 0 10,975 026 TREE-15- 923 76TH AVE NE 141.75 1 140.75 82 None required 0 232,610 032 TREE-15- 3242 78TH PL NE 11.5 4.5 7 7 None required 0 20,023 038 TREE-15- 8703 NE 11TH ST 7.75 1 6.75 5 None required 0 12,653 040 TREE-15- 3239 EVEGREEN PT RD 7 None required 0 ,000 042 TREE-15- 7640 NE 12TH ST 11.25 0 11.25 7 None required 0 19,844 043 TREE-16- 8658 NE 7TH ST 5.5 9 None required 002 TREE-16- 3225 EVERGREEN 0 0 0 8 8 8 20,350 003 POINT RD THE - 2209 79TH AVE NE 5.25 2.5 2.75 3 1 .11 006 TREE-16- 2000 79TH AVE NE 35.5 20.5 15 14 None required 0 40,642 013 TREE-16- 820 80TH AVE NE 8.5 2 6.5 5 None required 13,81 015 TREE-16- 830 80TH AVE NE 15.25 3 12.25 5 None required 0 13,816 023 TREE-16- 1456 76TH AVE NE 15.5 10 5.5 8 3 6 20,373 026 TREE-16- 2656 78TH AVE NE 5 2 3 6 3 5 15,564 027 c LT `m m m 0 0 Q m m m a o' v Q x m v 0 m m m c m m a cn b Uq CD N 0 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TREE-16- 2637 77TH AVE NE 22.25 0.75 21.5 7 None required 0 029 TREE-16- 2426 78TH AVE NE 4.75 0.75 4 3 None required 0 8,119 031 TREE-16- 7650 NE LOTH ST 5 14.25 10.25 6 None required 032 TREE-16- 3311 EVERGREEN 33.75 8.25 25.5 10 None required 0 26,136 033 POINT RD TREE-16- 1632 77TH AVE NE 6.25 0 6.25 7 1 036 TREE-16- 7841 NE 21 ST ST 2.5 1.5 1 9 8 8 24,911 037 TREE-16- 1013 84TH AVE NE 8.5 0 8.5 5 None required 0 12,163 042 TREE-16- 22.5 0 22.5 18 None required 0 52,707 1625 RAMBLING LN 048 TREE-16- 911 87TH AVE NE 6.75 2 4.75 6 None required 3 17,030 051 TREE-16- 7842 NE 21 ST ST 35.5 17.75 17.75 9 None required 0 24,345 053 TREE-16- 2750 EVERGREEN 23 13.5 9.5 6 None required 0 16,963 057 POINT RD TREE-16- 7842 NE 14TH ST 20 9 11 8 None required 0 19,868 061 TREE-17- 8400 NE 7TH ST 7.25 3 4.25 9 7 7 23,784 001 TREE-17- 520 EVERGREEN PT RD 1.25 0 1.25 3 2 2 9,600 003 TREE-17- 543 OVERLAKE DR E 23 1 22 5 None required 0 13,826 008 TREE-17- 619 84TH AVE NE 17 8 9.75 8 None required 0 21,625 O10 TREE-17- 2625 82ND AVE NE Oil TREE-17- 7800 NE 28TH ST unknown 7 unknown unknown 2 2 365,195 012 c LT `m m (D C) 0 Q m m m a o' v Q x m v 0 m m m c m m a cn b 00 CD w 0 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TREE-17- 7871 NE 21 ST ST 25.5 27.5 9 None required 25,763 013 jo F TREE-17- 3401 EVERGREEN 27.25 1 26.25 10 None required 0 27,007 022 POINT RD TREE-17 2209 79TH AVE NE 2 025 TREE-17- 7819 NE LOTH ST 6.75 2.5 4.25 4 None required 0 10,650 028 TREE-17- 1306 EVERGREEN 20 11.75 8.25 6 None required 0 033 POINT RD TREE-17- 8233 OVERLAKE DR W 3.5 0 3.5 5 2 2 10,668 038 TREE-17- 8700 NE lf�o. 6.25 2 4.75 4 None required 0 11,288 040 TREE-17- 7842 NE LOTH ST 11.25 6.5 4.75 6 2 2 16,000 041 TREE-17- 2612 79TH AVE NE 10 2 8 6 None required 0 16,240 044 TREE-17- 2610 82ND AVE NE 4 3 1 5 5 5 15,388 046 TREE-17- 7545 NE 28TH PLO 24.25 12.5 11.75 13 None required 15 36,370 047 TREE-17- 2841 76TH AVE NE 76 11.25 64.75 16 None required 0 44,789 048 TREE-17- 3244 76TH AVE NE 12.25 6.5 5.75 7 1 1 21,208 051 TREE-17- 8423 Midland Road 5.5 2.5 3 5 2 2 12,920 054 1201 76TH AVE NE TREE-17- 67 7 60 48 None required 36,900 060 TREE-18- 7852 NE 14TH ST 9.5 5.5 4 3 None required 2 (required for 8,675 002 RO TREE-18 433 86TH AVE NE 4.25 005 TREE-18- 1221 EVERGREEN 79.5 48.75 30.75 23 None required 0 67,700 013 POINT RD c LT `m m m 0 0 Q m m m a o' v Q x m v n m m m c m m a cn AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TREE-18- 202 OVERLAKE DR E 19.25 4 26,40 017 7.5 1 6.5 4 None required 0 9,900 TREE-18- 515 OVERLAKE DR E 019 TREE-18- 8835 OVERLAKE DR W unknown 10 None required 1 021 mi TREE-18- 3265 EVERGREEN PT 18.5 11 7.5 7 None required 0 20,023 022 RD TREE-18- 3267 EVERGREEN PT 12 5 K7 8 023 RD TREE-18- 3263 EVERGREEN PT 19.5 10.5 8.75 4 8 34,342 024 RD 72)2)5 TREE-18- 8426 OVERLAKE DR W 8 8 0 5 6 25,828 031 TREE-18- 7747 OVERLAKE DR W 33.75 13.5 20.25 None required 5 62,153 032 TREE-18- 1024 82ND AVE NE 4 1 3 2.5 None required 0 6,925 035 TREE-18- 1655 73RD AVE NE 15.25 6 9 9 None required 8 21,720 037 TREE-19- 8398 NE 12th St 103.75 9.25 94.5 62 None required 0 244,807 005 TREE-19- 1637 77TH AVE NE 25 5.75 19.25 12 None required 0 32,614 009 TREE-19- 8000 NE 16th St 1703.25 67.75 1635.5 208 None required 0 1,387,822 Oil TREE-19- 607 86th Ave NE 14.25 8.75 5.5 6 0.5 1 17,036 019 TREE-19- 2519 82nd Ave NE 2.75 6.75 4.5 None required 021 TREE-19- 2230 Evergreen Point Rd 14.75 7.75 7 6 None required 0 16,238 023 8080 NE 24TH ST 2 2.75 TREE-19- 024 7648 NE 12th St 25.5 16.5 9 2 None required 0 19,850 TREE-19- 026 c LT `m m m 0 0 Q m m m a o' v Q x m v n m m m c m m a cn AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TREE-19- 7838 NE 8TH ST 7 7.25 6 None required 0 15,971 032 TREE-19- 2436 82nd Ave NE 24 4.25 19.75 6 None required 0 15,948 034 TREE-1 2231 78TH AVE NE 25 038 TREE-19- 1848 77th Ave NE 17.25 10.75 6.5 9 3 4 25,586 044 TREE-19- 226 Overlake Dr E 4.25 7 7 7,82 045 TREE-19- 3300 78TH PL NE 21.25 12.75 8.5 7 None required 0 18,675 049 TREE-19- 1405 Evergreen Point Rd 39.25 0.75 38.5 12 None required 0 34,105 057 TREE-19- 8015 NE 28th St 10.5 5.75 4.75 4 None required 0 9,382 058 TREE-19- 7823 NE 14TH ST 21.25 12.75 8.5 7 None required 0 19,862 062 E9 �R TREE-19- 2033 77TH AVE NE 2 1 1 3 2 2 8,188 072 24.25 7.25 17 124,636 TREE-19- 8297 Overlake Dr W 11 None required 0 076 TREE-19- 1010 84TH AVE NE 6.75 3.75 3 4 1 1 8,979 080 TREE-20- 850 80TH AVE NE 20.25 11 9.25 6.3 None