The URL can be used to link to this page

Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 02/09/2011 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC MEETING #7 - (2/9/2011) Table of Contents 2/9/2011 Meeting Agenda........................................................................................ CAC Meeting Summary (1/12/2011) .........................................................................................................................3 Comments..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Staff Response to 1/12/2011 CAC Comments on Urban Forestry Standards for Development..................27 Preliminary"Draft" Urban Forestry Standards for Development w/ Commentary ........................................40 Preliminary"Draft" Urban Forestry Manual ........................................................................................................194 Tree Grove Preservation Program Background and Options Memo................................................................215 4- City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC - Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 6:00-9:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223 MEETING GOALS: Review and recommend preliminary draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development Brainstorm options for the Tree Grove Preservation Program 1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6:00-6.10 PM • Review Meeting#7 packet materials • Recap Meeting #6 • Approve Meeting #6 Summary /Adrienne DeDona/ 2. (Info) Public Comment 6.10-6:20 PM 3. (Action) Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development 6:20-740 PM / Todd Prager / BREAK 4. (Discussion) Tree Grove Preservation Program Brainstorming 7:50-8:55 PM /Darren Wyss, Greg Winterowd/ 5. (Info) Wrap up/Next Steps 8:55-9:00 PM 6. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 9:00 PM Next meeting: April 13, 2011 URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— February 9, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 -2- Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Meeting #6 January 12, 2011 Summary Notes Committee members in attendance: Don Schmidt, Planning Commission John Frewing, Citizen at-large Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Dave Walsh, Planning Commission Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Tony Tycer,Tree Board Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers Scott Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory Committee Committee members absent: John Wyland, Developer Consultant staff present: Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement Kelly Skelton,JLA Public Involvement Staff present: Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard Todd Prager, City of Tigard Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Darren Wyss, City of Tigard Members of the public present: John Annan Information requests from this meeting: • Current buildable acres are for the City. Darren to follow up at next meeting. Parking lot items and items for further discussion: • Nuisance tree list Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 1 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -3- Overview Summary The following is an overview of the main comments made by members at the January 12, 2011 CAC meeting. Revised timeline for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project • Members are generally ok with the new timeline. Revised proposal for the use of the Tree Replacement Fund • Majority of members supported the resolution as it stands. • There was some interest by members in the development of nuisance tree list. Staff's preliminary proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development code • Some members expressed interest in exploring zoning-specific density requirements;different canopy percentage goals for different zones. • A majority of the group requested further analysis of the proposed 40%canopy goal. • The committee requested case studies of how the 40%goal would apply in the real scenarios. • The committee requested that tree plan modifications after approval be further explored legally with City. Overview of the Tree Grove Preservation Project • The City will host an open house related to the Tigard Tree Grove Preservation Program on February 17th • The Planning Commission hopes one outcome of this process will be to identify tools to work with developers to preserve tree groves. • Current buildable acres within the City were requested by one member. Darren will follow up at next meeting. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -4- Introductions and Agenda Overview Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting, had everyone introduce themselves,and reviewed the agenda. Meeting goals for today • Discuss revised timeline for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project • Review and recommend revised proposal for the use of the Tree Replacement Fund • Review and discuss preliminary staff proposal to address CAC input on Urban Forestry Standards for Development • Receive an overview regarding the status of the Tree Grove Preservation Program Meeting Packet Review Adrienne pointed out comments that were received (starting on page 16)via email from John Frewing and Ken Gertz regarding the Standards for Development conversation and reminded committee members to consider those comments as we continue our discussion tonight. Adrienne also drew attention to Page 25 in the packet regarding information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW). She indicated that the committee may also wish to consider this information during their deliberations on related topics. John asked if City staff, between now and the next meeting,could review the ODFW recommendations and report back to the committee on what they think could be implemented. Todd said it's a matter of whether or not it's the direction the committee wants to go with the code,from what Todd has seen he thinks it is all possible. Adrienne said she didn't think there was time to fully discuss the ODFW document at this meeting, but the committee should take a look at the letter between now and the next meeting in order to provide input on the code language drafted by staff.John commented that he thinks in general the document needs to be incorporated in to the draft code. Ken commented that from the development community's perspective these recommendations just seem like one more stumbling block to slow down development and limit the amount of buildable resources in the City. Recap Meeting#5 Adrienne provided the following brief recap of the last meeting held in November: • The committee wrapped up discussion on street trees. • The committee reviewed draft code related to use of the tree mitigation fund and heard comments regarding site preparation and length of time that the City can use the funds for trees on public property. • The committee started an initial discussion about standards for development. Approve Meeting#5 Summary Adrienne drew the groups attention to the draft Meeting#5 Summary and added that Bret Lieuallen needed to be added to the committee members absent section. She asked if any other changes needed to be made before approving. • Morgan asked for a change on the last bullet on Page 9 where it says"Morgan said she really approves..." She requested to strike the word "really". • Tony Tycer asked that the line in the 2nd bullet on Page 7 that says"Tony responded ..." He requested that sentence be deleted because it is inaccurate. The Meeting #5 Summary was approved with the above noted changes. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -5- Public Comment One member of the public,John Annan, was present and commented that he was here to learn and understand the project a bit better. He said that he owned property that could potentially be impacted by the outcomes of this process. Revised Project Timeline Marissa Daniels reviewed the revised schedule on page 28 of the packet. Marissa said that City staff struggles with incorporating all committee comments within the aggressive timeline that has been established.She added that the topics covered are going to get more complex and require more time for discussion, because of that,the City wants to extend the timeline by six months to allow for more time to appropriately vet topics with the committee and to allow for public involvement opportunities. Marissa noted that this new schedule allows for longer meetings with more time on each topic, but meeting less frequently.The committee will meet again in February,then every other month after that(February,April,June, August,and September). Meetings back to back in August and September will allow time for comprehensive review at the end.Todd will bring the new schedule to City Council on the 25th of January. Marissa mentioned that a budget amendment will be required to extend the contract with JLA. Adrienne said that she talked to most of the committee members on the phone regarding the schedule change and most folks seemed agreeable to the shift in schedule. Committee members understand that this change allows more time to digest information, have more time to think about and read information, in turn making the meetings more productive. One or two people raised concerns about vacation schedules conflicting with the meetings in August and/or September. Dave commented that he has no issue with schedule changes proposed but he sees that we are a year away from a Planning Commission workshop and he thinks it makes sense to check in earlier than that as we move toward final draft code. Don agreed with Dave. Adrienne asked Marissa to discuss the adoption process and "next steps"after the comprehensive code is reviewed by the CAC. Marissa said that in September we will finish our comprehensive review and take the "product"from that review through the public engagement process which will begin with an open house in November(instead of April as the original schedule dictates). After the public comment period is over the product will move on to the Planning Commission (while incorporating feedback received from the public as appropriate). This committee will formulate a recommendation that will be presented to the Planning Commission.John asked about the Tree Board's role in this process and Marissa said that once the comprehensive review is finished the Tree Board will also have the opportunity to respond.Todd said the Tree Board will also have the opportunity to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding the budgetary impacts of the revised code. Revised Proposal for Tree Replacement Fund Adrienne said that feedback from the committee at the last meeting was considered and staff revised the code language to incorporate the feedback heard.She noted that this is the last time we will talk about this topic.This piece will not be part of the comprehensive package;following the CAC's approval the Tree Board will weigh in separately because it has budgetary impacts.The Tree Board will make a recommendation to City Council.The next Tree Board meeting on January 26 and Todd will convey the CAC's sentiments to the Tree Board.Todd added that Cheryl is going to work on budgetary items with the Tree Board for the rest of the year. Gary said that nine committee member comments were logged relating to limiting the use of funds for tree planting, putting a cap on spending for site prep, limiting maintenance to a two-three year period,dividing accounting and expenses, identifying responsibility and maintenance, and stipulating partnerships in writing. Gary asked if anyone had clarifying questions pertaining to pages 34&35 of the packet. • John asked about a comment from a previous meeting that there should be a uniform 3 year timeline for maintenance of a tree, knowing that different species having different rates of maturity. He inquired how that had been considered. Todd said he didn't recall that comment but he agreed that after three years Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -6- the majority of species will adapt, if there are special circumstances those maintenance needs will need to be funded by a different source.John asked if the three years starts over if a tree fails and need to be replanted.Todd said yes. Adrienne asked the committee to share individually in a round robin fashion whether or not they supported the draft resolution on the tree fund and to share any sentiments they might want conveyed to the Tree Board: • Dave: Asked if this allows for planting on private property?Todd said yes. Dave voted to support the resolution as it stands. • Tony: Deferred his vote to Morgan. Morgan asked who collects publicly accessible property data.Todd said it is the City and they'll continue to do it for free. Morgan said she is Ok as it stands and Tony agreed. • Morgan:Added that she doesn't think it is City's role to prohibit what should be planted, but money shouldn't be used for nuisance trees.She voted to support the resolution as it stands. • John:Would like to see something about planting trees other than nuisance trees and inquired whether there would be a list of nuisance trees be in the code.Todd responded that there would be a manual available separate from the code.John referred to the meeting packet,first bullet on page 35, might be good spot for this language.John added that he supports the resolution as it stands. • Don:Agrees with John and supports the resolution as it stands. • Scott: Conveyed his support as it stands. • Ken: Mentioned a minor typo in 2nd paragraph, "The extra cost to a plant..." Maybe instead of compiling a list of invasives,do a list of what you can plant since that list already exists. Heads nodded in agreement. Ken indicated his support for the resolution as it stands. • Brian:Said that he was impressed with the work staff has done so far and said that he supported the resolution as it stands. • Brett: Questioned the sentence"the consensus view expressed by the community" but he wasn't in attendance at the last meeting so he accepts it even though it isn't what he personally wants, he understands what consensus means. He said he supported the resolution as it stands. Tony asked if there was a standard nuisance list. Morgan said there is no standard currently, but more and more jurisdictions are creating them.The invasive list is more commonly accepted and established.Todd said that the nuisance tree discussion will continue at the Tree Board. Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development Gary reviewed what staff heard from the CAC at the last meeting and through the online survey regarding Standards for Development. Gary encouraged people to weigh in on topics as he moved through the list. Question 5: If the City adopts a tree density standard and gives extra credit for preservation of quality trees,which of the following would best define quality trees and implement the City's urban forestry goals? • A mix of young to mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can be a nuisance). • Mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can be a nuisance). • A mix of young to mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species. • Mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species.John asked for clarification regarding the preservation of 20%of existing canopy.Todd said idea was that the revised code should reward people who have existing tree canopy and preserve it(as an extra credit);the rest can be achieved through replacement. Staff Proposal-Require all major development projects to achieve 40%effective tree canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation,or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. Nuisance species would not receive canopy credit for planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees 6 inch DBH or greater(whether native or not)would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -7- credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20%of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity). No baseline level of preservation would be required. Committee Comments: • Brian questioned maturity and how it is defined,what are the guidelines. Todd said it's based on scientific literature and projections.Canopy is based on potential growth, not existing. • Ken asked what is the unit of measure for potential growth?Is it from back to curb?Back to sidewalk? Is the building footprint subtracted?He can't envision how he'll get to 40%canopy cover on a majority of his projects.Todd replied that philosophically if you value those things(grass or a large footprint)then you can opt into paying a fee in-lieu of planting. Ken replied that just brings us back to where we are right now. • Dave questioned how this will work on infill/redevelopment lots because the tendency is to build large homes on very small, narrow lots. Ken and John agreed on the idea of zoning-specific densities and requirements for trees.Tony recommended taking a look at Washington County's model for similar requirements. • John said that he is concerned about the date of maturity being projected out 30-40 years he thinks there should be some provision for interim check-in on maturity and coverage. • Brian commented that Sacramento has code regarding requirements for shade in parking lots,checking in proved they were only at 2/3. He also thinks there should be incentive to go beyond the 40%canopy goal. • Ken said his assumption that this code applies to every single lot in Tigard, because it doesn't say that in the language. • Morgan suggested that it would be helpful to see case studies examples to see how it applies in a couple of different ways. • Dave asked whether or not the language applies to development,once the property is sold and someone takes out the trees,would there be a covenant?Todd said potentially you'll need to get a permit for removal if you were required to plant it in the first place. • Todd asked the group if an in-lieu of planting option is ok if it funds other preservation efforts. Ken said yes if it makes sense financially and the fees are within reason. Question 6: If the City adopts a tree density standard would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to give credit for required landscape trees such as street trees, parking lot trees, and buffer trees? Staff Proposal-Allow any tree required by other code revisions(e.g. street trees, parking lot trees,etc.)to receive credit towards the 40%effective tree canopy requirement.This will incentivize the planting of large stature trees which provide the most benefits when planted in appropriate locations. Committee Comments-Head nods in agreement, no comments were made. Question 7: When reviewing incentives to encourage preservation of quality trees,should the City investigate whether minimum density requirements could be reduced to preserve trees? Staff Proposal-Allow reductions in minimum density requirements to preserve tree groves, and trees in significant habitat areas. The Tigard Community Development Code(TDC)currently permits reductions to minimum density requirements for developments that preserve inventoried significant habitat areas. Most tree groves within the city overlap with significant habitat areas;therefore,this allowance already exists for many trees within the city. Minimum density is a Metro requirement associated with Title 1 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Tigard's target housing unit capacity for the region cannot be reduced.The density reduction language was permitted for habitat areas since it was taken from a model ordinance drafted by Metro. Minimum density and flexibility surrounding target housing capacities continue to be discussed within the Metro region.Staff will monitor any future changes regarding density requirements and adapt codes whenever possible. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -8- Committee Comments: • Brian asked if this is different than increasing the density so you preserve the tree groves. Gary said this exists in the code already. Dave said there is some latitude under the planned development chapter to reduce density but it would have to go through a PD process.Staff will look in to it. Question 8:What other incentives not currently provided through the development code could result in increased preservation of quality trees? Staff Proposal-Staff is proposing to focus on preservation credits and flexible development standards to incentivize the preservation of individual trees. Preserved canopy is proposed to be granted double the canopy credit which can be used towards the 40%effective tree canopy requirement.The goal is to encourage preservation of existing trees rather than planting of new trees to meet minimum canopy requirements. In addition,flexible development standards and incentives already found in the TDC will be enhanced to increase their use by applicants.These incentives for tree preservation include density bonuses,off-street parking and landscaping reductions,flexible setbacks and lot width/depth requirements, lot size averaging,and flexible sidewalk/street design standards.Staff will review and improve these standards,which will provide flexibility without requiring the applicant to request adjustments or go through a Type III Planned Development process.This will save the applicant time and money.Staff will also work closely with applicants in the design phase to seek opportunities for tree preservation that will benefit the applicant,the neighborhood,and the community. Incentives for tree preservation (possibly tax relief,conservation easements, and transfer of development rights) will be the primary focus of the upcoming tree grove preservation program. Financial incentives during development are not as easily offered for several reasons.There is currently no dedicated source of funding that can be used to incentivize the preservation of individual trees or groves.Also, most other development fees and charges are collected on behalf of other agencies or are earmarked for uses not associated with trees;therefore, these fees/charges cannot be waived or reduced. Committee Comments: • Regarding the text"staff will work closely with the applicants in the design phase..."John voiced concerned about the process,and when will the public be involved.Gary said the City is there to explain tree preservation opportunities, it is not a public process, nor will they necessarily be building what is discussed there.Gary said they are just proposing a more formalized process to do what exists already. • Brian referred to a couple of habitat restoration CDFW tax programs that might be worth looking into. • Morgan questioned what will happen if a tree is not healthy and the arborist recommends removal even though they'd like to keep it.Think about additional incentives to do the best than can be done with what is on the site. • Ken said he thinks we are heading in the right direction with incentives such as allowing trees in planters. • Bret asked why the money can't buy an existing tree. Dave replied that use of future dollars is a separate discussion. Question 9:Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was an option for a discretionary review of tree preservation and planting plans in addition to a clear and objective review? Staff Proposal-Allow applicants a discretionary review option as an alternative to tree planting,tree preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. The applicant would be required to submit an alternative site plan to a designated review body and explain how their site provides equivalent environmental functions and values otherwise provided by trees.Alternative methods could include green roofs, rain gardens, habitat restoration,etc. The designated review body would be provided the discretion to work with the applicant and accept or reject the applicant's proposal. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -9- Committee Comments: • Cheryl requested clarification on how the process will work, is it something tagged on as an additional fee and process? How will it fit in to the review process,currently it is 120 days.With a staff level review? • John said there are other cases in the code, if an applicant wants something special they waive the 120 day rule. • Dave said not to create a new review body, but rather work through existing review bodies. Question 10:Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was a less rigorous option than currently allowed to modify a tree plan after land use approval if the revised plan could demonstrate the tree plan standards will continue to be met? Staff Proposal-Allow two levels of modifications to tree plans after approval. The first level modification would occur directly between staff and the applicant and address cases where: 1)existing trees need to be removed due to decline or hazard (not due to a violation);2) modifications to the quantity,species, or location of newly planted trees provided the changes result in at least as much tree canopy as the previous proposal;3) modifications to the location of tree protection fencing provided the project arborist approves the changes; and,4) maintenance of trees to improve their health and/or appearance. The second level modification would require public notice and review of changes,and need to demonstrate through a revised plan,continued compliance with the 40%effective tree canopy requirement.The second level modification would be for items such as removal and replacement of existing trees due to unforeseen construction conflicts,and payment of additional tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation if less trees are feasible than originally proposed. Committee Comments: • Ken questioned why would there needed to be a public review of the tree plan if the applicant is trying to meet the canopy requirements.John said there would be differences of opinion; he questions the independence of some professional arborists.Todd said he doesn't think a staff-level review precludes a public review in all cases. • Dave commented that staff needs to revisit this one by talking more in depth to committee members; as well as gather legal input from the City's legal staff. Because it was getting late Gary decided to hit the high points of the remaining items of agreement. Adrienne asked if the group feels there is something that really needs to be discussed before draft code can be written.John suggested starting with areas of disagreement the group agreed so Gary moved on. Question 2:Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals? • Continue to allow the removal of all trees in all cases as long as mitigation (not necessarily according to the current formula) is provided. • Require a base level of preservation of quality trees if feasible. Staff Proposal-Do not require a base level of preservation. Require all major development projects to achieve 40% effective tree canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation,or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20%of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity). Please note that the requirements for preserving tree groves in sensitive lands will be addressed as part of upcoming topics. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 8 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -10- Question 3:Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals during development? • Require mitigation in increasing amounts based on the number of existing trees removed as is current practice. • Require mitigation on more of a "tree for tree" basis(one tree removed, one tree replaced). • Require a tree density standard that can be met by a combination of preservation (if there are quality trees on site)and planting(whether or not there are trees on site). • Require a tree density standard as described above, but require a base level of preservation of quality trees if feasible. Staff Proposal-Require all major development projects to achieve 40%effective tree canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation,or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20%of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity). Please note that the requirements for preserving tree groves in sensitive lands will be addressed as part of upcoming topics. Question 4:Trees on site within one year of a development application are currently required to be part of tree plan. This has created a loophole whereby trees are cut down over a year before development application to avoid tree plan requirements. Which of the following solutions would best implement the City's urban forestry goals? • Increase the amount of time that removed trees have to be part of a tree plan. • Limit the removal of over a certain number or percentage of non-hazardous or nuisance trees from any site(if chosen this could be part of the upcoming"tree permits for non-development scenarios" discussion). • Continue current procedures. • Other: All of these plans diminish the value of treed property;therefore, 1 don't think these are the way to stop people from cutting down trees on their own property if they feel trees devalue their property. Better to develop a plan that is not punitive to people that own trees. Staff Proposal-Staff's proposal is to require all major development projects to achieve 40%effective tree canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20%of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity). Under this scenario,there is no incentive to remove trees in advance of development since existing trees would receive bonus credit. However, in order to prevent clearing of large numbers of trees outside of development projects,staff recommends placing a limit on the number or percentage of trees that may be removed from a property in a given timeframe.This is a common stopgap measure employed by other cities in the region. The issue of limiting tree removal in non-development scenarios can be further discussed and refined as part of upcoming topics. Question 11:Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to require tree plans in additional circumstances such as prior to issuance of demolition permits,grading permits, building additions,and capital improvement projects(infrastructure and utility upgrades)? Staff Proposal-After reviewing the CAC's responses and discussions regarding questions 11 and 12,staff recommends continuing to require tree/urban forest plans for development projects where they are currently required,and expanding the requirements to other projects that are similar in scale. The new project types that would be subject to the new requirements include Type II and III Downtown Design Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews. Type II and III Downtown Design Reviews are a new review type created specifically for downtown Tigard,and replace Site Development Reviews in downtown.Since Site Development Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 9 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -11- Reviews currently require a tree/urban forest plan, it is appropriate for Downtown Design Reviews to meet the requirements as well. Staff intended for Downtown Design Reviews to meet the tree plan requirements at the time the code was adopted, but omitted the requirements in error. It was requested that this error be corrected during the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project. Sensitive Lands Reviews do not currently require tree plans,and there are current and tangible issues due to the lack of requirements(a threshold for expanding the requirements requested by the CAC).According to the Urban Forestry Master Plan,almost half of the City's tree canopy is currently in sensitive lands areas and development projects in sensitive lands(utility projects,trail and road expansion projects, large accessory structures,etc.) have a significant likelihood of damaging and/or removing existing trees. There has been a number of these types of conflicts in recent years and staff recommends expanding the tree/urban forest plan requirements to Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews to avoid these types of conflicts in the future.Also,Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews are similar in scale to the other types of development projects that require tree/urban forest plans,so meeting the tree/urban forest plan requirements for Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews would not place a disproportionate burden on these types of projects. Question 12: If tree plans are required in additional circumstances(to land divisions, site development reviews, planned developments,and conditional uses)which of the following projects should the requirements be applied to in order to implement the City's urban forestry goals? Listed in order of most responses: • Grading permits • Brand new construction of residential, commercial,or industrial property • Other • Demolition permits • Only building additions over a certain value • All capital improvement projects • Only capital improvement projects over a certain value • Only land divisions, planned developments,conditional uses, and site development reviews over a certain value • Any building addition Staff Proposal-Require tree/urban forest plans for Type II and III Minor Land Partitions,Subdivisions,Conditional Use Permits,Site Development Reviews, Planned Developments, Downtown Design Reviews,and Sensitive Lands Reviews.Type II and III land use decisions require public notice, and are the most significant development related land use permits issued by the City. These land use permits typically involve the activities identified in the survey such as grading, new construction,demolition,capital improvement projects,and building additions. Under staff's proposal, residential building projects(house additions, retaining walls,grading,etc.)that are not part of Type II or III land use decision would be exempt from the tree/urban forest plan requirements. However, staff's review of past residential building projects illustrate that they rarely are designed in ways that necessitate tree removal.Also,as demonstrated in the Urban Forestry Master Plan, residential property has the highest tree canopy of all zoning types which implies that residential property owners are generally good stewards of their tree resources despite a lack of regulations. If increased regulations on developed residential properties are identified as necessary in the future as the City continues to develop,the code could be revised at that time. Question 15: Question 18:Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow people to install green roofs,water quality swales,or other low impact development techniques"in lieu-of" planting trees? Staff Proposal-Due to the difficulty in quantifying the equivalency of these alternative techniques,allow them to be reviewed as part of discretionary review. The applicant would be required to submit an alternative site plan to a designated review body and explain how their site provides equivalent environmental functions and values otherwise provided by trees.Alternative methods could include green roofs, rain gardens, habitat restoration,etc. The designated review body would be provided the discretion to work with the applicant and accept or reject the applicant's proposal. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 10 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -12- Question 22:The City currently requires monitoring of tree protection fencing by a certified arborist twice per month as a condition of land use approval.Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals? • Codify the monitoring requirement. • Do not codify the monitoring requirement, but continue to require as a condition of land use approval when deemed appropriate. • Do not require monitoring of tree protection fencing,just address violations when they arise. Staff Proposal-Codify the monitoring requirements in the code and reference the specific standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Generally, monitoring should be required: • Prior to any ground disturbance to ensure the tree protection fencing is in place; • Twice a month during periods of active construction; • Prior to final building inspection or project acceptance;and • For planted trees,following planting and two years following planting to document establishment. Question 24:Trees that are preserved as part of a development project are noted on the deed of the property,and their removal is restricted. Trees planted to meet landscaping requirements(street trees, parking lot trees, etc.) and trees planted to meet mitigation requirements are not noted on the deed.Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals? • Continue current practice of only requiring preservation trees to be noted on the deed. • Require all trees(both planted and preserved)to be noted on the deed. • Do not note land use requirements on the deed (rely on a publicly accessible inventory of protected trees). • Other: Mixed feelings...let's discuss Staff Proposal-Do not require tree related requirements to be noted on the deed. Instead, inventory regulated trees following final building inspection or project acceptance and include in a publicly accessible inventory of protected trees. Continue the Tree Board's"Welcome to Tigard" postcard that is sent quarterly to all new Tigard property owners that advises property owners to contact the City to determine if permits are required prior to removing trees on their property. Todd pointed out a few other questions that Gary skipped over that he feels are important. Question 17:Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an "in lieu-of" planting fee if people do not want to plant for reasons such as solar access or view corridors? Staff Proposal-Allow the applicant to meet the 40%effective tree canopy through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation,or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. In order to place a value on tree canopy,staff is proposing to convert the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost(which is based on the trunk size)to an "average unit canopy cost". The difficulty in this approach is there is not a linear relationship between trunk size and canopy size.Therefore, staff is proposing to base the average unit canopy cost on the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost of a 6 inch DBH coniferous Willamette Valley tree with the assumption that a 6 inch DBH tree has a 30 foot canopy spread. Based on this approach,the current unit canopy cost would be $2.16 per square foot tree canopy. For example, if an applicant wanted to have no trees on a 10,000 square foot lot,they would need to pay a fee equivalent to 4,000 square feet of tree canopy or$8,640. Staff's rationale for this approach is that trees are worth more than just their cost to plant(according to current industry accepted tree appraisal methodologies). Not planting trees eliminates the potential for them to achieve their future value (which staff has conservatively estimated using existing methodologies and professional judgment).Also,since the CAC recommended that future fees should be utilized for items such as tree preservation, maintenance,education and outreach,and urban forest planning, in addition to planting,collecting fees based solely on the cost of planting does not adequately relate to these more expansive community needs. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 11 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -13- Using the example above,an applicant could provide 4,000 square feet of tree canopy on a 10,000 square foot lot by planting 5 to 6 new trees(assuming each new tree will achieve a roughly 30 foot canopy spread or 706.5 square feet of canopy). Local developers have consistently contented that they can plant new trees for much less than $250 per tree,so they could meet the 40%effective tree canopy requirement by investing not more than$1,500 in planting(compared to an $8,640 tree canopy fee in-lieu). Thus,the incentive for the developer would be to"plant whenever possible"as is the CAC's preference.Staff does not recommend decreasing flexibility by making planting a requirement before accepting a fee in lieu-of planting, but rather letting the market decide when a fee in-lieu is warranted (such as when a special view or solar access is desired). Finally,while trees required by other code chapters(street trees, parking lot trees,trees required to buffer adjacent uses, etc.) are proposed to receive canopy credit,staff's proposal is to not allow an in lieu-of fee for these tree types because they serve a more site specific purpose.Therefore,a certain base level of tree planting will be required for these"utilitarian"tree types. Question 19: If the City continues to collect"in lieu-of'fees in the future, how should future funds be utilized to implement the City's urban forestry goals?(Please keep in mind that mitigation and "in lieu-of"fees for groves will be addressed as a future topic.) • Utilize future funds for urban forestry projects and allocate funding as previously averaged by the CAC. • Allocate funding differently than averaged by the CAC. Staff Proposal-After reviewing the CAC's responses and discussions regarding web survey questions 19 and 20, staff recommends future canopy fees in lieu-of planting or preservation be deposited into the Urban Forestry Fund and utilized/allocated as follows: 1. Tree Planting and Early Establishment_(50%allocation); 2. Preservation of existing trees following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations(25%allocation); 3. Maintenance of those trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund after the early establishment period has ended (10%allocation); 4. Urban Forestry Education and Outreach_following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations(10%allocation); and 5. Urban Forestry Planning for activities that support periodic updates of the City of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan, Municipal Code,or Development Code following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations(5% allocation). Todd acknowledged that the 40%canopy target is ambitious and that it will be a challenge. Gary added that 40% canopy coverage is an acceptable/average goal within the Pacific Northwest. Adrienne asked committee members to weigh-in regarding staff's proposed direction for the Standards for Development code in a round robin fashion. She prompted them to convey any major issues before staff began drafting code. • Bret: Indicated that he had no reservations at this time • Brian: Indicated that he had no reservations at this time • Ken: Indicated his concern with the 40%goal; he doesn't think it is reasonable for this area. • Morgan: Requested more research regarding the 40%goal before she makes any decisions. • Scott:Said he would review the information presented further;though he likes the idea of canopy goal percentages based on specific zoning. • Don: Indicated that he had no reservations at this time • John: Said that he has provided comments via email will provide more. He thinks the 40%goal has been reviewed already by the City through other processes. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 12 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -14- • Tony: Indicated that he had no reservations at this time • Dave:Said that he doesn't want to see the goal set as an unachievable number so that fee is perceived as a method of fundraising. He encouraged the City to set up a conference call with committee members if they feel further discussion is necessary. Marissa pointed out that the committee needs to observe certain regulations with regard to public meeting laws and should be careful about offline discussions. Tree Grove Preservation Program Presentation — Darren Wyss Darren provided the following overview of the Tree Grove Preservation project. He said that developing a tree grove preservation program was identified as a top priority of the community during the Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) process.This is partly in response to a significant decline in tree grove acreage over the past decade.The intent is to preserve Tigard's remaining groves of native trees through a flexible and incentive-based program,while allowing for the full development of property under current zoning. Tigard has contracted with a consulting firm,Winterbrook Planning,to assist with the project.The firm has extensive experience with similar projects, including working with Statewide Planning Goal 5 natural resource regulations and administrative rules. State Goal 5 rules are specific about process and evidence requirements needed to adopt land use regulations intended to protect natural resources. Even though the City's approach to tree grove preservation is proposed to be flexible and incentive based, it must meet the same Goal 5 standards as if a more regulatory approach was intended. The general work program to develop a tree grove preservation program includes 1. Existing tree grove/GIS data review 2. Tree grove inventory work 3. Analysis of allowed/conflicting uses 4. Development of a preservation program. Also, public involvement and information sharing will occur throughout the project. Winterbrook has completed the first two tasks.The inventory resulted in 70 total tree groves, encompassing 544.1 acres,culminating with 663 property owners receiving the Goal 5 notice that a portion of an identified tree grove was on their property.With the notice, property owners were invited to an open house to get some information and provide feedback. Winterbrook is now working with staff to finalize step 3 of the process and develop a draft preservation program based on this analysis.The draft preservation program will be developed around several concepts that will be presented to the UFCR Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC)for review at its February meeting.These concepts include regulatory, recognition,and tax incentives. Based on feedback gleaned from both the CAC and from the community at an open house scheduled for February 18, 2011 the draft tree grove preservation code will be drafted and presented to the CAC at its April 2011 meeting. Many groves are in protected areas already, such as stream corridors. 353 acres of the groves are within sensitive lands and not developable, 159 acres of tree groves are within a significant habitat overlay but are not protected and that is where they are going to focus their efforts. 50 acres are not in an overlay and are not protected. Adrienne reminded the group that another survey will be sent following this meeting to get feedback on the details of the tree groves and to provide a framework on this topic for the discussion at the next meeting. Ken asked what the current buildable acres are for the City. Darren said he does but doesn't know the number off the top of his head, however he would provide that information at the next meeting. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 13 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -15- The Tigard Tree Grove Preservation Program will hold an open house February 17t",following that meeting staff will also come back to the CAC in April with draft code language. Committee Comments: • Dave commented that this really is a critical piece of the code and the planning commission is really look for tools to help them work with developers. • Tony said many property owners will be affected by the loss of options on what they can do with their land. He asked if the ODFW document will be addressed tonight because he has major issues with it, it is not where he wants to go with things.Adrienne said not independently of other topics. However, it is intended to provide committee members with background information to consider during their deliberations regarding code topics. She added that committee members may email staff directly with their concerns. • Ken asked if land owners will have direct contact with the City regarding their groves. Darren said as part of the Goal 5 process they have to notify property owners via a written notice. He added that property owners that are impacted have been invited to the open house. Ken cautioned that the more contact the better. • John asked if other city models have been looked at, Darren said he's talk to the consultant about it. Next Steps The next meeting will be held on February 9t"in 2nd floor conference room at the Tigard library from 6-9 pm;this will be a 3 hour meeting. Marissa will send a confirmation email. Meeting adjourned around 8:45 p.m. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 14 Meeting#6 DRAFT Summary -16- Patty Lunsford From: John Frewing <jfrewing@teleport.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:16 PM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: Tigard Tree Code Update CAC Tonight Todd, Thanks for sending out a printed version of the packet for tonight's CAC meeting. I think all of the staff work has been quite good, but we still are not addressing a number of issues which can make Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan produce visible results; I want to mention some here, without taking speech time from the meeting agenda itself. However, hopefully these notes will spur some discussion. Subject A: 1. 1 am happy to see that Ken Gertz, in his written response to my earlier identification of tree code needs, agrees with most of my list. He asks how overlay zones for tree protection would work— I believe just like overlay zones for sensitive lands or significant habitat or other overlay zones Tigard already has. The tree grove protection effort seems to already be moving this way, identifying specific areas of the city where a different approach is necessary to achieve the desired results. I can imagine that the downtown area might be another tree protection zone, where different rules apply in order to accommodate dense development and still provide the benefit of trees. I see that City of Portland is proposing different tree protection standards in environmental zones; this seems applicable as well in Tigard. 2. Ken recognizes the challenge of maintaining tree protections in development situations where property ownership changes several times (my note 7). In the staff draft material which you have sent out so far, I don't see this being addressed. It should be. My initial thought would be to RECORD the tree plan,just as the plat is recorded, and then require owner signoff at some early point in subsequent development activity permitting, agreeing to carry out the tree plan as recorded. I happen to agree with Ken that deed restrictions don't seem to have been effective, unless city staff has more information on this subject. 3. 1 don't believe there has been any evaluation of my observation (#13) that the $125 per caliper inch for tree replacement is sadly out of date. The cost of everything else has gone up over the past decade, why not this number? Please put this evaluation on the list of'to do' tasks as part of the code upgrade. Subject B: The City of Portland tree code has raised several new issues that turn into ideas for Tigard to use in its tree code revisions. Note that Portland has chosen to weigh more heavily the value of large healthy trees, native trees and groves—the Tigard draft has started this way, but doesn't match the same wording as Portland. mentioned above Portland's idea of RECORDING the tree plan above. Portland proposes to adopt tree density standards, but in a way that requires no additional city review or delay in permits—Tigard should try it, we should discuss it at the CAC (invite a Portland rep?). The preservation standards in the Portland material apply only to trees >12 inches DBH, and native trees >6"DBH count toward tree preservation compliance—another good idea for Tigard. The Portland rule for mitigation of trees removed is interesting—two trees for every tree removed; this appears simple and meaningful. Property line trees are addressed in the Portland proposed code material; we need to do this in Tigard. As noted above, special rules should be utilized for trees in sensitive areas. Portland proposes something called a 'programmatic' permit for ongoing work by agencies— it might help Tigard. In the non-regulatory area, Portland aims for a 'call before you cut' culture 1 -17- which seems something that a region-wide campaign could target—Tigard should endorse it. Finally, Portland's programs aim at encouraging 'neighborhood' tree plans and inventories— useful citizen involvement effort to build support for tree protection; please consider this as part of the UFMP efforts. The subject of regulations for 'redevelopment' situations has been addressed in staff material for tonight. Portland outlines a set of conditions different than proposed by Tigard — more than 200 sq ft of building increase or any change triggering non-conforming upgrades; I would like staff to evaluate the differences from what Tigard proposes, considering benefits and difficulties for us. Subject C: The recommendations from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, specific to this code development effort (pages 25-27 of tonight's packet) deserve more attention than simply to file them under 'comments'. The simplest way to approach these comments in my mind is to have city staff consider them and comment on them --to the CAC and back to ODFW. The CAC can then consider what staff thinks is possible to incorporate in the Tigard code. Her recommendation #2 regarding consideration of the vertical dimension of trees appeared particularly important to me because of a recent Tigard land development decision at 15245 SW 74th, where a wireless company asked to build an equipment building—the lot is adjacent to 74th, and while street trees were proposed, they were small trees, not providing much canopy over the pavement surface of 74th. The reason small trees were proposed is that there exist overhead electric (and cable) lines which are not to be removed. If we want canopy over these pavement surfaces, we need to specify larger/taller trees. The Tigard UFMP and associated tree code need to prioritize areas where overhead electric/cable/telephone lines currently prevent the planting of trees which will grow wide or tall for canopy benefits. The associated policy, capital improvement projects, and work plans should deal with the appropriate utilities or other companies, or developers to get utility lines put underground in these areas—we just shouldn't sit here and say 'that is the way it is and will be'. We need to make canopy cover progress in these priority areas. Please make this another 'to do' item for UFMP implementation. Thanks for your consideration. I would appreciate it if you would forward this email to CAC members or bring copies for this evening's meeting. John Frewing 2 -18- Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:38 AM To: 'John Frewing' Cc: 'Adrienne DeDona' Subject: RE: Tigard Tree Code for Development, Jan 13 Thanks John. You raise some very good points, and I will consider them when writing the preliminary draft for the February meeting while being conscious of what I think is the general consensus of the CAC. -Todd From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:29 PM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: Tigard Tree Code for Development, Jan 13 Todd and Adrienne, I'm having second thoughts about the wisdom of specifying ONLY a canopy cover requirement (at maturity)for development rules. My concern is that we are putting off for 40 years any ability to determine compliance and enforcement. I hate to draw an analogy to the size of our national debt, but in both cases,we are asking later generations to be accountable for things we do now. Portland's approach of a 35% retention standard for trees over 12" seems more honest and simple. Maybe there is something that can use the canopy cover approach IN COMBINATION with a retention standard. Please consider in your drafts an alternative draft which uses the idea of a retention standard. I think that the ODFW comment#1 has merit in encouraging native trees. It can be incorporated in the retention and planting standard, by,for example giving credit for trees greater than 6" only for native tree species (a list to be developed). The suggested rule 'native tree replacement for native tree removal' and 'native trees for street trees' are also easy to implement and moves the city toward its stated UFMP goals. If a 'zoned' approach to tree rules is picked up, as suggested by several persons last night,there may be exceptions to these general rules encouraging native trees in some settings. ODFW comment#2 seems to be a matter of wildlife professionals expertise, and I see no reason not to adopt it as a guiding principle,for both mitigation trees and street trees. I encourage you to include it in your drafting. ODFW comment#3 is simply a detailed exposition of an earlier definition of'hazard tree', where we agreed that a hazard tree is one that cannot be treated by normal arboricultural practices, eg pruning, fertilizer,water, etc and can be removed. I think ODFW simply asks that such consideration be documented—I think of the old saying, 'if you don't document it, you didn't do it". ODFW certainly does not suggest that unsafe snags be left in areas where people or structures would be close by. ODFW comment#4 is simply a note on documentation of the kind of tree that is being considered in their comment#3. The Tigard code already addresses hazard trees, and these ODFW comments should be incorporated in that discussion. ODFW comment#5 seems applicable where there are known nesting sites or where a larger area (say an acre or more) is proposed to be cleared. Under most circumstances, a longer work period would seem OK in my opinion. Such conditioning of work periods should be added to either the rules or the manual. i -19- ODFW comment is simply a clarification and detailing of the current requirement to assess the 'condition' of trees on a development site. The above comment about 'writing it down' applies. The ODFW paragraph on what to consider can simply be added to the ISA instructions for tree evaluation. I still believe that the CAC should directly review the ODFW comments as a matter of'coordination' by the Tigard process. We need to determine what is possible and what is not (Todd opined last evening that basically all of the ODFW comments and recommendations were possible). If there are conflicting matters,that is where CAC opinion may come in to play. The comment that the ODFW comments should be thrown out simply because it raises new issues in tree management goes directly against the goals of the Tigard UFMP. John Frewing z -20- Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:34 PM To: 'John Frewing' Cc: 'Adrienne DeDona' Subject: RE: Comments on Tigard Code revisions for'development' Thanks John, I will include your comments in the packet. I have a copy of the Portland recommended draft, and we have been in discussions with Portland staff regarding their code. We don't want to reinvent the wheel when there is a good model out there. However,we are drafting the code based on what a majority of the CAC is recommending. -Todd From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:00 PM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com Cc: 'Tony Tycer'; david.walsh@spnewsprint.com; brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org Subject: Comments on Tigard Code revisions for 'development' Todd, Last night I attended an openhouse for Portland's proposed code revisions for trees. I want to make sure that you consider some of the items I learned there as you are drafting some changes to the Tigard code for'development'. I assume that you will route these comments to others on the CAC(I've copied a couple where I have emails). 1 They explained further why they are going with a 'preservation of significant trees' rule rather than what is now drafted as a Tigard 'canopy goal' rule. They couple their preservation rule with recording of the committed tree arrangement and a subsequent tree-for-tree replacement rule (utilizing what is hopefully a simple and low-cost tree cutting permit). They say that they have as a goal a citizen-friendly process that engages folks to be sensitive to trees and tree values rather than a strict enforcement activity by the city (which, like Tigard doesn't have money for much enforcement). For example,who will the City of Tigard go after if the tree canopy goal is nowhere near being met— and the property has changed hands 5 times over the years?? Hence they like the idea that people, over time,will come to be friendly toward trees and connect/interact with the city more than if only an enforcement approach were used. You can look up the details of their preservation rule, and I don't see any obstacles to its use in Tigard and urge its use. Additionally,there must be administered by the City a listing of tree species,time to maturity(under what growing conditions, eg shade), and extent of canopy coverage at maturity. 