required 0 17,904 002 TREE-20- 2626 78TH AVE NE 10 7 3 3 None required 8,120 008 TREE-20- 2632 78TH AVE NE 7 2 5 3 None required 0 8,120 009 TREE-20- 1407 76TH AVE NE 23.25 17.75 None required O10 TREE-20- 2451 78TH AVE NE 6.75 4 2.75 3 1 2 8,119 Oil c LT `m m (D C) 0 Q m m m a o' v Q x m v 0 m m m c m m a c cn AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TREE-20- 619 84TH AVE NE 2.75 18.75 8 None required 0 012 TREE-20- 7815 NE 28TH ST 12.25 9.25 3 3 None required 0 8,120 013 TREE-20- 1645 73RD AVE NE 5.25 0 014 7619 NE 22ND ST 17.25 9.5 7.75 6 None required 0 16,303 TREE-20- 019 TREE-20- 2036 EVERGREEN 12 6 None required 042 POINT RD AGENDA ITEM 5.2 CHAPTER 20.52 TREE MANAGEMENT CODE 20.52.100 Designation of land under development. Land is designated as under development for purposes of this chapter if one or more of the following conditions is present: A. Any development activity requiring a building permit where: 1. Construction of a dwelling having a gross floor area of 2,500 square feet or more; 2. Construction of accessory buildings on property containing a residential use, or supporting a residential use, where the total gross floor area of all accessory buildings on the lot is 1,000 square feet or more; 3. Any building constructed to be occupied principally by a nonresidential use where the gross floor area of the building is 1,000 square feet or more; 4. Any series of exterior alterations, modifications or additions that over a four -consecutive - year period increases the total building footprint on a lot by more than 500 square feet or 15 percent, whichever is larger; 5. Construction of any structures, including but not limited to driveways, decks, patios, and walkways, that over a four -consecutive -year period increases the impervious surface on the lot by a total of 2,000 square feet or more; 6. Grading that over a four -consecutive -year period totals 2,000 cubic yards or more. B. Any development activity requiring a building permit, a right-of-way permit, and/or a land use or shoreline permit where: 1. One or more significant trees are removed, with at least one tree having a 10-inch diameter breast height or larger size; or 2. Four or more significant trees are removed, provided each has less than a 10-inch diameter breast height size; and 3. The criteria in subsections (B)(1) and (2) of this section shall include the following trees: a. Significant trees removed within two years prior to the submittal of an application for such permits; or b. Significant trees removed within two years after such permits are finalized by the city and the project completed. C. Clearing or grubbing of land that: 1. Is located outside of city rights -of -way; 2. Requires no permits, except for a tree permit; and Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 17 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 3. Removes four or more significant trees, with at least four trees having a 10-inch diameter breast height or larger size, over a four -consecutive -year period. D. The counting of removed trees under subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall not include those trees designated as a hazard or nuisance tree pursuant to MMC 20.52.200 and 20.52.210, respectively. 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. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 18 of 45 Figure 20.52.130 Tree Performance Process Calculate Required Tree Units (Minimum Performance 5tanda4 Calculate Net Existing Tree Units Subtract Net Existing Tree Units from Required Tree Units If difference is Zero or Negative No Supplemental Trees Required AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Lot Area 11,000 Multiply by Tree Density Ratio Determine Existing Tree Units Subtract Tree Units of Trees Removed If Difference is Positive 1 Calculate Required Supplemental Trees 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 0.35 Golf Course 0.15 Nonresidential other than specifically listed 0.25 Public Schools 0.15 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 19 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density Ratio Parks 0.42 Residential 0.35 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. Table 20.52.130(C) Existing Tree Unit Tree Type Diameter Breast Height of Existing Tree Tree Unit 6 to 10 inches 0.75 Deciduous Greater than 10 inches 1.0 6 to 10 inches 0.75 Greater than 10 inches, but less than 50 inches 1.0 Coniferous 50 inches and greater 1.25 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 20 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 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 (B) of this section; and d. Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum required tree units shall not be required. e. See Diagram 20.52.130 for an example of calculating supplemental trees. Table 20.52.130(D) Supplemental Tree Unit Purpose of Supplemental Diameter Breast Height of Tree Unit for Tree Removed Tree Supplemental Trees Replace an existing 6 inches to less than 24 inches 1.0 significant tree 24 inches and larger 0.5 Fill a pre-existing tree unit Not applicable 1.0 gap Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 21 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Diagram 20.52.130 Example Calculating Supplemental Trees Determine Requited Tree Units: �.DRequired�Trimnits . 