2 They discussed in more detail the proposed new rules for'RE' development, which Tigard code should address, since we are limited in development to mostly small infill. If we want canopy cover throughout Tigard, redevelopment will be an important element. They said that street tree requirements are triggered any time ANY building modification (even if only indoors) exceeds$25,000, but the expense of required street tree work is limited to a maximum of 10 percent of total modification cost. Sounds reasonable to me; please consider this. If redevelopment involves more than 200 sq ft of additional building footprint, a tree plan is required. 3 The Portland proposed glossary (Chapter 11.800) seems much more comprehensive than current Tigard definitions; I urge its use wherever possible. 4 Portland has considered the problem of overplanting small areas in the city, done just in order to be able to say that adequate mitigation has been done. They specify tree density standards in planting rules which should be adopted by 1 -21- Tigard. If there are no places onsite or in recognized public areas,the alternative of'in-lieu'fees becomes the mitigation rule. Please consider adoption of similar policy. 5 There were other subjects discussed which I had earlier mentioned to you in my emails of Nov 7 and January 12. 1 hope you will include these most recent suggestions along with the earlier notes. John Frewing 2 -22- Patty Lunsford From: Ken Gertz<Ken@Gertzco.com> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:03 PM To: Adrienne@jla.us.com; Todd Prager; Ernie Platt Subject: Cost of planting Trees Attachments: CITY OF TIGARD - COOK PARK—TREE REPLACEMENTS_1-19-1 1.pdf Adrienne, Please forward this to the CAC and anyone that would find it useful. To Tree CAC There seems to be a misconception on the mitigation cost involved in planting trees. One of the CAC members has repeatedly asked to raise the price per caliper inch of mitigation collected. To clarify the actual cost of planting, I am attaching a current quote for planting of 200 caliper inches of Douglas fir,western red cedar, sequoia, grand fir, red alder, oak or maple provided by a reputable landscape company,Teufel Landscaping, which will contract to plant trees for$35.20 per caliper inch. These figures are in line with prices I have paid for planting mitigation trees. I would expect additional cost associated with maintaining the trees for the required two year, but it would still be far from the current$125.00 per caliper inch. I believe mitigation has been proven to be not just an ineffective and onerous method of tree protection but an actual detriment to tree preservation. I think that with the new method being discussed, mitigation of existing trees should be once and for all removed from the code. Sincerely Ken Gertz HBA 1 -23- Patty Lunsford From: Ken Gertz<Ken@Gertzco.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:47 AM To: Adrienne@jla.us.com; Todd Prager Subject: Response to John Frewing E-mail 1/12/11 Adrienne, Please distribute. To CAC In response to Mr. Frewing's e-mail 1/12/11, RE: Recording the Tree Plan I disagree that recording a tree plan is a viable way to stop removal of trees either standing or planted. Frankly,the homeowners pay no attention to recorded documents. Even CC&Rs are rarely read and understood, let alone adhered to. In my business, I am often called upon for such things and they are always after the damage is done, and rarely do the opposing parties even know there are CC&Rs. Additionally, who would police such a document infraction? I doubt the City has the resources or desire to launch an assault on a homeowner. As far as implementation of such a plan, the current proposal is to provide for a flexible tree plan for the development and build-out of property. When would such a plan be recorded, where it could still be modified?Assuming that every lot will somehow be required to either save or plant trees on a city wide basis, many of the trees planted will be planted by the home builder, not the developer.The tree plan could be modified up to the final of the last home as long as the criterion has been met. I believe recording the tree plan to be a waste of time, energy and money, and could also result in future law suits against the city.The idea of planting city wide on the majority of the remaining property, will more that account for the few trees that are lost to a few miss intended home owners. RE: replace each tree with two trees. I think that is in essence what the current code is. Requiring developers to plant more trees than the property can support, or pay mitigation. I believe the CAC felt strongly that the new code would level the playing field between treed and clear land, not devalue the treed property when compared to the clear land. This kind of requirement smacks of additional cost, which in the past has translated into fewer saved trees. RE: ODFW In my dealings,the ODFW's main purpose concerning development is to deal with protection of fish habitat, they have nothing to do with development outside of that. We already have stream corridor practices in place and when the salmon habitat is impacted,they may be involved. I doubt the ODFW has any real interest in commenting back and forth with Tigard on a citywide code, nor do I believe what is expected for city Groves has any real resemblance to a State Forest.The segmented acreages involved and the use the city should expect is more a park than a forest with any substantial wildlife. RE: Overhead Wires and trees. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to why overhead utilities are not automatically buried underground. 1: Not all wires can be buried underground. 2:The cost to underground wires has to me in line with the cost of the project. 3: It is not just Power, but several different telephone companies, several different cable companies and several different fiber optic companies, all of which own just their own equipment, but have contractual agreements to share poles and space with and to each other. For small projects, not an easy task. 4: Often times, moving a pole 2 feet will cause a complete rebuild of an entire section of a utility grid. 1 -24- A general question: Which would be better for street trees, and cause less storm drain clogs less street and sidewalk damage and less maintenance in general,tall trees or shorter umbrella shaped trees? z -25- Patty Lunsford From: Ken Gertz<Ken@Gertzco.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:16 AM To: Adrienne@jla.us.com; Todd Prager Subject: UFCR CAC Jan 5 2011 Part 1 Adrienne, Please forward as usual to CAC and interested parties . Response to UFCR CAC Jan 5 2011 packet Part one, more to follow. Question 5: 1 don't think a 40%canopy is achievable on a lot-by-lot basis. I suspect any city close to that percentage has no UGB, allows for larger inexpensive lots and open space, and is counting parks, green space and other undeveloped property to achieve that goal. I would also submit,that to achieve such a lofty goal would preclude the possibility of a lawn, pool or play area. I would like the City Staff to prove whatever ratio is decided upon is readily achievable. For example, a gas station, a warehouse or strip mall as well as residential lots of all zoning.Also please take into account that some homeowners do not want trees in their yards at all so their wishes should be addressed as well in your percentage calculation. Question 6: 1 agree. Question 7: 1 think adjusting densities and even zoning may be in order. A question I have, is how would the community feel about the smaller lots and what about the reduction of the land value of property subject to these reduced lots size be accounted for? Question 8: Sounds like a good start. Question 9:Always a good idea to have alternative review opportunity, as there is always exceptions to the rule Question 10: Under First Level Modification, I would like to add trading of standing trees. For instance, if a road needed to be moved, some trees on one side of the road that would have been cut are not, but trees on the other side are. Such changes are common and should be accounted for. Sometimes projects change and standing trees need to be removed. If the change is not a complete removal of all trees, and can be mitigated with planting or planting and fee in lieu, it should be allowed to continue with the director's approval. In general, if the change would have been approved if it had been submitted earlier, it should not be required to go to public notice and stop the project and cost a whole lot of money and time.There should be a level at which public notice is required, but if the project can meet the intention of the code and the coverage, they should be allowed to do so with no delay.This has been one of the worst sections of the current code, and it needs to be fixed. i -26- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Some members expressed interest in exploring Staff explored possible canopy in each zone using the same methodology as in -18.790.030 zoning- specific density requirements; different the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Based on the results of the analysis and a -Section 8, canopy percentage goals for different zones. sampling of case studies, staff is confident that 40% effective canopy is Part 3, achievable in all zones without placing undue burden on any particular zone. Tigard Staff recommends requiring a uniform, 40% effective canopy requirement across Urban all zones in order to implement the CAC's desire for a simple and clear tree code Forestry with a view towards the future. In the following responses, there is more Manual explanation of what 40% effective canopy means. The attached case studies show what 40% effective canopy looks like in a sample of real scenarios. A majority of the group requested further analysis of The term "effective"is very important in the context of the proposed canopy -18.790.030 the proposed 40% canopy goal. requirement. This is because although the proposed requirement is to provide -Section 8, 40%canopy based on the size of the lot, the applicant has the option to meet Part 3, the requirement by planting trees within the right of way adjacent to the subject Tigard lot. Also, the applicant could receive credit for canopy that"spills over"into Urban neighboring lots at maturity (keep in mind though there are minimum spacing Forestry requirements between trees, even from trees on neighboring lots). Manual Considering that 20% of development (and the City as a whole) is dedicated as right of way, the actual proposed canopy requirement is 32% overall (see further description below). The following is a simple visual representing a 100,000 sq. ft. pre development subdivision lot. 20,000 sq. ft. (20%) is required for right of way and 80,000 sq. ft. is the remaining net developable area as part of the development process. 80,000 sq.ft.net developable area(40,000 sq. ft.on each side of right of way for lots) --------------------------ZCf,000 sq.-ft.-agit a—"Cv5.------------------------- -27- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION 40% canopy (32,000 sq. ft.) is the proposed requirement for the 80,000 sq. ft. of net developable area in the example above. However, because the applicant can use the right of way when meeting their canopy requirement, the full 100,000 square feet of area is available for planting. Therefore, the actual canopy provided for the overall development (developable area plus right of way) is 32% (32,000 sq. ft. of canopy) for a 100,000 sq. ft. overall development. One result of the proposed requirements would be an incentive to push as much canopy into the adjacent right of way as possible, especially for those that want to maximize their options within a lot. Staff views this incentive as positive since urban forestry research shows that street trees provide high environmental, economic, and social benefits in urban areas. Another result of the proposed requirements is an incentive to plant fewer large stature trees rather than many small stature trees to achieve canopy. Staff views this incentive as positive as well because urban forestry research shows that large stature trees provide a higher benefit to cost ratio than smaller stature trees. The current code discourages the above because street trees do not count towards mitigation requirements (so there are often as few street trees planted as possible) and mitigation is based on number of trees planted, not the ultimate size of trees (so there are often many small stature trees planted to meet mitigation requirements). The argument could be made that 40% actual canopy should be required in order to be consistent with the City's long term canopy goals within the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Staff is not proposing 40% actual canopy at this time for the following reasons: 1. Although an"in lieu of planting"tree canopy fee is an option,the CAC's -28- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION general direction at the January 12,2011 meeting was to set the canopy requirement at an achievable level and not force a high percentage of applicants into the tree canopy fee requirement. 2. The built in incentives in the proposed requirements represent a more targeted approach to increase canopy in areas where it is needed most(right of way and non-residential zones). In the Urban Forestry Master Plan we saw that residential zones currently have the highest level of existing canopy(-30%in 2007). In contrast,commercial, industrial,and mixed use zones have relatively low canopy(-13%in 2007), which brought Tigard's citywide canopy down to approximately 25% (in 2007). In addition,public right of way has relatively low canopy across all zones (-9% in 2007)which brings the canopy down for each corresponding zone and citywide. As previously explained,the requirements incentivize planting canopy in the right of way,which would help to increase overall canopy in all zones and citywide. In addition,the requirements would be applied to commercial,industrial,and mixed use redevelopment projects through the site development review(SDR) process. In Tigard,SDRs are required for relatively minor redevelopment projects,which would trigger the proposed canopy requirement for parking lots and the overall site. The cumulative effect of the requirements over time would be significant canopy increases in commercial,industrial,and mixed use zones. These zones are where canopy is needed most to meet the goals in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. 3. Not all development projects fit the typical subdivision model described above -29- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION with 20%dedication of right of way. For example,redevelopment projects (SDRs)will not typically have to dedicate as much right of way, so the effective canopy provided would be closer to the actual canopy. Staff thinks this is reasonable because non-residential sites usually use a significant portion of the site for parking. These parking areas are ripe for tree planting,and making progress towards the 40%effective canopy requirement. The case studies below illustrate 40%effective canopy for a mixed use site in downtown Tigard and a commercial site in the Tigard Triangle. 4. Although less than 40% actual canopy will be required for a typical development,the Urban Forestry Master Plan does not propose that the City will achieve its goals solely through regulation. The CAC has already made recommendations to utilize the existing Tree Replacement Fund to support tree planting for willing private property owners. This would result in voluntary canopy increases on private property. In addition,there are other City programs such as "Tree for All" events and"The Healthy Streams Plan"that are geared towards restoring canopy along streams and sensitive lands,which make up a significant portion of acreage citywide. These types of programs will further progress towards the City's long term urban forestry goals,with regulation as just one of the suite of tools in the community's urban forestry toolbox. The committee requested case studies of how the 40% Staff has provided 6 examples of how the 40% effective canopy requirement -18.790.030 goal would apply in the real scenarios. could be met on a sampling of recent projects. The projected mature canopy of -Section 8, trees is shown to scale in green on each of the drawings. Part 3, Tigard Exhibit A is from a 3,136 sq. ft. lot in a new residential subdivision in an R-12 Urban (12 units per acre) zone. It shows that 40% effective canopy can be met by Forestry planting one medium stature street tree and another medium stature tree in the Manual backyard. -30- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Exhibit B is an alternative plan for the lot in Exhibit A, and shows the canopy requirement can be met by planting one large stature street tree. This allows for more open space in the backyard if desired. Exhibit C is from a 6,990 sq. ft. lot in a new residential subdivision in an R-4.5 (4.5 units per acre) zone. It shows that 40% effective canopy can be met by planting one medium stature street tree and two large stature trees in the backyard. Exhibit D is from a 6,314 sq. ft. lot in a new residential subdivision in an R-4.5 zone. It shows that 40% effective canopy can be met by preserving one fir tree in the backyard which is part of a larger stand,planting another tree in the backyard, and planting one medium stature street tree. Exhibit E is from a new mixed use development in downtown Tigard with 48 units and an associated parking lot. It shows that 40% effective canopy can be met by preserving two existing trees, and planting additional trees for street trees, the parking lot, and to buffer adjacent uses. Please note that although the projected canopy has been shown for all trees,many were eliminated from the calculations because they do not meet the spacing and/or building setback requirements in the proposed Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Exhibit F is from a new commercial planned development in the Tigard Triangle on a 146,303 sq. ft. lot. It shows that 40% effective canopy can be met through planting street trees,parking lot trees, buffer trees, and other landscape trees. There is also reforestation with native trees to buffer a wetland on site. As in Exhibit E,many of the trees shown were eliminated from the calculations because they do not meet spacing and/or building setback requirements in the ro osed Manual. The committee requested that tree plan modifications Staff discussed modifications to tree plans after approval with the City Attome 118.790.070 -31- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION after approval be further explored legally with City. on January 19, 2011. In the current code,because there is no process to modify a tree plan (such as removing a tree that was previously shown as preserved), an applicant is required to reapply for a completely new land use decision if they want to make changes. This is a cumbersome and expensive process. The City Attorney generally advised that if the revised code authorizes a less cumbersome process for modifying a tree plan, then that new process will become legal. The City Attorney was comfortable with staff's proposal to allow some minor modifications to occur through a purely technical, administrative process while requiring other modifications to occur through a more formal review. The proposed minor modifications include: 1. Removal of hazard trees if there is sufficient documentation by a certified tree risk assessor; 2. Modification of the quantity,location,or species of trees to be planted, provided the same or greater tree canopy will result; 3. Modification of the location of tree protection fencing,provided the arborist certifies that the viability of the trees will not be impacted; 4. Modifying any other site elements (e.g. paving,building,etc.) that do not also require a modification to the location of the tree protection fencing;and 5. Maintenance of trees (pruning,mulching,fertilization,etc.) in accordance with tree care industry standards. Staff is proposing a Type II modification which would require notice to the surrounding neighbors for more substantial modifications such as cutting down existing trees and replacing them with new trees. The criteria for approving such modifications are: -32- Staff Response to January 12, 2011 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION 1. The trees are being removed due to unforeseen circumstances; 2. There is no practicable alternative to tree removal;and 3. The canopy requirement will be met through a revised plan. Staff anticipated that the CAC and community would want a higher level of review for substantial changes to a tree plan such as removing an existing tree. However, the City Attorney has advised that modification through a staff level review (no public notice required) could legally be authorized through the revised code. EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A: 40%EFEECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN R-12 EXHIBIT B: 40%EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN R-12 (ALTERNATIVE) EXHIBIT C: 40%EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN R-4.5 (THROUGH PLANTING ONLY) EXHIBIT D: 40%EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN R-4.5 (THROUGH PLANTING AND PRESERVATION) EXHIBIT E: 40%EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN EXHIBIT F: 40%EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE IN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TIGARD TRIANGLE -33- Exhibit A r N 0 RECFVED S:l�b JAN t � � Raywood Ash ' carOF 30 ft.canopy spread PLAN�a,NG+ENGIN 706.5 sq.ft. Frontier Elm src - I 30 ft.canopy spread,,, VORA( 706.5 sq.ft. MAWOLE £xl5 101.41 — - 5'CALF& � !' 1 1 I o 1 LOT 10 J f Als Sr O EXTJ crlove rE LdPI WA 3 a W SF CJ1T u� IIA N Imo'. b Z O x 20.6' -- ----- J---3O'�� Q W Z> O W I- - 2163* 5 217.5, 40.31 Q Z V — = S f C, - - - - — r 121.28' - - — ,�,r � 7 f W 0 2r�r LT4f9 217.6"J 0 3 w� r ———————————————————————————————— - _——— 0 t3 4 271 H I P r i i Zone: R12 a a Lot Size: 3,136 sq. ft. NMS: Canopy: 1,413 sq. ft. SONE: R-12 OF P;RADE AND PROPERTY ORES ARE ESTIMATES �/ Effective Canopy: 45% . @IDG O0IERACE' 39.I' OF OURRENT LOCATIWIS. WERNOUS AREA.1,134 SF _ ALL MENWNS ANO SQUARE FOOTAGE ARE F r SETBACKS AMOIOMATE FIGURES FRONT 15 o GARAGE 2V DRMEMAY MAY DIFFER DUE TO LOCATION OF STREET SUE 1O' UTILITY BOXES. STREET UGHTS AND OTHER SITE It SIDE 5 00MOI I MaS REAR 3D' 4 -34- Exhibit B N 0 Red Oak REGE!',i�� 45 ft. canopy spread ; 1,589.6 sq.ft. .IAN 10 .'.. • � P[�N � fNo ,o' GG�FRW s SCALE: I'_ ,o' 101.47 5' 27S 275.0' ---- I — I o I LOT 10 I W bi Alm sr 1664 SF I Ly Z I I 2 IA 74 I Z ----- L�JOJ O j G 216X _-5. 217.5' 40.31 z — � —f %I COT 9 2776" J m 9 r r ——————————————————————————————— __— 1 03 0 I I I I I sn 27' I I I 1 4 ~ q I I I 9 I � H I f r a i Zone: R12 r Lot Size: 3,136 sq. ft. NOT�s: Canopy: 1,589.6 sq. ft. SONE: R-12 +LLL I;RAI AND ATOPER7Y ORES ARE Es11MATE5 �/ Effective Canopy: 50.7% @IDG O0IERACE' 39.I' OF OURRENT LOCATIWIS. WERMOUS AREA.1.134 SF Au TE SETBACKS AMORAATEFIGURE$ FOOTAGE ARE a FRONT 15 "� e GARAGE 2V DRMEMAY MAY DIFFER DUE TO LOCATION OF STREET SUE ,O' UA,TY WXS. STREET UGNTS AND OTHER SITESIDE 5 k CbFU SI 3O' 11TIMS 1 -35- z Exhibit C Q 0 F- a it a F Z �z Grand Fir Z ° 40 ft. canopy spread z > 1,256 sq.ft. o X Lu _o W 'a M LR 5g Red Maple U LO35 ft.canopy spread 0 }PS — 961.6 s ft. aqua;}I!S-- - aqua}I!S O q' Z --------- } Lq Z 00'91 Str 9ZZ' r- lvi Z w a O .n ray y�f°�-Ja �` ' nZ 2 Z rn a`a a) O 04 If > uj N Z LLJ _I t, � m nsEci5 J — +8 LO L v > � �w co H „ � > O 0 � rao U iv Z y r � 00-9Z a V J 0 ------------ m p --------------- - J@mOdpax N z Lqw W YV•�l.iY LLI N V (L Western Red Cedar 4) 30 ft.canopy spread Zone: R4.5 W 706.5 sq.ft. LL Lot Size: 6,990 sq. ft. a d d 0 d Canopy: 2,924.1 sq. ft. ° ° LL r % Effective Canopy: 41.8% a U) 0 aw W LL U. a' 0 LU i 7 ILt COD a ~ -36- Exhibit D Western Red Cedar 30 ft.canopy spread ° v 706.5 sq.ft. Ln "' 1 � � .ti 'aE ---- s —————- — OL 00 - (� it N'.:uJ310be 33t1L�� • .I31lYYh 0356dOtld 1frt•n — —.— // 9 P Ute- F tilrV IF I cF oa 0 ora A G Raywood'Ash ;; o 30 ft.canopy spread I � E�———— I I �' 706.5 sq.ft. a i - " - T.q 00 Let r�9TOl�k13-13 / �--- ZOl A 313 I y �-a I I �� Q \� 0 IVO 6k- 0 .� - -------- SSS �" I 0 g 00's k .. �� Z Douglas-fir(preserved as part of a larger stand) ► 5 : l 644 sq:ft.of canopy area 1,288 sq.ft.of effective canopy area(2x credit for preservation) Zone: --�� © �� Lot Size: _ ' 6,31 s . ft. 6 t•Z 00s 5f� og - • � lr. II N .. - Canopy: 2170 sq. ft. % Effective C now 42.80 a�E J [Z-P P'f7 7 IL 0 -37- Exhibit E u•wr.w�swcn.ar+- �wla••wuonnr�w 0 Zone: v. Zone: Mixed Use CBD (Downtown) : Lot Size: 38,333 sq. ft. �'•' o �,q a�-frw.c•a.me ,m, a.v �`d..M"i.m®.% �s.,�•.�.�•.e.,•ew w�rr �.rsr..1r Canopy: 15,660 sq. ft. :_ =: = - ' ' t� -• ; Effective Canopy: 40.9% OAK-: W=- r MW,� �Ai�WMM i wf.■H - o�✓ss + s.ror<+,+.+- �w��..r-�owa•�.w°rwwr- Q I +rrv.o,r.rrwl�r -.-GV.1-nF 1�.Calt ens.AAYK.ne ur / Irrsrr Wrr, �K 10,636 sq.ft.canopy planted *note-trees that do not meet spacing and R; - = "'mu- }� BTW , nr.r.wr.I.err ,r building setback requirements(in proposed .. ' code)were not included in the calculation ""'"= � --•• µ.:sate•="==" 2512 sq.ft.canopy preserved UN U.. a _ 5024 sq.ft.of effective canopy area (2x credit for preservation) F�F fC AM f M -y wacn ` 88aa....c. • t /r 7'• r . .E^^ r T.:.TY3 iY TY .. 71T 7,Ti' 7 '7 ,T!SFTT t. t G -38- Exhibit u.re E>esrsc aae AM AM axa 1 nomwk _I .v l w f F.. I z w 1 Zj PAID B ME-�euEr><n PAD A {� 41 - COWAWH NN6 GIIEEN WNL GRAVEL PATH • Of r•1 I w .. —•,—•. S kT II. i EnIAt._u. ti I 7 �F l I y — N�E■P✓�.EI lir !�tkFLION I I I i TREE LEGEND SYMBOL NAME - _ _ _ ANDERSON Reforestation area DABROWSKI ACERCIRCINATUM [)NICUM ARCHITECTS I ' VINE MAPLE —4,900 sq.ftcanopy planted �� J LCC ACERRUBRUM'SCARSer' 's(y I.nnmi+tc.srnnwrvvvTKATENSIS „a. W I SCARLET SENTINEL MAPLE ALASKA CEDAR �l PAD C ' w,4'TE a x '} I A. eE ".. Q a ACER WARRENRED'PACIFIC SUNSET CORNUS KOUSA //�/ �,,.I PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE KOUSA DOGWOOD I tc» -1 BUFiER I.} Pwl ALNUS RUBRA FRAXINUS PENNSYWANICA'URBANITE' RED ALDER URBANITE ASH PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR / y TREEMITIGATION DETAILS NEW TREES SIZE QTY INCHESTOTAL STREET TREES-LOOM CREDIT 1 , SCARLET SENTINEL MAPLE 4" 17 68 / ss'EE s IM KATSURA 3.5' 14 49 NOTES: l �.e.mnw A1YIGTIGN PARKING TREES-IOD%CREDIT 1.COMPLIANCE WITH TMC(s)18.620,18.745,AND 18.790 URBANITE ASH 4' 21 84 WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT_ / PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE 4" 6 24 2. PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE: 145 / KATSURA 3.5" 8 28 PARKING TREES REQUIRED: 21 / L-IPXFC I SENTINELMAPLES 3" 11 33 PARKING TREES PROVIDED: 46 • 1 LANDSCAPE TREES-100%CREDIT 3.MITIGATED TREES: DOUGLAS RR 2' 9 18 NATIVES: 19 REMOVED/59 IN DESIGN ALASKA CEDAR 2" 23 46 ORNAMENTALS:7 REMOVED/134 IN DESIGN VINE MAPLE 2" 26 52 4- USE STRUCTURAL SOIL WHERE INDICATED ON PLAN /j f REDALDER 2.5" 3 7.5 TO PROVIDE 1.000 C.F. SOIL VOLUME FOR 1 KOUSA DOGWOOD 2.5" 12 30 WIDE-SPREADING TREES.AND 600 C.F.SOIL VOLUME FOR �.. S(;ARIFT S NIINH rAAAPEF 3 A 74 SMALLER SC EOR COLUMNAR TREES PER CITY „ ... .,=x, u. u , Ey 15110. Zone IL -- Lot SIZ$. u�46303 sq. ft. 62,445.2 sq.ft.canopy planted (open grown) >CARIFT SHNNNH(IN HU-N FRI w T 1 *note-trees that do not meet spacing and Canopy:„""' 67,345.2 Ii building setback requirements(in proposed �w LD 3.00 Effective Canopy: 46%D code)were not included in the calculation -- -- -39- CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: HAZARD TREES (AUG 2010) STREET TREES (OCT 2010) USE OF CURRENT MITIGATION FUND (NOV 2010) URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT (FEB 2011) TREE GROVE PRESERVATION (APR 2011) OTHER TREE PERMITS, BESIDES STREET TREES (JUN 2011) PRELIMINARY DRAFT February 9, 2011 -40- Tbis page intentionally left blank -41- Acknowledgements Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen Council President Gretchen Buehner Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Mark Woodard Councilor Marland Henderson Tigard Planning Commission Dave Walsh,President Jeremy Vermilyea,Vice President Tom Anderson Margaret Doherty Karen Ryan Timothy L. Gaschke Stuart Hasman Donald Schmidt,Alternate Richard Shavey,Alternate Citizen Advisory Committee Scott Bernhard, DC, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Dave Walsh,Planning Commission Don Schmidt, Planning Commission Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Tony Tycer,Tree Board Ken Gertz,Portland Metropolitan Home Builders John Wyland,Developer Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers and Board Member of Oregon Community Trees Morgan E. Holen,ISA Certified Arborist John Frewing, Citizen at Large Technical Advisory Committee Susan Harnett,Assistant Community Development Director Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director Gus Duenas,Development Engineer Ted Kyle, City Engineer Steve Martin,Parks and Facilities Manager Kim McMillan,Engineering Manager Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Todd Prager,Associate Planner& City Arborist Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst Albert Shields, Permit Coordinator Carla Staedter, Surface Water Quality Coordinator Mark Van Domelen,Building Official Vance Walker, Streets Supervisor Damon Reische, Clean Water Services Ron Kroop, ODOT District 2A Manager Mark Buffington, ODOT Region 1 Landscape Manager -42- Additional Tigard Staff Contributors (Not on Technical Advisory Committee) Craig Prosser, City Manager Ron Bunch, Community Development Director Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Cheryl Caines,Associate Planner& Code Editor Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner John Floyd,Associate Planner Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant -43- Table of Contents ProjectSummary................................................................................................ Background........................................................................................................ Development Code Amendments...................................................................... -44- BACKGROUND Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) in 2009 to help guide and inform an update of the City's tree and urban forestry related code provisions. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project implements four goals of the UFMP including: 1) Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790); 2) Revise Tigard's landscaping code (Chapter 18.745); 3) Develop a tree grove preservation program; and 4) Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. PROJECT SUMMARY The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will address the UFMP goals through a series of six thematic code packages including 1) Hazard Trees; 2) Street Trees; 3) Use of the Tree Replacement Funds; 4) Urban Forestry Standards for Development; 5) Tree Grove Preservation; and Other Tree Permits,Besides Street Trees. These packages will be developed sequentially by staff under Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee (TAC and CAC) review through September 2011. On consensus by the Advisory Committees, the proposed code amendments will be forwarded as a single package to the Planning Commission after review by a panel of development and urban forestry experts. Commission hearings will be scheduled for the at the beginning of 2012 with City Council hearings and adoption by April 2012. URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT The urban forestry standards for development amendments are intended to implement the community's urban forestry goals articulated in the Comprehensive Plan as recommended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Of primary importance is providing equitable treatment of all major development projects by requiring outcomes that will result in a reasonable amount of trees post development. The following are the highlights of the revisions: • Urban forestry plans by a certified arborist are required for all major development projects, whether or not there are existing trees; • 40%effective canopy is required for all zones with bonus credit and flexible standards for preserving existing trees; • Discretionary approval of an urban forestry plan by Planning Commission is possible for innovative,alternative proposals to providing 40%effective canopy; • An in lieu of canopy fee is allowed,and can be used for a full range of urban forestry activities in addition to tree planting such as preservation,maintenance,education and outreach,and urban forest planning; • Minor modifications to urban forestry plans are allowed without public notice,major modifications such as removing a tree after plan approval requires notice;and • Street trees and parking lot trees have soil volume standards,parking lots require 30%actual canopy,and any tree required to be planted by another code section(such as street trees and parking lot trees)is eligible for credit towards to the 40%effective canopy requirement. -45- Development Code Amendments How to Read This Section This section is organized by Development Code chapter number. Odd-numbered pages show the existing language with (proposed/recommended/adopted) amendments. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be added to the code is shown with double underlines. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be deleted is shown with str4kedifgugh. (New chapters,where all the text is new, are not shown in double underlined text for ease of reading.) Even-numbered pages contain commentary on the amendments,which establish,in part, the legislative intent in adopting these amendments. -46- Tbis page intentionally left blank -47- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms Chapter 18.115 (List of Terms) is a newly codified chapter of the Tigard Development Code (TDC) that is provided for easy reference of defined terms in chapter 18.120 (Definitions). The new definitions that have been added for the Urban Forestry Standards for Development revisions have been included in Chapter 18.115. -48- Code Amendments Chapter (18.115) List of Terms The following terms are defined in Chapter 18.120,Definitions,unless indicated otherwise. Abandoned Sign See Chapter Antenna See also Chapter Building Height 18.780, Signs 18.798, Wireless Building Official;See also Abut Communication Facilities Chapter 18.780, Signs Abutting Lots Apartment See Dwelling-Related Building Permit Accept Definitions Business See Chapter 18.780, Access Appeal Signs Accessory Building Applicant Caliper See Tree Related Accessory Dwelling Unit See Application D ti s Dwelling-Related Definitions Approval Authority Canopy See Design-Related Accessory Structure Approved Plan Definitions Acre Arcade See Design-Related Certified Arborist See Tree Active Use Facilities See Open Definitions Related Definitions Space Facility-Related Archaeological Site Certified Tree Risk Assessor Definitions Area See Chapter 18.780, Signs See Tree Related Definitions Addition Argument See Section Canopy Cover-See Gbelfiko Adjacent Lots See Abutting 18.390.080, General Provisions 18.790, TM, Remo 7 Lots Assessed Valuation Chamfer See Design-Related Adjoining Lots See Abutting Attached Dwelling See Definitions Lots Dwelling-Related Definitions Change of Use Administrative Action Awning See Design-Related City Adult Bookstore See Adult Definitions City Engineer Entertainment-Related Awning Sign See Chapter City of Tigard Definitions 18.780, Signs City Recorder Adult Entertainment-Related Balloon See Chapter 18.780, Collocation See Chapter 18.798, Definitions Signs Wireless Communication • Adult Bookstore Band See Design-Related Facilities • Adult Motion Picture Definitions Column See Design-Related Theater Banner See Chapter 18.780, Definitions Signs Commercial Forestry See • Specified Anatomical Areas Base Flood See Flood-Related Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal • Specified Sexual Activities Definitions Commission Adult Motion Picture Theater Basement Common Wall See Adult Entertainment- Bay See Design-Related Complete and Entire Related Definitions Definitions Complex `A'-Frame Sign See Chapter Belt Course See Design-Related Comprehensive See 18.780, Signs Definitions Comprehensive Plan-Related Aisle Bench Sign See Chapter 18.780, Definitions Alley Signs Comprehensive Plan-Related Alteration,Structural Berm Definitions Alternative Access Bike Lane • Comprehensive Amendment Bikeway • Generalized Amenity Billboard See Chapter 18.780, Si • Land Signs Americans with Disabilities Act Buildable Area • Plan Coordination Annexation Building Conditional Use Building Envelope Construct See Chapter 18.780, Building,Primary Signs -49- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms List of terms continued. -50- Code Amendments Contiguous • Turret Egress Contiguous Lots See Abutting • Visible Transmittance Electrical Sign See Chapter Lots Detached Dwelling See 98.780, Signs Corner Lot See Lot-Related Electronic Information Si Definitions Dwelling-Related Definitions Development See Chapter 98.780, Si Corner Side See Yard-Related gns Development Adjustment See Enlargement Definitions EntrySee Desi n Related Cornice See Design-Related Section 98.370.020, g - Adjustments Definitions Definitions Entryway Si SCha Development Impact Area ttY� Y � ee ter ' Council 1� Covered Soil Volume See Tree Development Review See 98.780, Signs Related Definitions Area-See Chapter 98.780, Signs Evidence See Section Development Site 98.390.080, General Provisions Diameter at Breast Height Exception Cul-de-sac Chapter 98.798 Cultural Institution Auxiliary DBHI See Tree Related FAA See Cha De anitions Wireless Communication Sign See Chapter 98.780, Signs Facilities Cutout See Chapter 98.780, Directional Sign See Chapter Face 98.780, Signs Signs Face of a Building See Chapter Dedication Director 98.780, Signs Dedication,Fee In Lieu Of Display Surface See Chapter FCC See Chapter 98.798, 98.780, Signs Deed Wireless Communication Demolish Drainage Way Facilities Density Dripline See Tree Related Fence,Sight-Obscuring Density Bonus De anons Final Action Density Transfer Drive-Through Facility Final Decision See Final Action Design-Related Definitions Driveway Final For Purposes Of Appeal • Arcade Duplex See Dwelling-Related See Section 98.390.080, Definitions General Provisions • Awning Dwelling See Dwelling-Related Final Order See Final Action • Band Definitions Findings • Bay Dwelling-Related Definitions Flag Lot See Lot-Related • Belt Course • Accessory Dwelling Unit Definitions • Canopy • Apartment Flashing Sign See Chapter • Chamfer • Attached Dwelling 98.780, Signs • Column • Detached Dwelling Floodplain See Flood-Related • Cornice • Duplex Definitions Flood-Related Definitions • Eaves • Dwelling • Base Flood • Entry • Manufactured Home • Floodplain • Frieze • Multiple-Family Dwelling • Floodway • Marquee • Single-Family Dwelling • Floodway Fringe • Medallion Easement Floodway See Flood-Related • Parapet Eaves See Design-Related Definitions • Pilaster Definitions Floodway Fringe See Flood- • StringCourse Effective Date See Section 98.390.080, General Provisions Related Definitions • Transom Floor Area -51- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms List of terms continued. -52- Code Amendments Floor Area Ratio Improved Lot See Lot-Related Lot-Related Definitions Flush Pitched Roof Sign See Definitions • Corner Lot Chapter 98.780, Signs Improvement • Flag Lot Freestanding Sign See Chapter Industrial Park See Chapter • Front Lot Line 98.780, Signs 98.780, Signs • Improved Lot Freeway Interchange See Ingress • Interior Lot Chapter 98.780, Signs Interior Lot See Lot-Related Lot-Related Freeway-Oriented Sign See Definitions • Lot Chapter 98.780, Signs Land See Comprehensive Plan- • Lot Area Frieze See Design-Related Related Definitions • Lot Averaging Definitions Land Form Alteration • Lot Coverage Front See Yard-Related Landscaping • Lot Depth Definitions Tandse ing Related • Lot Line Frontage See also Chapter Definitieffs • Lot Line Adjustment 98.780, Signs ' Govered SEA Area • Lot of Record Front Lot Line See Lot-Related oven sai4 • Lot Width Definitions eReet s • Rear Lot Line Garage _ Sail°Taluffi, Galetaft alis Generalized See Comprehensive Lattice Tower See Chapter • Side Lot Line Plan-Related Definitions18.798, Wireless • Substandard Lot Glare Communication Facilities • Tax Lot Guyed Tower See Chapter Lawn Sign See Chapter 18.780, • Through Lot 18.798, fireless Signs • Zero Lot Line Communication Facilities Legal Entity See Chapter Lot Width See Lot-Related Habitable Floor Area 18.780, Signs, `Business" Hazard Tree See Tree Related Definitions De anitions Legislative Maintenance See Chapter Hazard Tree Abatement See Lighting Methods See Chapter 18.780, Signs Tree Related Definitions 18.780, Signs Manufactured Home See Hazard Tree Owner or Loading Area See Loading Space Dwelling-Related Definitions Responsible Party See Tree Loading Space Marquee See Design-Related Related Definitions Lot See Lot-Related Definitions Definitions Heritage Tree See Tree Related Lot Area See Lot-Related Medallion See Design-Related De anitions Definitions Definitions 14a_5 -datt. Tree See C-h.,ff Lot Averaging See Lot-Related Median Tree See Tree Related 18.790, Tree Remo Definitions De znitions Home Occupation Lot Coverage See Lot-Related Minimal Use Facilities See Open Homeowners Association Definitions Space Facility-Related Household Lot Depth See Lot-Related Definitions Housing Complex See Chapter Definitions Mitigation 18.780, Signs Lot Line See Lot-Related Mixed Solid Waste See Chapter Immediate or Serious Danger Definitions 18.755,Mixed Solid Paste See Chapter 18.780, Signs Lot Line Adjustment See Lot- And Recyclable Storage Impact Analysis Related Definitions Mixed-Use Development Impervious Surface Lot of Record See Lot-Related Mobile Home Implementing Ordinance Definitions Mobile Home Park -53- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms List of terms continued. -54- Code Amendments Mobile Home Subdivision Painted Wall Sign See Chapter Removal See Chapter 18.790, Monopole See Chapter 18.798, 18.780, Signs Tree Removal Wireless Communication Parapet See Design-Related Reserve Strip Facilities Definitions Residence Moving Sign See Chapter Park Residential Trailer 18.780, Signs Parking Lot Tree See Tree Responsible Party,See Section Multiple-Family Dwelling See Related De anitions 18.230.030, Penalty Dwelling-Related Definitions Parking Space Revolving Sign See Chapter Multi-Unit Residential Partition 18.780, Signs Building See Chapter 18.755, Par Right-of-Way Mixed Solid Waste And ry Passive Use Facilities See Open Road Recyclable Storage Space Facility-Related Roof Neighborhood Activity Center Definitions Roof Line See Chapter 18.780, Noise Perimeter Signs Nonconforming Sign See Permitted Use Roof Sign See Chapter 18.780, Chapter 18.780, Signs Person See also Chapter 18.780, Signs Nonconforming Situation SignsRoot Paths See Lemd"iHg ��'��` Non-Residential Building See n. . �s Pilaster See Design-Related Chapter 18.755,Mixed Solid Rotating tating Sign See Chapter Waste And Recyclable Storage Plan Coordination See 18.780, Signs Non-Structural Trim See Comprehensive Plan-Related Sensitive Lands See Chapter Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions 18.790, Tree Removal Nuisance Tree See Tree Related Plat Setback D a do s Shopping Center See Chapter Occupancy Permit Premises See Chapter 18.780, 18.780 Si ns Signs g Off-Site Impact Shopping Plaza See Chapter Projecting Sign See Chapter 18,780 Off-Site Improvement Signs Open Grown Tree See Tree 18.780, Signs Side See Yard-Related Definitions Projection See also Chapter Related Definitions Side Lot Line See Lot-Related 18.780, Signs Definitions Open Soil Volume See Tree Provider See Chapter 18.798, Related Definitions&ee Wireless Communication Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Facilities Sign Structure See Chapter Open Space Facility-Related 18.780, Signs Definitions -r. al Single-Family Dwelling See • Active Use Facilities Public Business Day Dwelling-Related Definitions • Minimal Use Facilities Public Support Facilities Site • Passive Use Facilities Quasi-judicial Slope Reader-Board Sign See Chapter Sa �T ,_-� ��••� cee Oregon Administrative Rules 18.780, Signs Oregon Revised Statutes Rear See Yard-Related Definitions Outdoor Storage Source-Separated Recyclable Owner Rear Lot Line See Lot-Related See Chapter 18.755,Mixed Definitions Solid Waste And Recyclable Painted Wall Decorations See Receipt Storage Chapter 18.780, Signs Recreational Vehicles Painted Wall Highlights See Special Adjustments,See Remodel Section 18.370.020, Chapter 18.780, Signs Adjustments -55- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms List of terms continued. -56- Code Amendments Specified Anatomical Areas Tree See Tree Related De anitions Uniform Building Code See See Adult Entertainment Chapter 18.780, Signs Related Definitions Freme Use Specified Sexual Activities See Tree Canoe See Tree Related Vehicle Parking Space De anitions Adult Entertainment-Related Visible Transmittance See Tree Canopy Cover,Effective Definitions See Tree Related Definitions Design-Related Definitions Stand Grown Tree See Tree Tree Care Industry Standards Vision Clearance Area Related De anitions See Tree Related Definitions Visual Obstruction Storage Area See Chapter Tree Related Definitions Wall Sign See Chapter 18.780, 18.755,Mixed Solid lllaste • ali er Signs And Recyclable Storage • Certified Arborist Wetlands Story • Certified Tree Risk Assessor Will Story,First • Covered Soil Volume Window Story,Half • Diameter at Breast HeiVht Wireless Communication Street �B Facility See Chapter 18.798, Street,Private Wireless Communication Street,Public • Dry Facilities • Hazard Tree Wireless Communication Street Tree See Tree Related�D • Hazard Tree AbatFacility,Attached See Chapter e anitions Abatement Facility, fireless StringCourse See Design-Related • Hazard Tree Owner or g Communication Facilities Definitions Responsible Party Wireless Communication Structural Alteration See • Heritage Tree Transmissions Towers See Chapter 18.780, Signs • Median Tree Chapter 18.798, fireless Communication Facilities Structure • Nuisance Tree Yard See Yard-Related Definitions Subdivision • Oben Grown Tree Yard-Related Definitions Substandard Lot See Lot- • Oben Soil Volume • Corner Side Related Definitions • Parking Lot Tree • Front Substantial Improvement • Stand Grown Tr Surface Street See Chapter Tree • Rear 18.780, Signs • Street Tree • Side Tax Lot See Lot-Related • Tree • Yard Definitions • Tree Canobv Zero Lot Line See Lot-Related Temporary Sign See Chapter • Tree Canopy Cover; Definitions 18.780, Signs Effective Zoning District Temporary Use • Tree Care Industry Tenant Sign See Chapter Standards 18.780, Signs • Tree Removal Through Lot See Lot-Related • Understory Tree Definitions Tigard-Based Nonprofit Tree Removal See Tree Related Organization De anitions Traffic Flow Plan Turret See Design-Related Transom See Design-Related Definitions Definitions Understory Tree See Tree Related Definitions -57- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms The definitions that were previously included only in chapter 18.790 have been moved into the chapter 18.120 in order to consolidate all definitions in one chapter in the Tigard Development (TDC). Existing tree related definitions that have been substantially modified have been struck and replaced with new definitions. Language has been added to clarify that the definitions in the TDC also apply to corresponding administrative rules such as the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (TUFM). Existing and proposed tree related definitions have been further consolidated under a "tree related definitions section" so that a developer or arborist seeking to apply the definitions, can find all of the tree related definitions in one place. The term "Development Impact Area"is a new term that was created for chapter 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan) as a catchall term for any type of ground disturbance on a site. Trees can be severely impacted by any ground disturbance on a site, and section 8 of the TUFM requires that a complete Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan display the Development Impact Area. Since the concept of the Development Impact Area may be useful for future code amendments besides trees,it is not included as one of the tree related definitions. All tree related definitions have been carried forward from the previous definitions required for Hazard Trees and Street Trees code amendments, except the following new definitions have been included: Covered Soil Volume: This definition is for sections 10 and 11 of the TUFM which allows soil volume requirements for street trees and parking lot trees to be met underneath pavement when certain design criteria are met. Dripline:This definition is for sections 8 of the TUFM to clarify what portion of a tree is eligible for the 40% effective canopy requirement. Nuisance Tree: A nuisance tree list has been added to the TUFM to specify the types of trees that are prohibited from planting or receiving credit towards the 40% effective canopy requirement. A Nuisance Tree is defined as any tree on the nuisance list. Open Grown Tree: Open Grown Trees are distinguished from Stand Grown Trees in section 8 of the TUFM so that arborists do not have to inventory every tree in a stand as currently required. Arborists will only have to inventory open grown or isolated trees, and stands of trees can be delineated at their edges. This will cut down on unnecessary inventory work. A definition of the two types of trees is required to distinguish the two. Open Soil Volume: As with Covered Soil Volume, this definition is for section 10 and 11 of the TUFM to clarify how to calculate soil volumes for trees. Parking Lot Tree: Parking Lot Trees are explicitly defined since they are required by chapter 18.745 to provide canopy over parking areas and referenced extensively in section 11 of the TUFM. -58- Code Amendments Chapter 18.120 DEFINITIONS Sections: 18.120.010 Meaning of Words Generally 18.120.020 Meaning of Common Words 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms 18.120.010 Meaning of Words Generally [No change.] 18.120.020 Meaning of Common Words [No change.] 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms A. For additional words and terms, also see Use Categories (Chapter 18.130); Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (Chapter 18.755); Sensitive Lands (Chapter 18.775); Signs (Chapter 18.780); ; and Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798). As used in this title and corresponding administrative rules, the following words and phrases mean: [No change in definitions 1-41.] 4 "Caliper-" The eta ee trt tl ed pr bed reT5g - [No change in definitions 43-59 other than numbering.] 60. " An aFea of soil that is ttndeF pavement and speeially designed aecommodate tFee Foot growth. [No change in definitions 61-70 other than numbering.] 71. "Development Impact Area" - The area on a site or right of way associated with a site affected by any and all site or right of way improvements, including but not limited to buildings_ structures_ walls_ parking and loading areas, street improvements, paved an graveled areas, utilities, irrigation, equipment storage, construction parkin, and landscaping. The impact area also refers to areas of grading filling, stockpiling demolition, tree removal, trenching, boring, and any other activities that re uire excavation or soil disturbance. -59- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) Stand Grown Tree: A definition of Stand Grown Tree is required to distinguish it from Open Grown Tree so that arborists do not have to inventory every tree in a stand as currently required. Section 8 of the TUFM allows stands of trees to be delineated at their edges. Tree Canopy: Tree Canopy is a central theme of the revised code and forms the basis for many of the code revisions and corresponding administrative procedures. The term Tree Canopy is closely related to "Dripline". Dripline is specific to only the outer edge of the tree canopy, whereas Tree Canopy encompasses everything in between. Tree Canopy Cover,Effective: A definition for "Effective Tree Canopy Cover"is required to distinguish it from actual "tree canopy cover". Effective Tree Canopy Cover has specific requirements for measuremenst in section 8 of the TUFM. For example,preserving existing trees is given double tree canopy credit compared to planting new trees. Therefore, Effective Tree Canopy Cover is not the same as actual Tree Canopy. Understory Tree: This definition is required for section 8 of the TUFM to allow for the planting of trees beneath the canopies of larger trees when required for constrained sites. -60- Code Amendments [No change in definitions 71-120 other than numbering.] 121. "Open sail" An unpaved area of sail stir-founding a tree, whieh eentains e�dstifig, new E)r- ffa..a sail, [No change in definitions 122-150 other than numbering.] 154. "Root paths" Cons"tieted paths that us- drainage st6ps. to give reats a way to gT-aw aut of the tree spaee and thider- p der- to aeeess better- planti" sails. Reat [No change in definitions 152-154 other than numbering.] 155. "Soil valuffie ealettlatiaiis" Sthii tatal of sail valuffies fr-effi efteh desig-ft ffiethad used fer-a tree. A soil depth of three feet is assumed. S,94 volume (etthie feeo — open soil areFt �ength x veidth-x depd-� (fee� 4= eaver-ed sail area Oeiigth 3E width 3E deptl-� (fee� * r-aat path leffgth (fee� 3E 0.25 -�- green spotee area Oength x width x depth) (fee�. *Inelude only applieable sail areas and design ffiethads for eaeh tree. [No change in definitions 156-169 other than numbering.] 170. ``Tree-related definitions:"— a "Caliper" - The tree care industry standard for measuring the trunk diameter of nursery stock. Caliper is the average diameter of the trunk of a nurse tree measured six (6) inches above the ground for trunks less than or equal to an average of four (4) inches in diameter (when measured six (6) inches above ground). When the trunk of a nursery tree is greater than an average of four (4) inches in diameter (when measured six (6) inches above ground caliper is the average diameter at 12 inches above ground. b. "Certified Arborist" - An individual certified by the International Society Arboriculture as a certified arborist. c- "Certified Tree Risk Assessor" - An individual certified by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Societyof Arboriculture to conduct tree risk assessments. d. "Covered soil volume" - A volume of soil that is under pavement and specially desi ned to su ort the plowth of a tree. Covered soil volumes contain existing, new or amended soil with the physical, chemical, and biologiespropertienecessary to support the growth of a tree, while at the same time supporting the load-bearing requirements and engineering standards of the overl)dng pavement. Covered soil volumes would not be considered tree growth limiting by a proiect arborist in an urban forestryplan developed per the standards in chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures. -61- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) -62- Code Amendments -e, "Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)" - The average diameter of the trunk of a tree measured 4 '/z feet above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If the tree splits into multiple trunks above ground_ but below 4 '/z feet_ the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the split. If the tree has excessive swelling; at 4 '/z feet_ the DBH is the averal;e diameter of the most narrow point beneath the swelling. If the tree splits into multiple trunks at or directl bgw ground, it shall be considered one tree and the DBH shall be the sum of the DBH of each trunk measured according to the above methods. f "Drip line" -The outer limit of a tree canopy projected to the ground. g: "Hazard Tree" - Any tree or tree part that has been or could be determined by an independent certified tree risk assessor to constitutea high level hazard reauiring hazard tree abatement with an overall minimum risk rating of 9 using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chanter of the International Society of Arboriculture. h "Hazard Tree Abatement" - The process of reducing or eliminating a hazard to an overall risk rating of less than 9 using the most current version of the treerisk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture through pruning, tree removal, or other means in a manner that complies with all applicable rules and regulations. i_ "Hazard Tree Owner or Responsible Party" - The pry owner or responsible party with the largest percentage of a hazard tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses. In cases where the hazard tree consists of a branch instead of an entire tree, the hazard tree owner or responsible party is the person who owns or is responsible for the property from where the branch originates. "Heritage Tree" - Any tree or stand of trees of landmark importance due to age_ size, species, horticultural aualiM or historic importance that has been approved a Heritage Tree by igard City Council and completed the desi ation rQgpZ outlined in Chapter 9.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. k "Median Tree" - Any tree within the public right of wayunder o� d jurisdiction between opposing lanes of vehicular traffic. Trees in the centers of cul- de-sacs and roundabouts within the public right of waysunity of Tigard jurisdiction shall also be considered median trees. L "Nuisance Tree" -Any tree included on the Nuisance Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. -63- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) -64- Code Amendments m "Open Grown Tree" - Any tree that has gown and established in an isolated manner without significant competition for light space. and nutrients from other trees. Open gown trees generally retain more foliage. develop Zreater trunk tapers. have more extensive root systems, and are more resistant to windthrow than stand grown trees. n "Open soil volume" - An unpaved volume of soil; which contains existing, new or amended soil with the physical_ chemical, and biological y=erties necessag support the growth of a tree. Open soil volumes would not be considered tree growth limiting by a project arborist in an urban forestry plan developed per the standards in chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures. Q "P� lot tree" - Any tree used to meet the requirements in section 18.745.050X1. "Stand Grown Tree" - Any tree that has grown and established in close association with other trees and, as a result, has experienced significant competition for light. space, and nutrients from other trees.i Stand grown trees generally retain forme_ develop less trunk taper_ have less extensive root systems_ and are less resistant to windthrow than open gmayn trees. =q-1 "Street Tree" - Any tree equal to or greater than 1 '/a inch caliper or DBH within a public right of way ung of Ti and jurisdiction or easement for public access under City of Ti and jurisdiction, or any tree equal to or greater than 1 1/2 inch caliper or DBH outside of a public right of way or easement for public access that the City can demonstrate was planted or preserved as a street tree to meet the requirements for a City permit or project. Median trees shall not be considered street trees. r "Tree" - A woody perennial plant_ often with one dominant trunk_ the capacity to achieve a mature heiv_ht greater than 16 feet_ and primarily referred to as a tree in scientific literature. , ground. -a. "Tree Canopy" - The area above ground which is covered by the trunk_ branches_ and foliage of a tree or group of trees' crowns. t Tree Canopy Cover_ Effective - A formula detailed in Chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures used to calculate the amount of tree canopy that will be provided for a given lot or tract through any combination of press existing trees and plantin$Z new trees. In general, the formula grants bonus tree canopy credit based on the existingtrete y of trees that are preserved; and grants additional tree canopy credit based on the projected mature trete vy of planted trees. -65- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) -66- Code Amendments u "Tree Care Industry Standards" - Generally accented industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. In addition. tree care industry standards shall include adherence to all applicable rules and regulations for the completion of any tree care operation. v "Tree Removal" - The cuttinIZ or removin; of 50 percent (50%) or more of a rown, trunk_ or root system of a tree_ or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or ph si�ological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling w. "Understory Tree" - Any tree that is adapted ow and complete its lifecycle within the shade and beneath the canopy of another tree. [No change in definitions 171-181 other than numbering.] -67- Commentary 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval The Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) have been, and will continue to be required to meet the requirements of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) and chapter 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan). Explicit reference to these requirements are made in the Approval Standards section of the Conditional Use chapter. -68- Code Amendments Chapter 18.330 CONDITIONAL USE Sections: 18.330.010 Purpose 18.330.020 Approval Process 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval 18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types 18.330.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.330.020 Approval Process [No change.] 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval A. Approval standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location,topography,and natural features, 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050;and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, Chapter 18.745_ Landscaping and Screening. Chapter 18.790. Urban ForestryPand Chapter 18.360,Site Development Review,if applicable,are met. B. [No change.] -69- Commentary 18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements The Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) have been, and will continue to be required to meet the requirements of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) and chapter 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan). Explicit reference to the submission requirements for a landscaping and screening plan and urban forestry plan has been made. -70- Code Amendments 18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements A. Additional submission requirements. In addition to the submission requirements required in Chapter 18.390, Decision-Making Procedures, an application for conditional use approval must include the following additional information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of the specific information to be included in each of the following: 1. Existing site conditions; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan; 4. A latdsea e landscaping and screening plan consistent with Chapter 18.745, 5. An urban forestrzplan consistent with Chapter 18.790: -5-6. Architectural elevations of all structures;and 67. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. -71- Commentary 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types Conditional Uses have specific requirements based on the type of use. The parking and storage setback requirement for Motor Vehicle Servicing and Repair has been increased from five to six feet so that required parking lot trees can be planted within the perimeter setback. Section 11 of the TUFM requires parking lot trees to be planted in locations with minimum dimensions of six feet by six feet, so the amendment is intended to be consistent with the parking lot tree requirements. The screening requirements are found in section 18.745.050, so the existing scrivener's error has been corrected. -72- Code Amendments 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types A. Concurrent variance application(s). A conditional use permit shall not grant variances to the regulations otherwise prescribed by this title. A variance application(s) may be filed in conjunction with the conditional use application and both applications may be heard at the same hearing. B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for conditional use are as follows: 1. Adult Entertainment: [No change.] 2. Motor Vehicle Servicing and Repair: a. Setbacks: (1) A six five-foot perimeter setback shall surround all outdoor parking and storage areas; (2) Buffer screening shall be provided along the perimeter of all outdoor parking and storage areas as required in Section 18.745.0450;and (3)All repair work shall be performed indoors. 3. Fleet Storage: [No change.] 4. Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental: [No change.] 5. Community Recreation and Parks: [No change.] 6. Heliports: [No change.] 7. Vehicle Fuel Sales: [No change.] 8. Schools: [No change.] 9. Religious Institutions: -73- Commentary 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types (continued) -74- Code Amendments [No change.] 10. Medical Centers: [No change.] 11. Cemeteries: [No change.] 12. Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges: [No change.] 13. Major Event Entertainment: [No change.] 14. Duplexes: [No change.] 15. Group Living: [No change.] 16. Emergency Services and Basic Utilities: [No change.] -75- Commentary 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types (continued) Conditional Uses have specific requirements based on the type of use. The parking setback requirement for Non-Accessory Parking has been increased from five to six feet so that required parking lot trees can be planted within the perimeter setback. Section 11 of the TUFM requires parking lot trees to be planted in locations with minimum dimensions of six feet by six feet, so the amendment is intended to be consistent with the parking lot tree requirements. -76- Code Amendments 17. Non-Accessory Parking: a. Minimum lot size shall be 51000 square feet; b. Minimum setbacks: for structures: shall be those of the applicable zone; for parking area: fi-,Fe six feet around perimeter of paved area for landscaping and screening purposes; c. Height limitation shall be that of the applicable zone; d. Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.765;and e. Screening shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.745. 18. Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks (Also see Chapter 18.750): [No change.] 19. Children's Day Care: [No change.] 20. Drive-Up Windows: [No change.] -77- Commentary 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements Planned Developments (PDs) have been, and will continue to be required to meet the requirements of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) and chapter 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan). In addition, among the stated purposes of PDs (18.350.010) is the preservation of natural resources,with tree preservation called out specifically. PDs are typically approved through a two set process with a conceptual plan approval followed by a detailed plan approval by Planning Commission. Therefore, the submittal of an urban forestry concept plan will help the Planning Commission implement the purpose of PDs during the conceptual phase of approval. -78- Code Amendments Chapter 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Sections: 18.350.010 Purpose 18.350.020 Process 18.350.030 Administrative Provisions 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria 18.350.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.350.020 Process [No change.] 18.350.030 Administrative Provisions [No change.] 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements A. [No change.] B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above,the concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director: 1. Existing site conditions; 2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures,including housing types, and their general arrangement on the site; 3. A grading concept; 4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping,and general location and types of proposed open space(s); 5. An urban forestry concent: 56. Parking concept; -79- Commentary 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria Since an urban forestry concept plan is required, the concept plan approval criteria should include tree preservation. -80- Code Amendments 67. A sign concept; -7$. A streets and utility concept;and 89. Structure setback and development standards concept,including the proposed residential density target if applicable. C. Allowable uses. [No change.] 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria A. The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space,and describes their intended level of use,how they relate to other proposed uses on the site,and how they protect natural features of the site. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. 3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes,linkages to or other provisions for bus stops,etc. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. (Ord. 06-16) -81- Commentary 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements A scrivener's error has been corrected to reference Title 18 instead of Title 3. The Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements has been revised to require contour elevations of one foot instead of two to five foot consistent with typical engineering practice and available technology. For tree preservation, accuracy in grading plans is required because a one foot difference in a cut or fill could cause a tree to die or become hazardous. One foot contours are required by section 8 of the TUFM in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan, so one foot contours for PDs is consistent. A development schedule is required for PDs, and an important element to include is the timing of landscaping. The landscaping phase is important to tree preservation (irrigation installation, etc.) and to insure required trees are planted at appropriate times of year. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria Part of the detailed plan approval criteria for PDs is to demonstrate adequate tree preservation. The Planning Commission may require an alternate site plan to demonstrate the criteria is met, and it is appropriate that an alternate urban forestry plan be provided if necessary to demonstrate the requirement is met. -82- Code Amendments 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by Section 18.350.040.13 and the approval criteria under Section x.350.070. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the detailed development plan,data,and narrative shall include the following information: 1. Contour intervals of one foot , and spot elevations at breaks in grade,along drainage channels or swales,and at selected points,as needed. 2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal,ground breaking,grading,public improvements,an+building construction_and landscaping for each phase. 3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants. C. [No change.] 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A. Detailed development plan approval criteria. A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: 1. [No change.] 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. In addition,the following criteria shall be met: a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan and/or urban forestrVplan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; (2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation;and (3) Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,where possible. -83- Commentary 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria (continued) -84- Code Amendments b. [No change.] c. [No change.] d. [No change.] e. [No change.] f. [No change.] g. [No change.] h. [No change.] i. [No change.] j. [No change.] k. [No change.] 1. [No change.] m. [No change.] n. [No change.] -85- Commentary 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Site Development Reviews (SDRs) have been, and will continue to be required to meet the requirements of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) and chapter 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan). Some cross reference to these chapters has been made in chapter 18.360. -86- Code Amendments Chapter 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Sections: 18.360.010 Purpose 18.360.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.360.030 Approval Process 18.360.040 Bonding and Assurances 18.360.050 Major Modification(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development 18.360.060 Minor Modification(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development 18.360.070 Submission Requirements 18.360.080 Exceptions to Standards 18.360.090 Approval Criteria 18.360.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.360.020 Applicability of Provisions [No change.] 18.360.030 Approval Process [No change.] 18.360.040 Bonding and Assurances [No change.] 18.360.050 Major Modification(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development [No change.] 18.360.060 Minor Modification(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development [No change.] 18.360.070 Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type II procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.040. B. Additional information. In addition to the submission requirements required in Chapter 18.390, Decision-Making Procedures, an application for the conceptual development plan must include the following additional information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of the specific information to be included in each of the following: -87- Commentary 18.360.070 Submission Requirements Explicit reference to the urban forestry plan requirement is made in the submission requirement section. A landscape plan is already required. 18.360.090 Approval Criteria The reference to "preserve trees to the extent possible"in chapter 18.790 has been struck since the statement does not describe the requirements in chapter 18.790. A cross reference to chapter 18.790 has already been provided in section 18.360.070. -88- Code Amendments 1. An existing site conditions analysis; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. An urban forestrpl -56. Architectural elevations of all structures;and £7. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. 18.360.080 Exceptions to Standards [No change.] 18.360.090 Approval Criteria A. Approval criteria. The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving,approving with conditions,or denying an application: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. Buildings shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation,and fire-fighting;and (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. b. Trees sha4l be preserved to the e3aent possible. Replaeeffient of trees is subjeet to the E)f Chapter 19.790,Tr-ee . eb. Innovative methods and techniques to reduce impacts to site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat shall be considered based on surface water drainage patterns, identified per Section 18.810.100.A.3. and the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map." Methods and techniques for consideration may include,but are not limited to the following: -89- Commentary 18.360.090 Approval Criteria A cross reference stating that landscaping is required to be designed in accordance with both chapter 18.745 and chapter 18.790 has been added. Both chapters have specific landscaping requirements. -90- Code Amendments (1) Water quality facilities (for infiltration,retention,detention and/or treatment); (2) Pervious pavement; (3) Soil amendment; (4) Roof runoff controls; (5) Fencing to guide animals toward safe passageways; (6) Re-directed outdoor lighting to reduce spill-off into habitat areas; (7) Preservation of existing vegetative and canopy cover. 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. [No change.] 6. [No change.] 7. [No change.] 8. [No change.] 9. [No change.] 10. [No change.] 11. [No change.] 12. Landscaping: a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 and 18.790; b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of Subsections A.5 and 6 above, a minimum of 20% of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped;and c. A minimum of 15% of the gross site area shall be landscaped. 13. [No change.] 14. [No change.] 15. [No change.] -91- Commentary 18.370.020 Adjustments The existing adjustments to allow existing trees to be used as street trees, and to modify the street tree planting requirements has been struck. The adjustment to use an existing tree as a street tree should be allowed without paying for an adjustment. Requiring someone to pay to preserve a tree is a disincentive to preservation. The criteria for using an existing tree as a street tree are included in chapter 18.745.040.A.5. Modification of street tree requirements is struck because the existing and proposed code allows wide flexibility to vary the placement of street trees to avoid safety conflicts and space constraints. In addition, staff cannot recall any cases where this adjustment has been used. -92- Code Amendments Chapter 18.370 VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS Sections: 18.370.010 Variances 18.370.020 Adjustments 18.370.010 Variances [No change.] 18.370.020 Adjustments A. [No change.] B. [No change.] C. Special adjustments. 1. [No change.] 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. [No change.] > > er- to die. Seetion ll > > ri7ICS (3) if there is fiat adequate spffee in v+ieh te plant street trees. 7. [No change other than numbering.] 8. [No change other than numbering.] 9. [No change other than numbering.] 10. [No change other than numbering.] 11. [No change other than numbering.] -93- Commentary 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures The existing adjustments to allow existing trees to be used as street trees, and to modify the street tree planting requirements has been struck. The adjustment to use an existing tree as a street tree should be allowed without paying for an adjustment. Requiring someone to pay to preserve a tree is a disincentive to preservation. The criteria for using an existing tree as a street tree are included in chapter 18.745.040.A.5. Modification of street tree requirements is struck because the existing and proposed code allows wide flexibility to vary the placement of street trees to avoid safety conflicts and space constraints. In addition, staff cannot recall any cases where this adjustment has been used. -94- Code Amendments Chapter 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES Sections: 18.390.010 Purpose 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures 18.390.030 Type I Procedure 18.390.040 Type II Procedure 18.390.050 Type III Procedure 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure 18.390.070 Special Procedures 18.390.080 General Provisions 18.390.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures A. [No change.] B. [No change.] C. Summary of permits by decision-making procedure type.Table 18.390.1 summarizes the various land use permits by the type of decision-making procedure. TABLE 18.390.1 SUMMARY OF PERMITS BY TYPE OF DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE Type Permit/Land Cross-Reference(s) 1 (18.390.030) Accessory Residential Units 18.710 Development Adjustments 18.370.020.B.2 Design Review Compliance Letter (Track 1)18.610 Home Occupation/Type I 18.742 Landses,ping Adjustments E�,zisting Street Trees 18.370.020.C.4.a; 48.745 - New Stfeet Trees 1 8.37n rnn i n b. 18.745 Lot Line Adjustment 18.410.040 Minimum Residential Density Adjustment 18.370.020.C.2; 18.430; 18.715 -95- Commentary 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures The Tree Removal Permit requirements have been struck for the time being. Staff is considering creating a new section of the code for tree permits specifically to address tree removal in tree groves and sensitive lands, tree permits for trees required to be planted or preserved as part of development, and removal of over a certain number or percentage of trees per year (or other timeframe). Staff will be working with the CAC on these items in upcoming meetings,but will not be including the requirements in chapter 18.790. -96- Code Amendments Nonconforming Use Confirmation 18.385.030.A; 18.760 Parking Adjustments - Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020.C.5.c; 18.765 in Existing Developments/Transit Imp. - Reduction in Stacking Lane Length 18.370.020.C.5.g; 18.765 Signs - New 18.780 - Existing 18.780 Site Development/Minor Modification 18.360.090 Temporary Uses - Emergency Uses 18.785 - Seasonal/Special Uses 18.785 - Temporary Building 18.785 - Temporary Sales Office/Home 18.765 T-fe ; 48 Removal Permit 18.790 Wireless Communications Facilities -- 18.370.040.C.8.b; 18.798 Setback from Other Towers Conditional Use/Minor Modification 18.330.030 Type Permit/Land Cross-Reference(s) II (18.390.040) Access/Egress Adjustment 18.370.020.C.3.b Downtown Design Administrative Review (Track 2) 18.610 Historic Overlay - Exterior Alternation 18.740 - New Construction 18.740 - Demolition 18.740 Home Occupation/Type II 18.742 Land Partitions' 18.420.050 -97- Commentary 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures A new Type II process is proposed for major modifications to an approved urban forestry plan. Type II modifications would require notice of the surrounding neighbors for major modifications such as cutting down existing trees and replacing them with new trees. The full process for a Modification to an Approved Urban Forestry Plan is included in section 18.790.070. -98- Code Amendments Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020.C.5.a; 18.765 - Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020.C.5.b; 18.765 in New Developments/Transit Imp - Increase in Maximum Parking Ratios 18.370.020.C.5.d; 18.765 - Reduction in Bicycle Parking 18.370.020.C.5.e; 18.765 - Alternate Parking Garage Layout 18.370.020.C.5.f; 18.765 Sensitive Lands Permits - In 25%+ Slope 18.775 - Within Drainageways 18.775 - Within Wetlands' 18.775 Sign Code Adjustment 18.370.020.C.6; 18.780 Site Development Review - New Construction 18.360.090 - Major Modification 18.360.090 Subdivision Without Planned Development' 18.430.070 Urban Forestry Plan - Modification to an Approved Urban 18.790.070 Forestry Plan Variances 18.370.010.0 Wireless Communication Facilities -- 18.370.020.C.8.a; 18.798 Adjustment to Setback from Residences Appeals to Hearings Officer 18.390.040.G IIIA (18.390.050) Conditional Use (Hearings Officer) - Initial 18.330.030 - Major Modification 18.330.030 Sensitive Lands - Within 100-Year Floodplain 18.775 - In 25%+ Slope' 18.775 Type Permit/Land Cross-Reference(s) - Within Drainageways' 18.775 - Within Wetlands' 18.775 IIIB (18.390.050) Historic Overlay (Planning Comm.) - District Overlay 18.385.010.A; 18.740 - Removal of District Overlay 18.385.010.B;18.740 -99- Commentary 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures A new Type III process is proposed for a Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective 40% effective canopy requirement. Type III modifications require notice of the surrounding neighbors, and a hearing in front of Planning Commission. This option could allow people to utilize green features such as green roofs,green streets, etc. as a substitute for the environmental benefits provided by trees. The full process for a Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option is included in section 18.790.040. -100- Code Amendments Planned Development - With Subdivision 18.350.100; 18.430 - Without Subdivision 18.350.100 Zone Map/Text Change/Quasi-judicial 18.380.030.B Urban Foresug Plan - Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review 18.790.040 Obtron IIIC (18.390.050) Downtown Design Review(Track 3) 18.610 (Design Review Board) IV(18.390.060) Annexation 18.320 Zone Map/Text Change/Legislative 18.380.020 'These may be processed as either Type II or III procedures,pursuant to Section 18.775.020.D and E. (Ord. 10-02 § 2; Ord. 09-13) 18.390.030 Type I Procedure [No change.] 18.390.040 Type II Procedure [No change.] 18.390.050 Type III Procedure [No change.] 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure [No change.] 18.390.070 Special Procedures [No change.] 18.390.080 General Provisions [No change.] -101- Commentary 18.530.050 Additional Development Standards The amendment corrects the cross reference to street trees and caliper. -102- Code Amendments Chapter 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18.530.010 Purpose 18.530.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.530.030 Uses 18.530.040 Development Standards 18.530.050 Additional Development Standards 18.530.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.530.020 List of Zoning Districts [No change.] 18.530.030 Uses [No change.] 18.530.040 Development Standards [No change.] 18.530.050 Additional Development Standards ,1. [No change.] B. Reduction of lot coverage requirements. Lot coverage may be increased from 75%to 80%as part of the site development review process,providing the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. 2. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review process: a. Street trees, as required by Section 18.745.040.AG4 are to Abe installed with a minimum caliper of three inches father-thai the , it-1—� mea ur-ed at cg.•.-feet in .eight. b. The landscaping between a parking lot and street property line shall have a minimum width of 10 feet; c. All applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 shall be satisfied; d. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the landscape area. C. [No change] -103- Commentary 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS -104- Code Amendments Chapter 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures 18.610.015 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards 18.610.025 Street Connectivity 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards 18.610.035 Additional Standards 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with Track 3 Approval Process) 18.610.055 Signs 18.610.060 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures [No change.] 18.610.015 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District [No change.] 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards [No change.] 18.610.025 Street Connectivity [No change.] 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards [No change.] 18.610.035 Additional Standards Applications must conform to all applicable standards in the following chapters: A. Access Egress and Circulation (see Chapter 18.705). B. Environmental Performance Standards (see Chapter 18.725). -105- Commentary 18.610.035 Additional Standards The reference to "Tree Removal' has been changed to "Urban Forestry Plan" consistent with the title change to chapter 18.790. -106- Code Amendments C. Exceptions to Development Standards (see Chapter 18.730). D. Landscaping and Screening(see Chapter 18.745). E. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (see Chapter 18.755). F. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements (see Chapter 18.765). G. Sensitive Lands (see Chapter 18.775). H. Signs (see Chapter 18.780). I. ter_.. Urban Forestry Plan(see Chapter 18.790). J. Visual Clearance (see Chapter 18.795). K. Wireless Communication Facilities (see Chapter 18.798). L. Street and Utility Improvement Standards (see Chapter 18.810). (Ord. 10-02 2) 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza [No change.] 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards [No change.] 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with Track 3 Approval Process) [No change.] 18.610.055 Signs [No change.] 18.610.060 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements [No change.] -107- Commentary 18.620 TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS -108- Code Amendments CHAPTER 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.620.020 Street Connectivity 18.620.030 Site Design Standards 18.620.040 Building Design Standards 18.620.050 Signs 18.620.060 Entry Portals 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening 18.620.080 Street and Accessway Standards 18.620.090 Design Evaluation 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability [No change.] 18.620.020 Street Connectivity [No change.] 18.620.030 Site Design Standards A. Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2,governing criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. 1. [No change.] Loc¢1 Streex Abutting Pro er o parking parking o Building � Buildirzg Major or Minor Arterial Major or Minor Arte,wl Major or Minor Arterial r--------�--� Future Phase � '4 iparking o� C =i Building -- Major or Minor Arterial Tigard Triangle Street Plan—Diagram 1 -109- Commentary 18.620.030 Site Design Standards The L-1 and L-2 standards in the Design Districts have been problematic because they are unclear. The amendments are intended to clarify the standards, provide additional space for tree growth,while retaining the original intent of the standards. The landscape setback for parking lots from streets has been increased from five to eight feet to allow parking lot trees to be planted in the setback (consistent with the requirements in chapter 18.745 and section 11 of the TUFM) and have additional soil volume in the design district. -110- Code Amendments 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. Parking location and landscape design- Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five eight feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. See Diagram 2. parking parking L-2 FBuildi�qqgnce Baildirep Entrance 6'min. 0110, 01-10, Setback L-1 pro ertY Line Setback __ pro ertY Line sidewalk sidewalk Street Street Local Street U d C � I � h S I L-1 parkin d e t � � L-2 Irl �� o k t� o; .a $ 3'Min. Banding 11—_ �� LZZ -1_ _ sl ewa -3=Min. Major or Minor Arterial F7 Setback 0'-10' Setback Tigard Triangle Street Plan—Diagram 2 18.620.040 Building Design Standards [No change] 18.620.050 Signs [No change.] 18.620.060 Entry Portals -111- Commentary 18.620.060 Entry Portals In the Landscape and Street Standards (at the end of the existing chapter),it specified that columnar trees were required near entry portals. The amendment reiterates this requirement in the entry portal design requirement. 