15,000 sq, U 1,000 sa_ ItX 0.40 Tree Density Ratio Inventory Existing Significant Trees: * Three 30-inch DBH trees ■ One 10-inch DBH tree 4.5 Existing free Units * One 6-inch DBH tree Dolermine pre-eAstinq tree unit qap 1.5 Pre-existing Tree Unit Gap Significant Trees Removed: ■ Two 30-inch DBH trees 1.75 Net Existim Tree Units * One 6-inch DBH trees Determine if Supplemental Trees required- * 1--E742�5_Roe_ 6.0 TreeUnits — 1.75 Tree Units UP-k Calculate Required Supplement Trees: * 2 to regtaee 30-inch I)BH tree = 1.0 tree unit + 2 to replace 30-inch DBH tree - 1 -0.1mg uni# * 1 to replace 6-inch DBH tree = 1.0 tree unit 7 supplemental trees required • 2 to Fill 15 Pre-existing Gar) = 2.0 tree units * Net Fxistlnq Tree Units = 1.75 tree units 1' 6 75 tree units 4. Minimum Development Standards Applicable to All Supplemental Trees. a. To be eligible as a supplemental tree, the tree species must be selected from the appropriate list set forth in the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" established in MMC 20.52.050; 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; Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 22 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 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. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 23 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Canopy Assessment CITY OF MEDINA Prepared for: of M�d�yq r CDCA j4to4v it Attn: Robert Grumbach P.O. Box 144 Medina, WA 98039 Prepared by: 2 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822,5242 Printed on 30% recycled paper. f 425.827.8136 watershedco.com Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 24 of 45 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment Tree Canopy Assessment for the City of Medina August 2014. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 140513 Project Staff: Grace Bergman, GIS Analyst/Landscape Designer Mike Foster, ISA Certified Arborist®/ Ecologist Cite this document as Medina Tree Canopy Assessment AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Canopy Assessment Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 25 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August2014 Table of Contents Page # 1 Introduction..........................................................................................1 2 Methodology........................................................................................2 3 Findings................................................................................................6 4 Discussion............................................................................................8 5 2002 Medina Tree Inventory Report ................................................ 11 6 Reference.......................................................................................... 12 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 26 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment List of Figures Figure 1. Study area is landward of the city boundary as shown in green. Figure 2. Example of 30x30 meter grid overlay used in coverage classification. List of Tables Table 1 — Categories of trees with examples that make up the urban tree canopy in the City of Medina. Table 2 — 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Table 3 — 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right-of-way Table 4 — 2012 by Land Use Categories Table 5 — 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Table 6 — 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right-of-way Table 7 - Examples of typical tree heights within the City of Medina. Appendices Tree Canopy Assessment Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 27 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 1 Introduction The City of Medina's tree code calls for the preservation of significant trees by using tree replacement mitigation as the primary tool to implement policy. Trees contribute significantly to the community's goal of maintaining a natural, low -density residential and informal appearance. Trees can be a polarizing subject. Whether they are growing singly, in clusters or in woodland settings, they provide a wide variety of psychological and tangible benefits, but they can block views and access to sunlight, which have their own tangible benefits. In 2012, the City Council directed an effort to review and update the Medina Tree Code. Work on the tree code updates started in early 2014 and proceeded with the adoption of Ordinance No. 909, which included housekeeping and moderate revisions not involving policy changes. The update then continued with consideration given to possibly more significant changes reflective of still to be determined shifting community values. This continued effort to update the tree code started in June and included gathering inventory data of trees in the community. The Watershed Company, in partnership with the City, developed an efficient and repeatable method for measuring the canopy cover using GIS remote sensing technology to estimate the city's total canopy coverage and composition using high -resolution orthoimagery. This method provides a cost effective, timesaving means of inventorying the entire community. The objective for conducting the inventory is to provide meaningful information supporting general policy direction discussions. The GIS remote sensing technology and high -resolution orthoimagery is easily replicable and allows us to track canopy changes through time, which in turn helps staff and the community evaluate measures to achieve meeting established goals pertaining to trees in the community. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 28 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment 2 Methodology The purpose of this study is to assess the tree canopy coverage in Medina to: (1) set an overall baseline measurement of the tree canopy in the City; (2) distinguish between two canopy types (i.e., broadleaf versus coniferous as shown in Table 1); and (3) allow for tracking of canopy coverage changes over time. Table 1: Categories of trees with examples that make up the urban tree canopy in the City of Medina. Pacific madrone, southern magnolia, English holly Douglas -fir, western red - cedar, western hemlock, Ponderosa pine Big leaf maple, red alder, ginkgo biloba Western larch, dawn redwood Several methodologies were considered for analyzing the area and makeup of the canopy in the City. The objective of the inventory was to develop an accurate and repeatable method of measuring urban tree canopy that is suitable for the scale and land -cover characteristics of the study area. Color -infrared and multi -spectral imagery analysis has been used to rapidly calculate canopy cover in larger and highly urbanized cities like New York and Seattle (Grove, O'Neil -Dunne, Pelletier, Nowak, & Walton, 2006). However, these methods do not easily distinguish between tree types in suburban landscapes with mixed species and age, and overlapping tree stands, and are somewhat costly. Aerial orthoimagery analysis paired with ground-truthing has been used in Portland and, in a more recent study, Seattle (Ciecko, Tenneson, Dilley, & Wolf, 2012). The method of collecting preliminary canopy cover data through "heads -up digitization" 1 allows analysts to quantify and qualify complete citywide canopy efficiently according to the parameters of the study. Further, the abundance of recent and historical geo-referenced aerial imagery enables coverage comparisons using the same assessment framework and classification. Digitized data was then selectively ground-truthed by an ISA Certified Arborist. 2.1 STUDY AREA All land areas inside the jurisdictional boundaries of the City were considered for this study (see Figure 1). Due to the size of the city and quality of the orthoimagery, 100 percent of the land area was reviewed and analyzed using a heads -up digitalization method. 1Manua1 digitization by tracing a mouse over features displayed on a computer monitor, used as a method of vectorizing raster data. 2 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 29 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 Figure 1: Study area is landward of the city boundary as shown in green. F rrl [�ypF b � 1 1 }Y i t� Lti 0 00 2.2 STUDY DESIGN 2.2.1 CURRENT BASELINE CONDITION: To capture tree canopy data from the orthoimagery, GIS analysts used ESRIO ArcGIS application to view and estimate visible canopy on computer screens. King County produced the orthoimagery at 0.25-foot resolution from data gathered in the spring of 2012. The resolution and clarity of the imagery were sufficient to depict canopy size of trees and to distinguish composition of deciduous communities before their leafing -out. To ensure a consistent evaluation, we divided the study area into uniform 30x30 meter square assessment units. Each 30-meter square grid2 was visually analyzed at a minimum 1 to 500 scale for present canopy coverage by type (i.e., evergreen vs. deciduous). Orthoimagery at this scale is sufficient to be visually inspected for both stands of trees and individual trees at various age, height, and species. 2Assessment grids covering area along the city boundary were trimmed to include only the incorporated area and do not have standard sizing. 3 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 30 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment • Where tree canopy overlapped between evergreen and deciduous species types, the GIS analysts estimated a separation line so that no double counting of the tree canopy occurred. • Areas of hard surfaces, open water, structures, bare ground, lawn, small shrubs, and small manicured landscape trees were excluded from the counting of tree canopy. The small manicured landscape trees are primarily topiary trees — rows of evergreen trees trimmed in the shape of a hedge such as Leyland cypress or Portuguese/ English laurel. The GIS analysts tagged grids containing area obstructed by sun shadow or orthoimagery post -processing distortion for follow-up. A total of 4,263 square grids were analyzed of which 147 square grids were identified requiring follow-up field verification by an ISA Certified Arborist. Of the 147 square grids, 99 of them were accessible from public streets and parking areas. These grid sites were visited by the arborist and a GIS analyst who clarified discrepancies in the orthoimagery. The remaining 48 grids were not accessible by the arborist or GIS analyst due to trees being located on private properties or due to fences or other barriers. These square grids were re -analyzed by a different GIS analyst using the same orthoimagery and the results from the second analysis