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening The Design Districts have requirements that supersede the requirements in chapter 18.745 of the TDC. These include the L-1 and L-2 requirements. The L-1 requirement is essentially an enhanced screen of the parking lot from the street. Larger than average trees are required to provide an immediate screen effect. The language has been modified to make the purpose of the requirements more clear. The term "major or minor arterial" has been changed to "public street" because the other Design Districts require an L-1 screen from public streets, so for consistency L-1 screens should be required in the Tigard Triangle. The L-2 requirement is for all other required landscaping and requires larger than average trees to provide an immediate effect. The L-2 requirement is also intended to create cohesive tree designs for various locations in the district. In the Landscape and Street Standards (at the end of the existing chapter), the various tree types and locations are specified. While the design elements have been retained, terminology has been revised to be consistent with the terminology used in the TUFM (small, medium,large, columnar trees), and the table has been moved closer to the L-2 code language to make cross referencing easier. The language has also been modified to make the purpose of the requirements more clear. -112- Code Amendments A. Required locations. Entry portals shall be required at the primary access points into the Tigard Triangle. 1. Location - Entry portals shall be located at the intersections of 99W and Dartmouth; 99W and 72nd; I-5 and Dartmouth; Hwy. 217 and 72nd; and at the Hwy. 217 Overcrossing and Dartmouth. 2. Design-The overall design of entry portals shall relate in scale and detail to both the automobile and the pedestrian. A triangle motif and at least 2 trees according to the L-2 standard shall be incorporated into the design of entry portals. 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Low Parking Lot Screen . The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets Where The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. The setback i-F,shall a minimum of§8 feet between the parking lot and a public street. , L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be a minimum of Ft 3 1/Z inch caliper at the time of planting, ffi of 28 Fee~ en eenter, Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provided-a 3 foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. 2. L-2 General Landscaping - , apply. The L-2 standard applies to all other required trees and shrubs other than those required by section 18.620.070.A.11. The L-2 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. L-2 trees shall be selected in conformance with Table 18.620.1 below. If conformance with Table 18.620.1 is precluded byphysical constraints caused by public utilities or required public improvements_ the City Manger or designee may approve alternative selections. All L-2 trees shall be pr-evided at a minimum of 2-'/z inch caliper at the time ofplanting, . Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. tree planted in eteess of a 2 ineh e4er-shaH he eligible for-fufl naitigation eredit. -113- Commentary Table 18.620.1 L-2 Tree Standards The design elements of the Landscape and Street Standards table (at the end of the existing chapter) have been retained. The terminology has been revised to be consistent with the terminology used in the TUFM (small, medium,large, columnar trees), and the table has been moved closer to the L-2 code language to make cross referencing easier. -114- Code Amendments TABLE 18.620.1 L-2 TREE STANDARDS General Tree Type' Location Specific Tree Type2 Street Tree 72nd Avenue Lar e Stature Street Trees Street Tree Dartmouth Street Large Stature Street Trees Street Tree 68th Avenue Columnar Trees Street Tree Atlanta Street Columnar Trees Street Tree Hampton Street Columnar Trees Street Tree 66th Avenue Large Stature Street Trees Street Tree Backage Road Even Mix of Large,Medium,and Small Stature Street Trees Street Tree All other local streets Medium Stature Street Trees Median Tree 72nd Avenue Large Stature Street Trees Median Tree 68th Avenue Lar e Stature Street Trees Median Tree Atlanta Street Lar e Stature Street Trees Median Tree Hampton Street Lar e Stature Street Trees Portal Tree All required portals Columnar Trees 18.620.080 Street and Accessway Standards [Table 18.620.1 changed to Table 18.620.2] 18.620.090 Design Evaluation [No change.] 1 When these tree types are required by Chapter 18.620,18.745,or 18.790,the L-2 Tree Standards apply. 2 Additional specifications for species,planting,and spacing are in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. -115- Commentary Landscape and Street Standards The design elements of the Landscape and Street Standards table have been retained and converted to Table 18.620.1. The terminology has been revised to be consistent with the terminology used in the TUFM (small, medium,large, columnar trees), and the table has been moved closer to the L-2 code language to make cross referencing easier. -116- Code Amendments Landscape and Street Standards Landscape Standards: Street Trees Street Name Street Tree type Min.Spacing Location 72" Avenue Broad-sprcading 27 feet o.c. Between sidewalk and street Broad-s rcadin g 27 feet o.c. Center median Dartmouth Street Broad-s rcadin g 27 feet o.c. Between sidewalk and street 68"Avenue Columnar 22 feet ox. Between sidewalk and street Broad-spreadingBToad-spreading 22 feet o.c. Center median A nta Street Columnar 22 feet o.c. Between sidewalk and street Broad-spreading 22 feet o.c. Center median Hampt Strect Columnar 22 feet o.c. Between sidewalk and str t Broad-s rcadin+ 22 feet o.c. Center median het"Avenue Broad-spreading 27 feet o.c. Between sidewalk a5dstrect on the west side of th street. Backage Road Broad-spreading 27 feet o.c. Between/sidewaand street. Plant treeand in clumps alongthee ofthe street. Provide a s cies. Local Streets Noreadin to 25 feet 22 feet o.c. Betw sidewalk and street Portals CbiTnar 22 feet o.c. Plan rees to frame portal fe ures and architecture. Parking lots Broad- reading 1 per 7 spaces planter islands Broad-sp ding 27 feet o.c. In setbacks Columnar 22 feet o.c. In setbacks where building lines =broad-spread readin trees. 'All curb-side planting strips and medians shall plant with lawn of groundcover. Planter strips between the sidewalk and street along 72"`�Avenu ha be lawn except where paved areas extend to the curbline and tree grates arc provided around trees. dians on 68"Avenue,Atlanta and Hampton shall have consistent lawn or groundcover plantings for e e tire length of the street with accents at intersections. M� st T Broad-sading Street Tree Columnar Street Tree Spreadin Street Tree Tigard Triangle Street Plan Details -117- Commentary Tigard Triangle Street Plan The parking lot setback requirement has been revised to show an eight foot rather than a five foot setback per the revised L-1 standard. -118- Code Amendments Landscape and Street Standards o e e Curb extension and concrete intersection at at intersections on Major and Minor Arterials. S `a v N plan _ I 2,7 Typical landscape and parking at minimum setback. Tigard Triangle Street Plan Details -119- Commentary 18.630 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS -120- Code Amendments Chapter 18.630 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.630.020 Development Standards 18.630.030 Pre-existing Uses 18.630.040 Street Connectivity 18.630.050 Site Design Standards 18.630.060 Building Design Standards 18.630.070 Signs 18.630.080 Entry Portals 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening 18.630.100 Street and Accessway Standards 18.630.110 Design Evaluation 18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability [No change.] 18.630.020 Development Standards [No change.] 18.630.030 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Washington Square Regional Center Mixed Use Districts [No change.] 18.630.040 Street Connectivity [No change.] 18.630.050 Site Design Standards A. Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan may be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C.2,governing criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. 1. [No change.] 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. Parking location and landscape design. -121- Commentary 18.630.050 Site Design Standards The L-1 and L-2 standards in the Design Districts have been problematic because they are unclear. The amendments are intended to clarify the standards, provide additional space for tree growth,while retaining the original intent of the standards. The landscape setback for parking lots from streets has been increased from five to eight feet to allow parking lot trees to be planted in the setback (consistent with the requirements in chapter 18.745 and section 11 of the TUFM) and have additional soil volume in the design district. 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening The Design Districts have requirements that supersede the requirements in chapter 18.745 of the TDC. These include the L-1 and L-2 requirements. The L-1 requirement is essentially an enhanced screen of the parking lot from the street. Larger than average trees are required to provide an immediate screen effect. The language has been modified to make the purpose of the requirements more clear. -122- Code Amendments a. Purpose. The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas. b. Standard. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary street(s) shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is €rye eight feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 landscape standard,except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 landscape standard. 18.630.060 Building Design Standards [No change.] 18.630.070 Signs [No change.] 18.630.080 Entry Portals [No change.] 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations were the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Parking Lot Screen. Far- ~e~e"a' iffidse*~i~~ of laja seape affd ser-eeeed areas withift par-kifig lots and gong laeal eafleetafs and leeal streets, planting standards of Ghapter- 18.745 The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets. . The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. `vThe setback is shalle a minimum of§Meet between the parking lot and a p&1istreet]L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1—trees shall be planted at a minimum of 3'/2 inch caliper at the time of plantinQ. at a of 28 feet a n ~ Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. -123- Commentary 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening The L-2 requirement essentially requires that any trees required to be planted in Washington Square Regional Center be 21/ caliper at planting to provide a more immediate effect. The language has been clarified to reflect this. -124- Code Amendments 2. L-2 General Landscaping. T na :fig , ce f:� shaU apply, The L-2 standard applies to all other required trees and shrubs (other than those required by section 18.630.090.A.1). The L-2 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. In addifiaii, All L-2 trees shall be 2'/z inch caliper at the time of planting, ffi . Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. 18.630.100 Street and Accessway Standards [No change.] 18.630.110 Design Evaluation [No change.] -125- Commentary 18.640 DURHAM QUARRY DESIGN STANDARDS The Durham Quarry Design Standards generally apply to the area known as Bridgeport Village. The proposed amendments to the Durham Quarry Design Standards Chapter include: Sections 18.640.700 and 800 have been retitled consistent with the updated applicable code sections for Sensitive Lands and Urban Forestry Plan. -126- Code Amendments Chapter 18.640 DURHAM QUARRY DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 18.640.010 Purpose 18.640.020 Permitted Uses 18.640.030 Conditional Uses 18.640.040 Applicability 18.640.050 Development Standards 18.640.060 Determining Net Acres 18.640.070 Signs 18.640.080 Reserved 18.640.090 Reserved 18.640.100 Access 18.640.200 Design Standards 18.640.300 Design Compatibility Standards 18.640.400 Landscaping and Screening 18.640.500 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.640.600 Environmental Standards 18.640.700 Sensitive Lands 18.640.800 Wetlands n.....eet n District Urban Forest Plan 18.640.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.640.020 Permitted Uses [No change.] 18.640.030 Conditional Uses [No change.] 18.640.040 Applicability [No change.] 18.640.050 Development Standards [No change.] 18.640.060 Determining Net Acres [No change.] -127- Commentary 18.640.200 Site Design Standards The L-1 and L-2 standards in the Design Districts have been problematic because they are unclear. The amendments are intended to clarify the standards, provide additional space for tree growth,while retaining the original intent of the standards. The landscape setback for parking lots from streets has been increased from five to eight feet to allow parking lot trees to be planted in the setback (consistent with the requirements in chapter 18.745 and section 11 of the TUFM) and have additional soil volume in the design district. The L-1 requirement is essentially an enhanced screen of the parking lot from the street. Larger than average trees are required to provide an immediate screen effect. The language has been modified to make the purpose of the requirements more clear. The L-2 requirement essentially requires that any trees required to be planted in Bridgeport Village be 21/z caliper at planting to provide a more immediate effect. The language has been clarified to reflect this. -128- Code Amendments 18.640.070 Signs [No change.] 18.640.080 Reserved [No change.] 18.640.090 Reserved [No change.] 18.640.100 Access [No change.] 18.640.200 Design Standards A. [No change.] B. Site design standards.Development shall meet the following site design standards. 1. Building placement on major and minor arterials. Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of major and minor arterial street frontages. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on major and minor arterials. 2. Building setbacks. See Section 18.640.050.B. 3. Front yard setback design. For setbacks greater than zero feet,landscaping, an arcade, or a hard- surfaced expansion of the sidewalk shall be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirements. 4. Walkway connection to building entrances. A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. The walkway shall be at least six feet wide and paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirements. 5. Parking location and landscape design. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way shall be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings.When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street,primary street(s) shall be identified where this requirement applies. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is fie ci�feet or is equal to the building setback,whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. See Section 18.640.200.D. -129- Commentary 18.640.200 Site Design Standards (continued) -130- Code Amendments C. [No change.] D. Landscaping and screening 1. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in Section 18.640.400.These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. a. L-1 low parking lot screen. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets. . The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. `v er—e t The setback ifr shall- a minimum of five eight feet between the parking lot and a public street. ,trees L- 1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be planted at a minimum of 3 '/z inch caliper at the time of planting=, t m of 28 feet att eenter. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. b. L-2 general landscaping. apply.par-king lets, and along 1(3eFA ealleetar-s and leeetl streets, plaetilig standar-ds iff Chapter 19.745, handseaping and Sereetaing, shall The L-2 standard applies to all other required trees and shrubs (other than those required by section 18.640.200.D.1.al. The L-2 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. in additien,,All L-2 trees shall be 2 1/2 inch caliper at the time of planting Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. 18.640.300 Design Compatibility Standards [No change.] 18.640.400 Landscaping and Screening, see Chapter 18.745 [No change.] 18.640.500 Off-Street Parking and Loading, see Chapter 18.765 [No change.] 18.640.600 Environmental Standards, see Chapter 18.725 [No change.] -131- Commentary 18.640.700 Sensitive Lands, see Chapter 18.775 . The revision reflects the existing chapter title to correct a scrivener's error. 18.640.800 Urban Forestry Plan, see Chapter 18.790 Wetlands P foto .tion Di Chapter 18.775 The revision reflects the revised chapter title -132- Code Amendments 18.640.700 Sensitive Lands, see Chapter 18.775 Fleedplain Distriet, see Chapter 18.77-5 [No change.] 18.640.800 Urban Forestry Plan, see Chapter 18.790 Wetlands Preteenion District, --- Chapter 18.775 ■ -133- Commentary 18.745.010 Purpose A scrivener's error has been corrected because the chapter is intended to enhance the aesthetic and environmental quality of the City. Protection of existing street trees during new development is addressed through chapter 18.790 and section 8 of the TUFM. 18.745.020 Applicability The existing applicability section is too broad because it says it applies to all development. The proposed applicability generally conforms to current practice by applying the standards to Type II and III land use reviews. The new soil volume requirements would apply to a more limited list of Type II and III land use reviews outlined in section 18.745.040.A.4 for street trees and section 18.745.050.E for parking lot trees. The section explicitly requires trees in 18.745 to be included and subject to all of the requirements of a concurrent urban forestry plan (per 18.790). The term "Director" has been changed to the term "City Manager or designee" as requested by the City Manager for all new or substantially modified code chapters. -134- Code Amendments Chapter 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Sections: 18.745.010 Purpose 18.745.020 Applicability 18.745.030 General Provisions 18.745.040 Street Trees 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 18.745.060 Re-vegetation 18.745.010 Purpose A. purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for landscaping, buffering, and screening of land use within Tigard in order to enhance the aesthetic an environmental quality of the City: 1. By, ~a street trees ft~a requiring the planting of street trees in new developments; 2. By using plant materials as a unifying element; 3. By using planting materials to define spaces and articulate the uses of specific areas;and 4. By using trees and other landscaping materials to mitigate the effects of the sun,wind,noise and lack of privacy by the provision of buffering and screening. 18.745.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development that requires a Type II or III land use review ' , req�riremexts unless otherwise specified in any of the sections below. B. When urban forests plan requirements concurrentivvapply, When the provisions of Chapter 18.790. Urban Forestry Plan. concurrentlypply,,any trees required by this chapter shall be included in the urban forests plan and subject to all of the requirements in Chapter 18.790. When site d - tis of Chapter-18.3F , Site D&velapffient Review, do iiat shall > appreve with eenditiens, or deny a plan submitted tinder the )ns of this ehapter-by ffiea-iis of a Type 1 pr-aeedur-e, as goveflied by Seetion 18.390.030,using C. Site plan requirements.The applicant shall submit a site plan.The Direeter City Manager or designee shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. -135- Commentary 18.745.030 General Provisions The General Provisions are modified to clarify that applicable industry standards (including tree care industry standards) shall be used to determine what constitutes acceptable maintenance. Throughout the chapter, the term "landscaping and screening"is used to refer to items required by chapter 18.745, and the term "plants"is used to refer to trees, shrubs, and groundcover. While snow fencing, etc. may be used to preserve existing shrubs and groundcover, an explicit cross reference is made to the tree preservation requirements in chapter 18.790. -136- Code Amendments 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Maintenance Res onsibili . Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing=maintenance of all landscaping and screening used to meet the requirements of this chapter according to applicable industry standards. w-hieh shall be maintained in goad eondition so as +ff utility;kept free from refuse and debris. B. Pi�unine reottir-ed. All plant gf&wth in landseaped areas of developments shall be eentrelled by 2. it will not festrtiet pedestriffi or--,,ehiettlaf aeeess; and CB.Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping and screening required by this chapter shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping and screening shall be installed according to applicable industry standards ; 2. The plant materialsAll plants shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for berg urseStock (ANSI Z60, 1- 2004, and any future revisions);and 3. All 1=landscaping and screening shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. DC. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the lands * requirements of this chapter have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. £D. Protection of existing plants veeretftfion. Existing-fege lant on a site shall be protected as follows ffitteh as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation lants to remain during the construction process;aftd 2. The plants to remain be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.r. e., areas plants e, be to remain can be shown as protected with fencing ) If =1 snow feneing 3. The tree protection provisions outlined in chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures shall apply to the land use review types identified in section 18.790.020(Al. -137- Commentary 18.745.030 General Provisions (continued) A link is drawn between the regulations in chapter 18.745, and other applicable rules in other chapters of the code. This includes regulations related to hazard trees, street trees, urban forestry plan requirements, etc. 18.745.040 Street Trees A minimum number of street trees are required based on the project's street frontage and must conform to the planting requirements previously developed in section 2 of the TUFM. Soil volume requirements are required for the major Type II and III development types. The soil volume requirements are outlined in section 10 of the TUFM and are based on the width of the non-street portion of the right of way. Soil volume requirements can be met through the use of engineered soil under pavement (covered soil volume) if designed,inspected, and documented by a landscape architect. Otherwise, soil volume requirements can be met by planting trees in landscape areas with sufficient soil. Existing trees are allowed as street trees if they would be permitted as a newly planted tree and they are adequately protected through the urban forestry plan requirements in chapter 18.790. This would occur as a technical decision without requiring an adjustment permit in order to incentivize preservation of existing trees. -138- Code Amendments E. Ongoing tree related rules and regulations. Any-trees used to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to tree related rules and regulations in other chapters and titles of the Tigard Municipal Code and Tigard Development Code. pubk- nd in no instanee shaR be less than that required f6r eefiventional de-eelopment. in height shftU be planted in ...e publie tight of way abutting r-aadways havifig no established ei and gutter, 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Street Tree Standards. 1. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within to the site (in feet) by 40 feet. 2. The minimum number of required street trees shall be planted according to the standards in Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. 3. Street trees shallbe planted within the right of way whenever practicable according to the standards in Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than 6 feet from the right of according to the standards in Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual when planting within the right of way is not practicable. 4. The applicant shall meet the street tree soil volume standards in Section 10 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual as part of the approval process for Conditional Use (Type III). Downtown Design Review (Type II�d IIIIII). Nfinor Land Partition (Tvh�II), Planned Development (Tune III).Site Development Review(L)We II) and Subdivision (Tube 1�)hermits. 5. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: a. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the riVht of my immediately adjacent to the sub'ect is e, -139- Commentary 18.745.040 Street Trees (continued) If the required number of street trees cannot be provided, an in lieu of planting option is available to cover the City's cost of planting. The existing provisions for street trees will be replaced with the new provisions which are primarily in sections 2 (street tree planting standards) and 10 (street tree soil volume standards) of the TUFM. -140- Code Amendments b. The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the standards in Sections 2 and 10 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual if it were newly planted: and c. The tree is shown as preserved in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan (per 18.790.030(_)(2))_ Tree Canopy Cover site plan (per 18.790.030(_)(3)) and Supplemental Arborist Report (per 18.790.030(B)_(4)) of a concurrent urban forestry plan and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. 6. In cases where it is not practicable to provide the minimum number of required street trees_ the City Manager or designee may allow the applicant to remit payment into the Tigard Urban Forestry Fund for tree planting and early establishment in an amount equivalent to the City's cost to plant a street tree (aper the standards in this Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) and maintain a street tree (per the standards in Section 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual for a period of three (3) years after lantin ) for each tree below the minimum required. or a pri ate dti-k�eway ffief-e that 400 f�et ift length appr-eved after- the adoption of this title shaA be I'll—I'd te plant street trees in iteeefdanee m4th the standaMs in Seetien 18.745.040.C. B. Stfeet tfee olantinL4--li t. Gertain trees ean severely damage utilities, stfeets and sidewalks or ean eause E. c: and seaeifie of below.two inehes at f6uf feet in height its speeified in the in Seetion 18.745.040.C.2 2. The speeiffe spaeing of street trees by si2e of tree shaI4 be as fel4aws! a. Stnall ei nffrr-ew stattir-e tfees tifidet 25 feet ta]4 and less than 46 feet vAde by-aliehing at matutity shaH he spiteed tie greatef than 20 feet apart; b. Medium sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet 16 feet te 35 feet wide branehing at maturity shid! e iie t 30 feew,. ' be sgteatet e. Lar-ge trees (3:ver- 40 feet taI4 aiid ffiete than 35 f�et wide by-aiiehieg at ffiater-ity shall be spaeed no greater than 40 feet apaft; planted elasef than 20 f�et f+effi a stfeet 4.11-11, —of eleser thaft twe feet f+e)ffi pffNate 1 el -141- Commentary 18.745.040 Street Trees (continued) -142- Code Amendments e. No tiew titility pole loeatioii shal4 be established elosef thaii five feet to any e, +fee, f Tree pits shaR be loeated so as not to inelude utilities ., water and gas meters) in the tree we14 areas; h. Street trees shall not he planted eloser than 20 feet to lib9il9t ; i. New light standards shall not he positioned eloser than 20 feet to e-dstfifig street trees emeept ; lines;V��ere there are o-ver-head power- lines, the s"eet tree speeies seleeted sha4 be of a type whieh, at full maturity,wi]4 not interfere with the k. Tfees shaH fiat he planted wid�An two feet from the kee of the eurb; afid 1. Trees shaH fiet he planted widain two feet of any pefmanent hard surf-ftee paving of Walkway: (2) Sidewalk --"-'-te fer- "ee plantiiig sha]4 be at least four by four- feet to a4aw for air a water-into the roadwayD. Prunifir, —N . Tfees, as they grow, shA be pituned to pfavide at least eight feet of elearanee 43 feet above loeal street, 15 feet above eol4eetor- street, and 48 feet above arterial street vc H. Cut and fi4 around Exeisting trees fflay be used as s"eet trees if no etitting of- fi4li,-tg takes plaee �*4thin t I- dflip I;-- the tree unless aii adjust--, -,,--ved by the Diteeter- by means of a Type 1 -,,,,,ed by Seetion 18.390.030, using appfoval criteria in Seetion 18.370.020.C.4.a. F. Replaeefent of trees. E3stteet6istifig "eesfemoved by developtneiit pfojeets ot other- eansti-detion ffnefits may be granted by the Difeeter- 1 Q z7n nen i -143- Commentary 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening The term "Director" has been changed to the term "City Manager or designee" as requested by the City Manager for all new or substantially modified code chapters. -144- Code Amendments -A-1--tiOns whieh are signahzed, provided the provisions of Chapter. 19.795, V4sttftl Clear-Ftnee, are satisfied. (Ofd. 09 43� 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site,without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2).The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for theme's City Manager or desimee's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D. 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition,improvements shall meet the following specifications: -145- Commentary 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening Buffers are required between incompatible land uses. Trees are required in the buffer, and the language and spacing requirements for buffer trees has been revised to be consistent with the requirements in the TUFM. -146- Code Amendments a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall be chosen from any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (except the Nuisance Tree Listl unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee and have a minimum caliper of twe 11/2 inches at for deciduous trees and a minimum height of fie Meet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small stature or ~arraw ..t,.....re columnar trees, ••eller 25 feet taR ar less than16 fleet wide at matufi shall be spaced no less than 15 feet on center and no further greater than 45 20 feet on center (2) Medium-steed stature trees bet ii 25 feet to 40 c,..... tall ,.iia _.ith 6 feet to 35 reef wide brErnehing at ffi shall be spaced no less than 20 feet on center and no greater than 30 feet on center ap*rt. (3) Large stature trees, aver- 40 feet ta4 affd with ffier-e than 35 feet wide b-raft6Aiig at shall be spaced no less than 30 feet on center and no greater than 39 40-feet on center*P*rt. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area. c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four- foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting;or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover;or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795. 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences,walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case,fences and walls may exceed the permitted six-foot height at the discretion of the teeter Cirg Manager or designee as a condition of approval.When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical,a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval. -147- Commentary 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening The term "Director" has been changed to the term "City Manager or designee" as requested by the City Manager for all new or substantially modified code chapters. -148- Code Amendments 8. Fences and Walls. a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the meter City Manager o�gnee; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick;and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. 9. Hedges. a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050.C.2.a and 18.745.050.C.2.b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view;and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.0.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects. 2. Fences or Walls. a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and,in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795. 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. -149- Commentary 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening Special screening standards require trees in parking lots. Language has been added to specify that non-conforming screening in parking lots shall not be allowed to become any less conforming (through a Type I land use permit for example). Screening in parking lots will be required to be brought into conformance when issuing major development permits (Type II and III). The parking lot screening requirements have been revised to require 30% actual canopy cover (directly above the parking area) rather than one tree for every seven parking spaces. Requiring canopy more directly relates to the City's urban forestry goals,whereas requiring a certain number of trees per parking spaces can be met by deleting parking spaces (rather than planting trees). Section 11 of the TUFM is referenced for more detailed parking lot tree, soil volume, and canopy plan requirements. Parking lot tree canopy plans are required to be designed,inspected, and documented by a landscape architect unless an arborist can meet the requirements through a concurrent urban forestry plan per chapter 18.790. Soil volume requirements can be met through the use of engineered soil under pavement (covered soil volume) if designed,inspected, and documented by a landscape architect. Otherwise, soil volume requirements can be met by planting trees in landscape areas with sufficient soil. -150- Code Amendments D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements. 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas i.e. nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less conforming. Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the approval process for Condition Use (Type III).Downtown Design Review(TWe II and II .Planned Development CEype I111_ and Site Development Review CE)rpe 111 perky. The specifications for this screening are as follows: (1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms,decorative walls and raised planters; (2) Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; (3) Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; (4) All parking;areas,including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking; area in accordance with the Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards in Section 11 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. -T-f-ees shaH be planted in landseaped islands in afi par-king areas, and shA he equa4y distributed and en the basis of one"ee f;gr-eaeb seveii par-king spaees iff order-to and (5) The minimum dimensian of the landseVe islands shall he three feet and the euTb -151- Commentary 18.745.060 Re-vegetation For consistency, the term "landscaping and screening"is used to refer to the requirements in chapter 18.745. A cross reference has been added to require soil stockpiling consistent with an approved urban forestry plan per 18.790. When there is no urban forestry plan, soil stockpiling shall be outside the driplines of existing trees. -152- Code Amendments 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height.All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. 3. Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by the State Building Code. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence,masonry wall or evergreen hedge.All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. F. Buffer matrix. 1. The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts. 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. (Ord. 09-13; Ord. 02-33) 18.745.060 Re-vegetation A. When re-vegetation is required.Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping and screening=requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway;and 1. Such storage shall nifty-fta+ be located consistent with an aptiroved urban forestry tilan per Chapter 18.790 or outside the tree canopy driplines --hefe it would ea-a.e suffeeatia ec systems of trees intended to be preserved in cases when there this is no approved urban forestry plan;and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. -153- Commentary 18.745.060 Re-vegetation (continued) -154- Code Amendments C. Methods of re-vegetation. 1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass,barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates,and: a. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established,lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area; b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. TABLE 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX [No Changes to this Table] -155- Commentary Table 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Specific buffers are required based on the level of incompatibility of adjacent land uses by Table 18.745.1 (Buffer Matrix). The specifications for tree planting in Table 18.745.2 have been revised for compatibility with section 18.745.050.B and the standards in the TUFM. Footnote 1 for Table 18.745.2 has been revised to correct a scrivener's error and make it consistent with section 18.745.050.A.2. Footnote 2 has been added to provide a cross reference to the more detailed spacing standards in section 18.745.050.B.4. Footnote 3 has been struck because there is no adjustment process for buffer trees (scrivener's error). -156- Code Amendments TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING [1] Options Width Trees[2] Shrubs or Screening (feet) (per linear feet of Groundcover buffer) A -- 10 -- Lawn/ -- living roundcover B -- 1(1 2915' min/ W 40' max Lawn/ -- spacing living groundcover I1 ll) Shrubs 4' hedges C 2 8 15' min/39' W max Shrubs 5' fence spacing 3 6 Shrubs 6'wall 1 20 Shrubs 6'hedge D 2 15 4-0! 15 `min/2-O!40' Shrubs 6' fence max spacing 3 10 Shrubs 6'wall 1 30 4-W 15' min/2-O!40' Shrubs 6' hedge or max spacing fence 1-: 2 25 Shrubs 5' earthen berm or wall F -- 40 44 15' min/2-O!40' Shrubs 6'hedge, fence, max spacing wall or berm [1] Bufferinge.but not screening,is are tie required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street as specified in Section 18.745.050.A.2. f21 SnacinIZ of trees depends on stature; see Section 18.745.050.B.4. obtained; . -157- Commentary Table 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (continued) -158- Code Amendments Lawvt�uvrvy !�✓ow+dGoder .. G�Ka vGf o, n i 'rrdh 'frees 'rveEy 5IM'�' �4 n� vw 5 9-9 PIE —l'J�t✓u�i 6 Stivw� �� 6�nYWby � 6 . ¢o' �qry om co)n g o 9 r (�kru4sy h�trL{bh c vlyat5. 'CY0/h 1UI. '�rGlh � 'I�YG°h n 44J �dtrt�.�Xi � s / 16' IB�Pv..�oh -159- Commentary 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan The chapter title has been revised from "Tree Removal' to "Urban Forestry Plan" to better reflect the intent of chapter which is to create a plan to enhance the urban forest through the development process rather than to simply remove trees. 18.790.010 Purpose The purpose has been simplified to cross reference the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Forestry Master Plan. Both documents provide the detailed policy basis for the extensive revisions to chapter 18.790. -160- Code Amendments Chapter 18.790 TREE REMO URBAN FORESTRY PLAN Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions Applicability 18.790.030 n Urban Forestry Plan Requirements 18.790.040 ineentiv s for Tree u,,,.,,...tio-n Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review O�ti°n 18.790.050 Permit Applieability Flexible Standards to Promote Preservation 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation 18.790.070 Modification to an Approved Urban Forestry Plan 18.790.080 Enforcement 18.790.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to implement the City's urban fore�als articulated in the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Value of tfL--g,. Aftef yeafs of both nanifal gfowth and planting by fesidents, the City now benefits ffoffi a lavge nuffiber of trees. These tfees of vafied types add to the aesthetie beauty of the eoniniunity, help clean the aif, help eontfol I—...... ...—ttafn water quality and prov4de noise bafriers. B. The purposes of this ehaptef afe to: 2. Regulate the femoval of tfees on sensitive lands in the City to elifninate unneeessary femo-eal of tfees; 4. Pfoteet sensitive lands fr-offi .sion; ; C. Reeognize need fof tx-etlplfnj-efl�s. The City feeognizes that, notwithstandin.9 these pttfposes, at the . -161- Commentary 18.790.020 Definitions Applicability Urban forestry plans will be required for larger (Type II or III) development project types (Minor Land Partitions, Subdivisions, Conditional Use Permits, Site Development Reviews, Planned Developments,Downtown Design Reviews, and Sensitive Lands Reviews). After reviewing existing project types and conditions,it was determined that only the larger project types identified above have the most consistent and tangible impacts on trees. All of the larger project types currently require tree plans and a project arborist except Type II or III Downtown Design Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews. Type II or III Downtown Design Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews are similar in scale to the other projects, and it would be appropriate to require similar tree/urban forestry plan requirements as the other project types. The projects with the highest likelihood to impact trees and not require an urban forest plan are residential building projects (house additions, retaining walls,landscape grading, etc.). However, a review of past residential building projects illustrate that they rarely are designed in ways that necessitate tree removal. Also, as demonstrated in the Urban Forestry Master Plan,residential property has the highest tree canopy of all zoning types which implies that residential property owners are generally good stewards of their tree resources despite a lack of regulations. If increased regulations on developed residential properties are identified as necessary in the future as the City continues to develop, the code could be revised at that time. The current proposal will address the redevelopment of existing commercial,industrial, and mixed use zones, especially as buildable residential lands in Tigard continue to decrease. The Urban Forestry Master Plan demonstrates that existing commercial,industrial, and mixed use zones currently have less than half the tree canopy of residential zones. Staff's proposal is to require significant increases in tree canopy through redevelopment of commercial,industrial, and mixed use zones through the urban forest plan requirements. The existing definitions in chapter 18.790 have been moved to the tree related definitions section in chapter 18.120. -162- Code Amendments 18.790.020 Definitiefis Annlicability A. Applicability. The standards in this Chapter shall aply and be incorporated into the following land use reviews: 1. Conditional Use (Tyne III): 2. Downtown Design Review Type 11 and I1P: 3. Minor Land Partition (Type III: 4. Planned Development gWe III): 5. Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and 1111: 6. Site Development Review(Tune 11 ; nd 7. Subdivision (TWe II and 1111. A. Definitions. The fol4awing definitions apply to reoati gg the pr-esefvatian and r-emoval of trees eentaified in this chapter-exclusiv-ely: !. "Canopy cover"tneans the area above gfound whieh is covefed by the trunk and branches of the ties definition;2. "Camffier-cial for-estfy"meafts the removal of ten of mefe trees pef aer-e per calendar year for sale. Tree vemoval under-takeft by means of an approved tree r-effioval plafl undef See 18.790.030 is not considered coffimerci�d f6festry under this 4. "Pr-tti-,ing�'ffieans the cutting —f a tree in a maffner which is eofisistent with 5. « „ o the loss of a roof system of a tfee, E), sthetie or physiological viability or 6. "Tree" ffieans a standing woody plant, or-group of such,having a traink whieh is six i"ehes . eahpef size when meastifed four feet firoffi gr-ound lev-,+-; 7. "Sensitive lands"ffieans those laftds deser-ibed at Chaptef 18.775 of the tide. sha4l include the ft"fe and words in the singular-shaH itielude the plural. -163- Commentary 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirefnent Urban Forestry Pl�cluirements Urban forestry plan are required to be developed by a certified arborist and tree risk assessor. Many arborists are dual certified, and adding the new requirement for tree risk assessment is important to help ensure safe conditions during and after construction. The urban forestry plan requirements will consist of three main parts. The first part,Tree Preservation and Removal site plan,is essentially a demolition/preservation plan identifying trees to remain and trees to be removed. The detailed requirements for the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan are in Section 8, Part 1 of the TUFM. Trees over 6 inch diameter, street trees, median trees, and Heritage Trees are required to be shown on the plan. Individual trees near the development impact area are required to be individually inventoried, but cohesive stands of trees away from the development impact area can be delineated at the edge of the stand. Tree protection fencing is required to be shown on the plan as well. The requirements in Section 8, Part 1 essentially document the current practice except that trees within stands away from the development impact area are not required to be individually inventoried. The second part is the Tree Canopy site plan (Section 8,Part 2 of the TUFM). This plan shows all trees to be preserved as well as those to be planted. It is essentially a landscape plan that includes just the trees. It visually displays how the 40% effective tree canopy requirement will be met. It also includes specifications for spacing and placement of trees, measurement of trees, and acceptable/prohibited species. The third part is the Supplemental Arborist Report (Section 8, Part 3 of the TUFM). This is a narrative for the site plans and provides more detailed inventory data on the species, size, condition, and suitability of preservation of trees and stands of trees in a more standardized format than exists currently. It also contains supplemental preservation and planting information to be implemented during the development process. Finally,it contains the standards for determining how the 40% effective tree canopy requirement shall be met. The Tree Canopy Fee was developed by converting the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost (which is based on the trunk size) to an "average unit canopy cost". The difficulty in this approach is there is not a linear relationship between trunk size and canopy size. Therefore, staff is proposing to base the average unit canopy cost on the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost of a 6 inch DBH coniferous Willamette Valley tree with the assumption that a 6 inch DBH tree has a 30 foot canopy spread. Based on this approach, the current unit canopy cost would be $2.16 per square foot tree canopy. For example, if an applicant wanted to have no trees on a 10,000 square foot lot, they would need to pay a fee equivalent to 4,000 square feet of tree canopy or $8,640. The rationale for this approach is that trees are worth more than just their cost to plant (according to current industry accepted tree appraisal methodologies). Not planting trees eliminates the potential for them to achieve their future value (which has been conservatively estimated using existing methodologies and professional judgment). Also, since the community wants future fees to be utilized for items such as tree preservation, maintenance, education and outreach, and urban forest planning, in addition to planting, collecting fees based solely on the cost of planting does not adequately relate to these more expansive community needs. (Tree canopy fee use continued on following commentary page) -164- Code Amendments 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan ReauirgMWts A. General Provisions. An urban forestry plan shall be required for the land use review types identified in section 18.790.020(A) and for a Type II modification to an approved urban forestry plan Per section 18.790.070. B. Urban Forestry Plan Submittal Requirements. An urban forestry plan shall. 1. Be coordinated and approved by person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor (the project a�L 2. Meet the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan requirements in Section 8. Part 1 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual• 3. Meet the Tree Canopy site plan requirements in Section 8, Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:and 4. Meet the Supplemental Arborist Report requirements in Section 8, Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. C. Tree Canopy Fee. When the Supplemental Arborist Report Prepared according to the standards in Section 8, Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual demonstrates that 40% effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any lot or tract that will result from the land use review type, the applicant shall provide the City a Tree Canopy Fee according to the methodoloe_v_ outlined in Section 8: Part 4 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. D. Tree Canopy Fee Use. Tree Canopy Fees provided to the City shall be deposited into the Urban Forestry Fund and allocated in the following_percentages for the following purposes. 1. Tree planting any establishment (50%allocation): 2. Preservation of existing trees following a recommendation approved maty vote of the City board or committee designated the City Manager to give such recommendations (25% allocation 3. Maintenance of those trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund after the early establishment period has ended (10%allocation): 4. Urban Foresn Education and Outreach following a recommendation approved majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to P_ive such recommendations k10% allocation):and -165- Commentary 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Urban Forestry Pl�cluirements Based on community discussions, the future use of tree canopy fees should be as follows: 1. Tree Planting and Early Establishment (50% allocation); 2. Preservation of existing trees following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (25% allocation); 3. Maintenance of those trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund after the early establishment period has ended (10% allocation); 4. Urban Forestry Education and Outreach following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (10% allocation); and 5. Urban Forestry Planning for activities that support periodic updates of the City of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan, Municipal Code, or Development Code following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (5% allocation). The planting, early establishment, and maintenance items should be implemented by staff because they are technical in nature. However, deciding how and where to use funds for preservation, education and outreach, and planning should involve a discussion and recommendation by a designated board (such as the Tree Board) to help ensure expenditures are consistent with community expectations. -166- Code Amendments 5. Urban Forestry Planning for activities that support periodic updates of the City of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan_ Municipal Code_ or Development Code following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (5% allocation)a. Retention of less than 25-7� of over 12 inches in cahpef fequifes 9. A. Tr-ee plan required. A tree plan for- the planting, removal afid proteetieff of tfees prepared by a 'fied arbor4st shaR be provided far-any lot,pareel or eombination of lots or par-eels for-which development of conclitien�d use is filed. Pfatection is preferred over-r-effioval wher-ever possible. 1. identification of the location, size and speeies of aR e�dseng tfees including tfees designated as significant by the city-, Al Z-1h the following stafidaMs and shaR be eHeltisi-ee of by other --I and parking 0 E)gr-am fn accefdance with Seetion 18.790.060D of fie net loss of tree�, b. Retention of frofn 0 to SO-% of- *1.*116 . — ever 42 inehes in caliper- requires that two thirds of the trees to be reffia-eed be ffiitigated in aeeor-daftee with Seetion e. Retention of fr-affi 0 to 7541� 50 percent of the tfees to be removed be ffiitigated in aeeardanee with Seetion 754,; or- greater- of over 12 inehes in eahper- requir-es ne, 3. ldeiitifieatiofi of a4l trees whieh are proposed to be ; Protect tFees during and after-cofistfue6oitr. C. Subsequent tfee removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prief to a developffiew application listed abe-ee will be iffventoried as part of the tr-ee plan above and wi]4 be r-epifteed aceefdi.Ig to Seetieft 18.790.060D. -167- Commentary 18.790.040 T.......ntiyes for Tree Rete..,.:...., Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option The Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option is an alternative to meeting the clear and objective 40% effective canopy requirement. An applicant could make their case at a public hearing in front of Planning Commission about how their proposal is an adequate substitute for the functions and values otherwise provided by trees. This option could allow people to utilize green features such as green roofs,green streets, etc. as a substitute for the environmental benefits provided by trees. -168- Code Amendments 18.790.040 T.....e.-.tiyes for Tree Retention Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option A. General Provisions. In lieu of providing payment of a Tree Canopy Fee when less than 40% effective tree canopy cover will be provided_ an applicant maypnly for a discretionary urban forestry lan review. The d scredonary urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modi an already pproved urban fores=plan, anypreservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval_ or any tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by another chapter in this title. B. Application Procedures. Discretionary urban forestryplan reviews shall be processed as a Type III procedure, as governed section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.790.040(C) below. Applications for discretionary urban forestrplan reviews shall be submitted concurrently with applications for the land use reviews types in section 18.790.020. C. Approval Criteria. The Planning Commission shall approve the discretionary urban forestryplan upon determining 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan will equally or better replace the environmental functions and values that would otherwise be provided through payment of a Tree Canopy Fee in lieu of tree planting or preservation. D. Decision. The Planning Commission's decision shall be made in writing and incorporated into the land use review decision types in section 18.790.020. The discretionary urban forest plan approved in this section shall supersede and replace any conflicting requirements in this chapter. However_all of the non-conflicting requirements in this chapter shall continue MAPply. 0 A. incentives. To assist iff the pfesen�-atiofi and !retention of--i—i �6 ""S, the Difeet6r- ffiay apply 1. Density bonus. For eaeh 2-7,� of canopy cover provided by existing t!rees over 12 inches in 0 ea4iper that are pr-esefved and iiieerporated into a de-v-elepffiefit plan, a V7,� bonus tnay beapplied to d--ity —1-11-tations of Chapter 18.715. No ffier-e than a 0 gfaffted faf afty one development. The percentage density bonus shall be apphed to the number- of dwelhag units a4lowed ifi the undeflying zone. This beffus is not appheable to tfees pfesevved in areas of floodplaiff, slopes gfeater than 25-A, drainageways, or wedands0 2. Lot -'— .—.6-1g. To fetain e�dstfng tfees ever 12 inehes in ealiper-in the developffi-efit plan felf —Y 1—d —'*�4sion under- Chapter- 18.4 00, lot si��e may be aver-aged to a4ew lots less thaft the ffiiniffittm lot si5!e a4owed by the unde-r4ying zone as long as the average lot area f0f au ar- shaH be less that. 80-% of the ffiiffiffitifn lot size allowed the x -169- Commentary 18.790.040 T..eent:_es for Tree Retentiefl Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option The existing incentives for tree retention have been modified to make them more attractive to developers and user friendly. They are included in section 18.790.050. -170- Code Amendments 3. Let width and depth. To retain exds. 12 inches in ca4ipef in the 1-8,400,!at width and lot depth-naay be r-educed up to 20446 of that required by the undeflying 5!one; 4. Gommercial,lindtlstfial/ek-ic use par-king. For- each 2,,� of canopy cover pro-Aded by 0 i 0 required par-king ffiay be gfanted. No move than a 20-'A feduction in the fe"ifed affiount of pafking may be gf anted for-a"otie development; 5. Comfnercial�indtlstrial,leivic use latidscaping. For- each 2-A of eaiiopy cover provided by 0 0 74o feduetion in the required amount of landscaping fRay be gfanted.No fnar-e than 0 df'velopffient,-. B. Subsequent femoval of a tree. A:fty tree pfeset-ved or retaified in aeeordatiee with this seetioil ffiay ther-eftftef be r-efno-,v;ed afAy for-the reasons set out in a tfee plan,iff aeeefdance with Seetioft > of as a eondition of approval f6f a eonclitional use, alld shaR not be subject to removal undef any othef section of this chapter. The property owlier- sha]4 recofd a deed --e-on as a condition of appfoval of afty development permit affeeted by this section to the this deed repst-vienie�-4a shaU be subjeet to approval by the Diree I . ffients granted under-this section shaR ftot eonflict with afty othef restfiction off the use o D. Desigft ffiodifieations of public ....p—v e—ents. The City Engineer ffiay adjust desigR specifications of public improveffients to aceommadate t— where possible and where itwotJd fiot «C with „F -171- Commentary 18.790.050 Permit Appheabili Flexible Standards to Promote Preservation The existing incentives for tree retention (in 18.790.040) have been modified to make them more attractive to developers and more user friendly. The following flexible standards for tree preservation are proposed to be allowed outright without requiring a variance or adjustment: • Lot size averaging; • Flexible setbacks; • Flexible sidewalk locations; • Allowing reductions in minimum parking requirements; and • Allowing reductions in minimum landscape requirements. The tree removal permit applicability has been struck for the time being until the issue is discussed as part of upcoming topics. -172- Code Amendments 18.790.050 Flexible Standards to Promote Preservation A. General Provisions. To assist in the preservation of trees the Director may p�ply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Flexibility shall be requested as part of the land use review process and is only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. A separate application as outlined in Section 18.370 is not required. 1. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees in the development plan for any Land Partition under Chapter 18.420_ lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size required in the underlying zone as long as the average lot area is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone• 2. Setbacks. The following setback reductions will be allowed for lots with trees using the criteria in subsection b below. a. Reductions allowed: (1) Front yard—up to a 25%reduction of the dimensional standard for a front yard setback required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision. (2) Interior setbacks - up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards for an interior side and/or rear yard setback required in the base zone. Perimeter side and ream and setbacks shall not be reduced through this provision. b. Approval criteria: (1) A demonstration that the reduction requested is the least required to achieve the desired Ku= (2) The reduction will result in the preservation of trees on the lot with the modified setbacks: and (3) The reduction will not impede adequate emergency access to the site and structure. 