were compared with the original analysis to produce a conclusion. Once canopy coverage and composition data were revised based on field input and secondary analysis, individual square grid values are multiplied by respective square grid area and summed to provide the City total canopy area by type. 2.2.2 LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT BASELINE ANALYSIS: As with any remote sensing and rapid assessment method, a margin of error exists due to data limitations and interpretation. Some detail is lost through rounding data to the size class (as shown in Figure 2). It should be noted that since a sampling method was not employed, no regression modeling was run to determine a numeric margin of error. One sampling year was assessed for this study. Shadows cast from tall objects including tall conifers due to the angle of the sun at the time the image was taken obscures some of the data. Although the field inspection has verified most of the areas in question, grids that are inaccessible, such as those located away from public areas or on private property, were not rectified in the field. Additionally, the analysis was performed two years after the flight date of the orthoimagery by King County, thus discrepancies between current conditions and those depicted in the orthoimagery, such as vegetation pruning or removal, should allow for some error. 4 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 31 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 Figure 2: Example of 30x3O meter square grid overlay used in coverage classification. �' .,�._ 100% JALA 25% .' 10% a 2O /o 5%] 2.2.3 2001MEASUREMENT OF TREE CANOPY: The 2001 tree canopy analysis was conducted using the "National Land Cover Database Zone 01 Tree Canopy Layer" (NLCD) created by a consortium of federal agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NLCD analysis captured thermal signatures of tree canopies by zones (Zone 01 is western Washington State) using Landsat 7 imagery at 30-meter unit. A percentage of the preliminary data was validated using 1-meter orthoimagery. Based on the margin of error produced by the 1-meter validation, a regression model was run to validate the assessment. Classification accuracy is estimated at 84.3 — 86.4 percent (NLCD publication). The geographical boundaries of the City of Medina require evaluation of ten 30-meter units. Each unit has its own values so the summarization of that data in this study is representative of Medina. 2.2.4 LIMITATIONS OF NLCD: Limitations of the 2001 tree canopy analysis can be found at the Multi -Resolution Land Characteristic Consortium website at http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp. 5 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 32 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment 3 Findings 3.1 CURRENT ASSESSMENT In sum, the City contains 287.72 acres +/- of tree canopy in April 2012. That is 31.9 percent of the total land area mapped by GIS. Of the total tree canopy, 52.5 percent was determined to be coniferous evergreen tree coverage consisting mostly of native Douglas -fir, western red - cedar and to a lesser extent some western hemlock and non-native to Puget Sound redwood, Deodar cedar, Atlas cedar, and Leyland cypress. The remaining 47.5 percent of the tree canopy is either deciduous or broadleaf evergreen in composition. Deciduous tree taxa in the city are much more diverse than the evergreen conifers. Some of the recurring deciduous tree species include the southern magnolia, bigleaf maple, red maple, Norway maple, European birch, red alder, landscape cherry trees, sweetgum and so on. The tables below summarize the results. Table 2: 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Land Area 902.13 100.0% Canopy 150.99 16.7% -Evergreen Deciduous Canopy 136.73 15.2% Total 287.72 31.9% Table 3: 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right-of-way Land Area 887.59 100.0% Canopy 149.98 16.9% -Evergreen Deciduous Canopy 135.97 15.3% Total 285.95 32.2% General land use shows a larger disparity across categories than is observed with canopy type. Some of this is expected, as some uses are not conducive to more trees. Those areas classified as City parkland have the highest tree canopy coverage at 42.6 percent — noting the forested areas at Fairweather and the wetland -wooded areas on the south side of Medina Park. The thinnest tree canopy coverage occurs along the SR-520 corridor at 12.2 percent. Tree canopy coverage for schools, the golf course, and retail are well below the citywide average at 14.9 percent, 15.2 percent, and 24.8 percent, respectively. Total area, tree canopy acres, and the percentage of tree canopy for each general land use category are shown in the tables below. 0 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 33 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 Table 4: 2012 by Land Use Categories EE11111111MAR ACRES CANOPY PERCENT ACRES 3.2 2001 ASSESSMENT As noted in chapter 1, one of the goals of this inventory is to track changes in canopy coverage over time. In response to tree clearing caused by new development, significant amendments to the Medina Tree Code were adopted in 2000, 2003 and 2006. To assess how the tree canopy today compares to the conditions at the time of these amendments, 2001 data was reviewed. The tables below summarize the results. Table 5: 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Table 6: 2001 NLCD Tree Cano inside CityBoundaries ExcludingSR 520 right-of-way SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT Land Area 890.68 100.0% Total Tree Canopy321.04 36.0% 3.3 CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDITIONS Tree canopies come in all forms. Some tree canopies are tall and complex with sub -canopy and understory strata. Much of the City tree canopy, however, is composed of individual landscape trees or large retained individual trees from past stands. The City's tree canopy is as diverse in its structure as it is in its biological variety. Tall stands of trees with developed sub -canopies and understory layers characterize some of the parks and parcels within the City (see Table 2). Other parts of the urban tree canopy are formed by singular trees contained in parking lots or within planting strips along avenues. Much of the tree canopy, especially in the single-family residential areas, is a mix of tall, medium and shorter landscape species. Many of the tall conifer trees are likely remnant stands or individual trees that have been preserved. 7 TOTAL Total City 902.13 287.72 31.9% SR-SRCanopy 14.55 1.78 12.2% Golf Course Canopy 130.44 19.84 15.2% Parks Canopy 29.35 12.50 42.6% -City Schools Canopy 21.83 3.25 14.9% Retail (Green Store/ Gas Station) 6.19 1.54 24.8% All Other Areas (Residential, PSE Roads) 699.77 248.82 35.6% Land Area 902.13 100.0% Total Tree Canopy 323.69 35.9% Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 34 of 45 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment Table 7: Examples of typical tree heights within the City of Medina Strata Tall stratum Medium stratum Low stratum 4 Discussion AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Tree Height Species 100 to 200 feet Douglas -fir, black cottonwood, giant sequoia 50 to 100 feet Deodar cedar, big leaf maple, red maple 15 to 50 feet Domesticated fruit trees, cascara, southern magnolia 4.1 MEDINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Chapter 3: Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan discusses trees in- depth as a design characteristic of the community. The chapter states: "The quality of Medina's neighborhood development is distinct and enhanced by a combination of natural and built features, including: • proximity of the lake shore, • views, • narrow streets with extensive mature landscaping, and • large tracts of public and private open space that can be seen from residential lots and City streets. Trees and vegetation help reduce the impact of development, by providing significant aesthetic and environmental benefits. Trees and other forms of landscaping improve air quality, water quality, and soil stability. They provide limited wildlife habitat and reduce stress associated with urban life by providing visual and noise barriers between the City's streets and private property and between neighboring properties. They also have great aesthetic value and significant landscaping, including mature trees, is always associated with well -designed communities. It is important that citizens be sensitive to the impact that altering or placing trees may have on neighboring properties. Trees can disrupt existing and potential views and access to sun. Residents are urged to consult with the City and with their neighbors on both removal and replacement of trees and tree groupings. This will help to protect views and to prevent potential problems (e.g., removal of an important tree or planting a living fence). Clear cutting should not be permitted on a property prior to development." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan contains design characteristics of a landscape plan that states the following: M Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 35 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 "The Medina Landscape Plan lists landscaping alternatives to perpetuate the informal, natural appearance of Medina's street rights -of -way, public areas, and the adjacent por- tions of private property. The Landscape Plan provides the overall framework for the improvement goals and should be reviewed periodically and updated where appropriate. This plan should be used to create landscaping arrangements, which meet the following goals: • provide a diversity of plant species; • screen development from City streets and from neighboring properties; • respect the scale and nature of plantings in the immediate vicinity; • recognize restrictions imposed by overhead wires, sidewalks, and street intersections; • recognize "historical" view corridors; and • maintain the City's informal, natural appearance. 4.2 TREE CANOPY COMPARISONS According to studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Department (USDA), an estimated 35.1 percent of land areas classified as urban in the United States contain tree coverage (USDA Report NRS-62, June 2010). The coverage includes all publicly and privately owned trees within an urban area — including individual trees along streets and backyards, as well as standards of remnant forest (Norwak 2001, USDA Report). The City of Medina, in 2001 had 35.9 percent tree coverage (including SR 520), which was slightly above the national estimate. However, in 2012, Medina's tree coverage was 31.9 percent, which is below the estimated national average. The following summarizes the tree canopy coverage3 gathered on other Washington State communities and shows where Medina's tree canopy in 2012 compares. Hunts Point 57% (2010) Winslow, Bainbridge Island 42.0% (2006) Mercer Island 41.0% (2006) Covington 37.0% (2012) Bellevue 36.0% (2006) Kirkland 36.0% (2006) Medina 31.9% (2012) Shoreline 31.0% (2006) Renton 28.6% (2006) Seattle 27% (2006) Sources: http://friends.urbanforest.org/Washington-state-tree ordinances/ http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/trees.aspx 3The method used to determine tree canopy coverage could vary by jurisdiction. Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 36 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment 4.2.1 TREE CANOPY GOALS While there appears to be no national recommended goals for urban tree canopies, the Society of American Foresters has recommended for cities east of the Mississippi River tree canopy goals of 40 percent overall and 50 percent for suburban residential. Several cities in Washington State have adopted tree canopy goals summarized as follows: Hunts Point: 60% Winslow 35.0% Bellevue 40.0% citywide, 50% suburban residential Kirkland 40.0% Seattle 30.0% 4.3 MEDINA'S TREE CANOPY In reviewing the findings, between 2001 and 2012, the City lost about 36 acres of tree canopy coverage or 3.99 percent. If we exclude the SR 520 right-of-way, the loss is about 35 acres or 3.8 percent. The loss of coverage occurred despite the significant disincentives for removing larger trees in the tree code. There are likely multiple factors affecting tree canopy coverage in the city. At the top of this list is re -development. From the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2012, about 104 building permits for new single-family homes were issued. Since the City is built - out with few empty buildable lots, the trend towards re -development is to demolish the existing home and replacing it with a larger home. This trend towards larger homes has been supported by changes in the zoning code such as the 2008 amendment that went from using net land area to gross land area to calculate the limits on structural coverage. If an average Medina lot size of 20,989 square feet is applied, an estimated 50.11 acres of residential properties were involved in redevelopment during this period. It should be noted that re- development is where the majority of tree removal permits are also required. Other possible contributing factors could be gaps in the tree code regulations themselves. For example: • Trees located within a building footprint that are less than 36 inches in diameter breast height are exempt from replacement requirements. This means re -development is increasingly replacing green space with hardscape with no accounting for this loss. • After replacement trees are planted, the replacement trees are required to be preserved only for two years afterward. This means years three and onward, until the tree reaches 20 inches diameter breast height, there are no requirements to preserve the tree. 10 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 37 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 • The 20-inch diameter breast height threshold means many tree removals are not required to be mitigated through replanting. A Douglas -fir tree with a 20-inch diameter breast height is about 60 to 80 years old. (Note: forest trees tend to grow thinner than urban trees, but urban conditions such as inadequate soils, damage and topping can slow the growth rate down of a tree.) • The Medina significant tree species list contains only six deciduous trees as significant tree species deserving mitigation for removal for those trees reaching the size to be designated a significant tree. There are at least eleven other deciduous tree species native to the Puget Sound region that are not required to be preserved because they are not on the list. Yet, the city's tree canopy coverage is about 47 percent deciduous. • Many of the deciduous tree species on the significant tree species list, such as the Pacific Dogwood, the Vine Maple or the Western Hazelnut do not reach a significant size in an urban residential context and therefore do not meet the requirements for when removal would trigger requirements for mitigation. • Further contributing to the deciduous tree species limitations is the fact that the availability of 3-inch caliper deciduous trees is primarily limited to the Vine Maples and Pacific Dogwood along with similar variations. Replacement trees such as the hazelnut, native cherry or Oregon ash are not regularly available in 3-inch caliper and therefore are rarely replanted for mitigation purposes. 5 2002 Tree Inventory Report In 2002, the city conducted a tree inventory of significant trees 24 inches in diameter and greater on both public and private property. The study area covered properties north of SR 520 and totaled 111 properties (about 10 percent of the city lots). The inventory was conducted using a different method than contained in this report. After providing notice, data collectors went to the field and conducted physical inventories of individual properties. The data collectors identified the targeted trees and GPS was used to record their location. Although the inventory did include trees slightly smaller than the 24-inch diameter trees being targeted, the inventory was reflect of the efforts back then to focus on larger trees. The results of the inventory found 690 trees over 19 inches in diameter. Of the 690 trees inventoried, 27 percent were 19 — 23 diameter inches; 35 percent were 24 — 29 diameter inches; 17 percent were 30 — 35 diameter inches; 13 percent were 36 — 41 diameter inches; and 8 percent were 42 diameter inches and larger. The makeup of the trees found 83 percent were coniferous — of these 62 percent of the coniferous trees were cedars, 30 percent were firs, and the remaining consisted of larch, pine, redwood and sequoia trees. The inventory also noted that 71 percent of the identified trees were in good health, 22 percent in fair health, and 5 percent were in poor health. (Otak report 2002) While there were further plans to inventory the rest of the community, this did not occur. 11 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 38 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment Because the 2002 Tree Inventory Report used a significantly different method of inventory, it would be difficult to draw a direct correlation between the 2002 report and this report so this discussion of the 2002 Tree Inventory Report is provided for historical purposes only. 12 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 39 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August 2014 6 Works Cited Ciecko, L., Tenneson, K., Dilley, J., & Wolf, D. K. (2012). Seattle's Forest Ecosystem Values; Analysis of the Structure, Function, and Economic Benefits. Seattle: City of Seattle. City of Medina. (2014, July 28). Chapter 20.52 Tree and Vegetation Management Code. Medina, WA. Dwyer, J. F., & Nowak, D. J. (1999). A national Assessment of the Urban Forest: An Overview. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 157-162. Grove, J. M., O'Neil -Dunne, J., Pelletier, K., Nowak, D., & Walton, J. (2006). A Report on New York City's Present and Possible Urban Tree Canopy. South Burlington: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. H. W. Lochner, Inc. (2013). Interchange Justification Report: I-51MARTIN WAY INTERCHANGE and I-51MARVIN ROAD INTERCHANGE. Lacey: H. W. Lochner, Inc. The Watershed Company. (2014). Tree Canopy Assessment for the City of Medina. Kirkland: The Watershed Company. Otak. (May 2002). City of Medina Tree Inventory Report: Phase 1. Prepared by Otak. 13 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 40 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 The Watershed Company August2014 Maps Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 41 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 42 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 CITY OF MEDINA TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT MAP 2 Estimated Evergreen Canopy Coverage Less than 5% 10% - 25% 1 30% - 50% IP 55% - 75% Greater than 80% Parcels (white) 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles fl ■I — Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x 11" layout. Please scale accordingly. *1xv, Data Sources: City of Medina, The Watershed t � Company. Foreground aerial: King pl _ A�11— -- � County, 2012. Background aerial: 71 USDA 2013. 6! • •• All features depicted on this map ♦ are approximate. They have not formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for %1 n planning purposes only. Additional site -specific evaluation may be needed to confirm/ verify •= ' information shown on this map. ❑RMeydenbauer Bay THE WATERSHED COMPANY Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 43 of 45 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 CITY OF MEDINA TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT � �Ns r MAP 3 Estimated Deciduous Canopy Coverage Less than 50% • 10% - 25% No �i1j 30% - 50% no i li ■ Mum - MENU; 55% - 75% Greater than 80% Parcels (white) I•i ■ wl� �� i ■ 7 ®��®a N M '�� • •®� 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 ®- II Miles a �•C■■ ■ mom ;��, Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x MI■' 11" layout. Please scale f : accordingly. ■olI It ■ ■ ■ ■ 1' Data Sources: City of Medina, The Watershed Company. Foreground aerial: King ® ; County, 2012. Background Ih ,�= k -!Ll a ■�■■ aerial: USDA 2013. i�` ` i�1X�■ , �• All features depicted on this map ■ • are approximate. They have not IIII ' been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional + site -specific evaluation may be ®a ='•„ ��' needed to confirm/ verify information shown on this map. THE WATERSHED COMPANY Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 44 of 45 in if a LIA■ !I■�■ ��i I. N.: ;ter= , oil,1 no AGENDA ITEM 5.2 CITY OF MEDINA TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT ' MAP 4 Estimated fP Combined Canopy Coverage for Evergreen and Deciduous .,;. Less than 5% 10% - 25% ` 30% - 50% 559/o - 75% ` Greater than 80% n Parcels (white) 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x 11" layout. Please scale accordingly. Data Sources: City of Medina, The Watershed Company. Foreground aerial: King County, 2012. Background aerial: USDA 2013. All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site -specific evaluation may be needed to confirm/ verify information shown on this map. 2 THE WATERSHED COMPANY Subject: Tree Code Retention and Replacement Requirements Page 45 of 45