3. Sidewalks. Location of a public sidewalk may be flexible in order to retain trees. This flexibility can be accomplished through a curb-tight sidewalk or a public sidewalk easement recorded on private property. If a preserved tree is to be utilized as a street tree_ it must meet the criteria found in the Landscapingand�g section 18.745.040(A (51 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by trees incorporated into a development plan for commercial_ industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080_ Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements_ a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking mawgranted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by trees incorporated into a development plan_ a 1% reduction in the minimum landscape requirement mawgranted. No more than 20% of the minimum landscape requirement may be reduced for any one development. -173- Commentary 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation The urban forestry plan implementation requirements standardize the inspection and documentation requirements currently administered through conditions of development approval. The General Provisions section states that urban forestry plans are active from the point of land use approval until final acceptance by the City (typically after planted trees have met their two year establishment requirement). The reason for requiring an end point for the active period of an urban forestry plan is to allow future permitting decisions to occur through a different regulatory framework (rather than as a modification to a previous land use decision). For example,in the Municipal Code there could be a section that requires permits and establishes approval criteria for trees that were previously subject to chapter 18.790. This would simplify the administration of future permitting decisions. -174- Code Amendments 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation A. General Provisions. An urban forestryplan shall be active from the point of land use approval until final acceptance by the Manager or designee. When the land use review type will result in the division of land into multiple lots or tracts, the urban forestry plan shall remain active for each resulting lot or tract separately until final acceptance by the City Manager or designee. Prior and subsequent permitting decisions regarding the planting, maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees when not associated with one of the land use review tomes in section 18.790.020(Al shall be administered through Title 8 (Urban Forestry) of the Tigard Municipal Code. -175- Commentary 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation The other implementation elements include regular inspections of tree protection during development, two years of tree establishment for newly planted trees, and an inventory of trees and stands of trees for the City's GIS database. The tree protection inspection requirements conform to current requirements implemented through conditions of development approval. The tree establishment requirements allow for bonding of newly planted trees during the establishment period, require replacement of trees that die, and require a renewal of the bonding period if less than 80% of the planted trees survive (replacement of trees is required even if over 80% survive). The details of the inspection and tree establishment requirements are included in Section 9 of the TUFM. The inventory requirement is included so that the trees can be included in a publicly accessible GIS database. This could allow people to type in their address and find information about the protected trees on their property from the City's website. This will make information retrieval for both the City and public easier than through other instruments such as deed restrictions. -176- Code Amendments B. Inspections. Implementation of the urban fores= plan shall be inspected, documented, and reported the proiect arborist whenever an urban forestryplan is active. In addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the City Manager or designee for the purpose of monitoring the urban forestry plan on any site with an active urban fores=plan. The inspection requirements in Section 9,Part 1 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual shall apply to sites with an active urban forestryplan. C. Tree Establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the Tree Canopy site plan (per 18.790.030(BB)(3)) and Supplemental Arborist Report (;per 18.790.030(B)(4)) of a previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in Section 9,Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. D. Urban Forest Inventory. Following documentation of compliance with the urban fores=plan by the project arborist for each lot or tract, the City shall collect spatial and species specific data for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees for inclusion in a publicly accessible inventory of trees. Prior to any ground disturbance work the applicant a fee to cover the City's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestr plan. tree whieh is loeated oft of in a sensitive land afea as defined by,Chapter 18.775. The per-ffiit fer- , stability, a. Deposits of mud, dir-t, sediment or similaf material exceeding 1,12 eubic feet in voluffie an public el V11-- ets, adjacent pr-opefty, of into the stori:n and surface watef systeffi, either by direet deposit, dropping, disehafge or as a result of the aetieft of b. Evidenee of eoneentrated flows of water ever ba-re soi4s; turbid or sediment laden flews�, or evideffee of on site erosion stieh as riv-dlets on bafe soil slopes where the flow o Washington County Unified Sewer-age Ageney Ffp6fenffiefital Pfateetion aild Frosieft tfee feffie-val i no less than a 737,� canopy eover or-tio less than the 0 wetland, 0 B. Eff-ective date of veflnit. A tree removal pefffiit sha]4 be effee6ve fi9f ofie and ane half years fr-E)m the date of appfoval -177- Commentary 18.790.070 Modification to an Approved Urban Forestry Plan Two levels of modifications to an approved urban forestry plan will be allowed. Minor modification to will be completed as a staff level, technical review. The following items would be considered minor modifications: • Removal of hazard trees if there is sufficient documentation by a certified tree risk assessor; • Modification of the quantity,location, or species of trees to be planted, provided the same or greater tree canopy will result; • Modification of the location of tree protection fencing,provided the arborist certifies that the viability of the trees will not be impacted; • Modifying any other site elements (e.g. paving, building, etc.) that do not also require a modification to the location of the tree protection fencing; and • Maintenance of trees (pruning, mulching, fertilization, etc.) in accordance with tree care industry standards. Significant modifications to an approved urban forestry plan will be required to be a Type II land use decision. This will require notice of the surrounding neighbors for major changes such as cutting down existing trees and replacing them with new trees. The criteria for approving such modifications are: • The trees are being removed due to unforeseen circumstances; • There is no practicable alternative to tree removal; and • The canopy requirement will be met through a revised plan. -178- Code Amendments , title;fkts stated in the original appheation have chafiged-. D. Removal pefffiit not requited A tree removal perfftit sha]4 not be r-equired f6f the reffloval of a ; 4. is used f-af Gh—*---.-- --- Production, or- !and registered with the WashitTtofi Goef" Assessor's effiee as tax defeffed tree f�rfn or sma4l woodlands, btit does not stand 0-ii. Sensitive landa. H. Prohibition of coffiffiefeial forestry. Commercial f6r-estfy as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above,i s not . 18.790.070 Modification to an Approved Urban Forestry Plan A. General Provisions. Except as exempted in section 18.790.0708 below, any modification to an approved urban forestry plan shall be processed as a Type II land use decision as described below. B. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the Type I1 Modification to an Approved Urban Forestry Plan process: 1. Removal of anv tree shown as preserved in the Tree Canopy site plan (per 18.790.030E_1311 and Supplemental Arborist Report (per 18.790.03081(4)1 of a previously pproved urban forests plan provided: a. The project arborist provides a written report prior to removal attesting that either the condition rating (per Section 8, Part 3_ item d-vii of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) or suitability of preservation rating=(per Section 8, Part 3, item d-viii of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manuall of the tree has changed to of less than 2; and b. A revised Tree Canopy site and Supplemental Arborist Report are submitted prior to removal for review and approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously roved urban forests plan and demonstrate how either 40% effective tree canopy will be provided by the proposed combination of tree planting and preservation: and/or, payment of a Tree Canopy Fee in lieu of planting will be provided to make up the difference between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 40% effective tree canopy cover for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed. -179- Commentary 18.790.070 Modification to an Approved Urban Forest Plan (continued) -180- Code Amendments 2. Modification of the quantity, location; or species of trees to be planted in the Tree Canopy site plan and Supplemental Arborist Report of a previously pproved urban fores elan provided: a. The modification results in the same or greater amount of future tree canopy through tree planting as the previously approved urban forestry plan for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed: b. Payment of a Tree Canopy Fee in lieu of planting is not proposed as part of the modification: and c. A revised Tree Canopvsite plan and Supplemental Arborist Report are submitted prior to planting for review and approval that reflect the proposed changes t�previously proved urban forest lan. 3. Modification of the tree protection fencing location in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan (per 18.790.030(B)(2)1. Tree Canopvsite plan and Supplemental Arborist Report of a previously pproved urban forestry plan provided: a. The project arborist a written report prior to modification of the tree protection fencing describing how the proposed modification will continue to protect the viability of the trees shown as preserved in the previously pproved urban forestry plan;and b. A revised Tree Preservation and Removal site plan.Tree Canopy site plan and Supple Arborist Report are submitted prior to modification of the tree protection fencing for review and approval that reflect the proposed modifications to the previously yproved urban forestry lan. 4. Modification of any other site elements that do not require any modification of the tree protection fencing location or trees to be planted or preserved in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan. Tree Canopy site and Supplemental Arborist Report of a previously approved urban fores=plan; and 5. Maintenance of any trees in accordance with tree care industry standards. C. Application Procedures. Modifications to an approved urban forestry plan that are not exempted by 18.790.07081 shall be processed as a TWe II procedure,as governed by section 18.390.040:using approval criteria contained in Section 18.790.070(Dl below. D. Approval Criteria. The designated review body shall approve the modification to an aper urban forestry plan upon determining_ 1. The previously pproved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification: -181- Commentary 18.790.0680 lllegA Tree RefnevA Enforcement The "illegal tree removal" section has been revised to the "enforcement" section to clarify that violations other than illegal tree removal are possible. Generally, a violation is defined as a violation of the chapter or administrative rules intended to implement the chapter. General remedies include pursuing enforcement per chapter 1.16,issuing a stop work order per 18.230, and taking other legal action as allowed by law. Specific enforcement actions are required as a disincentive for specific violations that commonly occur. They are more fully described in the next page of commentary. -182- Code Amendments 2. There is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and 3. The applicant demonstrates through a revised urban forestrzplan_ compliance with section 18.790.030. 18.790.0680 Enforcement A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1 D e ffi va of a "ee: Noncompliance with any of the provisions of this chanter: 2. Noncompliance with any administrative rules intended to implement the provisions of this cha ter• 3. Noncompliance with an approved urban fores=plan; and 4. Submittal of false or misleading information duringthe approva�plementation of an urban forestry plan. d. iff nafteoffiphance with any other- seetieff of this title-. 2. Breach of a eendition of afty city permit of development approva4,vAiieh festdts ift damage B. General Remedies. If the Direetor City Manager or designee has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Pursue enforcement action pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 1.16: 2. Issue a stop work order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title: or 3. Take any other action allowed by law to abate or obtain compensation for the violation. C. Specific Remedies. In addition to the general remedies of section 18.790.080( l above_ the City Manager or designee shall require the following specific remedies for specific violations of this chapter below: -183- Commentary 18.790.0680 illegal Tree Removal Enforcement The specific remedies for specific violations that commonly occur are: • A minimum fine of$250 for illegal tree removal and a maximum fine of the cost to plant and maintain (for three years) a number of trees equal to the diameter of the tree removed; • A minimum fine of$250 and maximum fine of$500 for unauthorized moving of tree protection fencing; • A minimum fine of$250 and maximum fine of$500 for late or omitted tree protection inspection reports; and • Filing an ethics charge against an arborist that the City determines has submitted false or misleading information. The penalties above are intended to curb the frequency of the above violations by providing more specificity. -184- Code Amendments 1. AA= party found to have committed tree removal in noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter_ administrative rules intended to implement the provisions of this chapter_ or approved urban forestry plan shall be required to remit payment into the Tigard Urban Forestry Fund for tree planting and early establishment within 30 calendar days of issuance of a notice of violation of not less than $250 per unlawfully removed tree and not more than the City's cost to plant and maintain (per Tree Care Industry Standards and the standards in the Tigard Forestry Manual for a period of three (3) years) an equivalent number of trees with a combined caliper equal to the DBH of each unlawfully removed tree, 2. Any party found to have damaged_ moved_ or removed a tree protection fence in noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter_ administrative rules intended to implement the provisions of this chapter_ or approved urban forestry plan shall be required to remit payment into the Tigard Urban Forestry Fund for tree planting and early establishment within 30 calendar days of issuance of a notice of violation of not less than $250 for each violation and not more than$500 for each violation: 3. Any party found to have failed to provide inspection reports by the project arborist in noncompliance with section 18.790.060( ) of this chapter_ administrative rules intended to implement the provisions of this chapter_ or an approved urban fores=plan shall be required to remit payment into the Tigard Urban Forestry Fund for tree planting and early establishment within 30 calendar days of issuance of a notice of violation of not less than $250 for each omitted or late inspection report and not more than $500 for each omitted or late inspection report; and 4. If the City has reason to believe any project arborist has submitted any false or misleading information during the approv�plementation of an urban forestry plan_ the City shall file an Ethics Charge Statement with the International Society of Arboriculture against arborist. D. Exclusivity. The general and specific remedies set out in sections 18.790.060 (B) and (C) shall not be exclusive. 4. Require the ownef E)f the land on wl-rieh the tree was located to subfnit suffieient, showing that r-effie-eal of the tree was pefffiitted by this ehaptef; 2. Pttr-stiaiit to Seetion ., and/or-afty E)thef per-fgit of appfo-eal fa-r whieh this chapter was an approval stalidar-d; 3. issue a stop arder-pursuaiit to Section 18.230 of this ; Cade;4. iss— pufquant to Chapter- 1.16 of the Municipal 5. Take affy othef action allowed by law. -185- Commentary 18.790.0680 Enforcement (continued) -186- Code Amendments below;C. Fines. Notwithstanding any 641-1 of dgis tide, any party found to be ift -violation e this chapter pursuant to Seetion 4.16 of the Alunieipal Code sha4l he s*eet to a civil penalty o up to $500 and shaR be required to r-effiecly affy dafnage caused by the -�4olation. Sueh affd 2. Payffient of an additional 6vil penalty he estimated -valtte of any, unlaw-fi—illy fe aved or damaged tree, as de--i—d using the fnest etiffent international Soeiety o Ar-bar-icultufe's Guide for Plant Appraisa4-. c 2. if a feplaeement tree of the speeies of the tfee removed of daffiaged is flat reasonably wvailable, the Dir-eeter may aflow feplacement with a different species of equivalent natur-al ,, net be viable, the Diteetef shall r-equire replacement with ffiofe than one tfee in aecofdaflee the largest reasonably a-vai4able replaceffient trees. if this fittinber- of trees cannot be v4ably be planted on othef pfopefty within the City, either publie pfopefty of, with the eonsent Of 4. The planting of a replaeeffient tree shall take plaee in a ffiannef reasonably calet4ated to E. in liett of Payment. in lietl of ffee r-eplaeeffient under Seetioti D aba-ve, a party may, with the replaeefRent. F. ExclusivitlY. The r-effiedies set out in this seetion shall not be exelttsive.m -187- Commentary 18.798 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES -188- Code Amendments Chapter 18.798 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 18.798.010 Purpose 18.798.020 Definitions 18.798.030 Exemptions 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright 18.798.050 Uses Subject to Site Development Review 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review 18.798.070 Submission Requirements 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities 18.798.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.798.020 Definitions [No change.] 18.798.030 Exemptions [No change.] 18.798.040 Uses Permitted Outright [No change.] 18.798.050 Uses Permitted Subject to Site Development Review A. [No change.] B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Site Development Review per Subsection A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. [No change.] 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. [No change.] 6. [No change.] -189- Commentary 18.798.050 Uses Permitted Subject to Site Development Review The term "registered"has been changed to "certified" to reflect International Society of Arboriculture terminology. -190- Code Amendments 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting; b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, freestanding towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered rtifi arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. 8. [No change.] C. [No change.] 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review A. [No change.] B. Review criteria. Any use subject to review per Subsection A above, shall be evaluated using the following standards: 1. [No change.] 2. [No change.] 3. [No change.] 4. [No change.] 5. [No change.] 6. [No change.] -191- Commentary 18.798.060 Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review The term "registered"has been changed to "certified" to reflect International Society of Arboriculture terminology. -192- Code Amendments 7. Landscaping and screening. a. Landscaping shall be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and 95% opacity within three years of planting. b. When adjacent to or within residentially-zoned property, free-standing towers and accessory equipment facilities shall be screened by the planting of a minimum of four evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height at the time of planting. The planting of said trees shall be prescribed in number by a plan prepared by a registered rtifi arborist in locations that (1) most effectively screen the wireless facilities from residential uses and (2) promote the future survival of the trees while limiting adverse effects of the trees on abutting properties. Existing evergreen trees at least 15 feet in height may be used to meet the screening requirement of this section if the arborist demonstrates that they provide screening for abutting residential uses. 8. [No change.] C. [No change.] 18.798.070 Submission Requirements [No change.] 18.798.080 Collocation Protocol [No change.] 18.798.090 Abandoned Facilities [No change.] -193- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Preliminary Draft CONTENTS Section 1 - Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure [Not Included] Section 2 - Street Tree Planting Standards [Not Included] Section 3 - Street Tree Maintenance Standards [Not Included] Section 4 - Street Tree Removal Standards [Not Included] Section 5 - Median Tree Planting Standards [Not Included] Section 6 - Median Tree Maintenance Standards [Not Included] Section 7 - Median Tree Removal Standards [Not Included] Section 8 - Urban Forestry Plan Standards Preliminary Draft February 9, 2011 Section 9 - Urban Forestry Plan Implementation Standards Preliminary Draft February 9, 2011 Section 10 - Street Tree Soil Volume Standards Preliminary Draft February 9, 2011 Section 11 - Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards Preliminary Draft February 9, 2011 -194- APPENDICES Appendix A-Tree Risk Assessment Form [Not Included] Appendix B - Street Tree List [Not Included] Appendix C - Parking Lot Tree List Preliminary Draft February 9,2011 Appendix D - Columnar Tree List Preliminary Draft February 9,2011 Appendix E -Native Tree List Preliminary Draft February 9,2011 Appendix F -Nuisance Tree List Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 -195- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 8—Urban Forestry Plan Standards Preliminary Draft February 9, 2011 Part 1. Urban Forestry Plan—Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Requirements: a. The plan shall be Standard Size D (24" x 36")_ a reduced legal size_ and a PDF_ and include all items in Part 1; items b-o below. When required for clarity_ the development impact area information in Part 1, item i may detailed separately on multi lie plan sheets provided that all of the remaining items in Part 1 are included for reference. b. Date of drawing or last revision. c. North arrow. d. Bar scale as follows: i. Less than 1.0 acres: 1" = 10' ii. 1.0 - 5.0 acres: 1" = 20' iii. 5.0—20.0 acres: 1" = 50' iv. Over 20.0 acres: 1" = 100' e. Site address or assessor's parcel number. f. The location of existing andro osepropertylines. g. Location of existingand prop�pouaphic lines at 1' contours. h. The location and type of sensitive lands areas. i. Proposed activities within the development act area,including but not limited to: i. Construction of structures and walls: ii. Pavingawe avelin iii. Utility and irrigation installation: iv. Construction parking and construction equipment storage V. Lam ing; vi. Grading and filling: vii. Stockpiling3 viii. Demolition and tree removal, ix. Trenching and boring: and X. Any other activities that require excavation or soil disturbance. j. The trunk locations_ driplines_ assigned numbers. and "Xs" when applicable (indicating trees proposed for removall for the following trees within the development impact area and within 25 feet of the development impact area: i. Trees aeater than or equal to 6 inch DBH; ii. Heritage trees: iii. Street trees: and iv. Median trees; k. The trunk locations, driplines; and assigned numbers for other open grown trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH. c 1. The driplines of stand grown trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH that form a contiguous tree canopy. The driplin�y be delineated at the outer edge of the stand. Each stand shall be assigned a number. m. The location and type of proposed tree protection fencing. If the location of the tree protection fencing will be phased_ indicate the location of the tree protection fencing for -196- each corresponding phase. Tree protection fencing shall be minimum 5 foot tall metal unless otherwise approved by the City Manaaer or designee. n. Any supplemental tree preservation specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist has determined are necessary for the continued viability of trees identified for preservation. o. A signature of approval and statement from the project arborist, attesting that the tree preservation and removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8, Part 1 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Part 2. Urban Forestry Plan—Tree Canopy Site Plan Requirements: a. The plan shall be Standard Size D (24" x 36"), a reduced legal size. and PDF format and include all items in Part 2, b-o below. b. Date of drawing or last revision. c. North arrow. d. Bar scale as follows: i. less than 1.0 acres: 1" = 10' ii. 1.0 - 5.0 acres: 1" = 20' iii. 5.0—20.0 acres: 1" = 50' iv. Over 20.0 acres: 1" = 100' e. Site address or assessor's parcel number. f. The location of proposed proper . lines. g. The location of proposed building footprints, utilities and irrigation, streets, and other paved areas. h. The trunk locations, driplines_ and assigned numbers for all existing open grown trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH proposed reservation_ and all existing Heritage trees, Street trees, and Median trees proposed for preservation. Each tree on both the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan and Tree Canopv site plan shall be assigned the same number on bothplans. i. The dripline locations of stand grown trees proposed reservation greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH that form a contiguous tree canopy. The dripline may be delineated at the outer edge of the stand. Each stand shall be assigned a number. Each stand on both the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan and Tree Canopy site plan shall be assigned the same number on both plans, ). The location of existing opotential areas of tree growth limiting soils due to compaction. drainage, fertility,pH, contamination, or other factors. k. Methods for improvi g areas of tree growth limiting soils if tree planting is proposed in those locations. 1. The location; species, caliper (in inches for deciduous) or heigh-tin feet for evergreen). assigned numbers, and depiction of the mature canopy in feet as identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban ForesM Manual or by the City Manager or designee) for all trees to be planted and maintained as open gown trees. The minimum size for alltrees planted and maintained as open gown trees is 1'/a caliper for deciduous or 6 feet in height for evergreen. Open grown trees shall be selected from any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (except the Nuisance Tree List) unless otherwise approved City ManalZer or desilnee�en Uown tree approved lanting is not identified on ang of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. then the City Manager or designee shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread available scientific literature. -197- Overall_ the selection of open , own trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site, en grown trees shall be located as follows: i. Trees categorized as small stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 10 feet from the face of habitable budn - ii. Trees categorized as medium stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by t� Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 15 feet from the face of habitable buildin��; c iii. Trees categorized as large stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 20 feet from the face of habitable buildings: iv. Trees determined by the Cite Manager or designee to have a mature spread of less than 20 feet shall be considered small stature_ and shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted or existing;trees and 10 feet from the face of habitable buildings V. Trees categorized as small stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the Cite Manager or designee shall not be planted with the enter of their trunks closer than two (2) feet from any hard surface paving= vi. Trees categorized as medium stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two- and-a-half(2 '/zl feet from any hard surface navin vii. Trees categorized as large stature on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Mana er or r desi=ee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than three (3) feet from any hard surface paving viii. Where there are overhead utility lines_ the tree species selected shall be of a type which; at full maturity_ will not interfere with the lines. ix. Where there is existing mature tree canopy or other areas with significant shade_ the species selected shall be an understory tree according to available scientific literature. However_ understory trees shall only be planted when the planting of non- understory trees is precluded due to site constraints. m. The location; species; size (in height or container size , assi , ed number_ and depiction of the mature canopy dripline as identified in the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual delineated at the outer edge of the stand) for all trees to be planted and maintained as stand grown trees. The species of trees planted as stand grown trees shall be selected from the Native Tree List in the Tiv_ard Urban Forestry Manual. The depiction of the mature canopy dripline shall be consistent with dimensions in the Native Tree List. The minimum size of stand grown trees shall be 2 feet in height (from the top of the root balll or equivalent to a 1 ballon container size. Overall_the selection of stand grown trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site. Stand gown trees shall be located as follows: i. No closer than an average of 10 feet on center from newIV planted or existing trees: ii. No further than an average of 20 feet on center from newly planted or existing trees: iii. Trees categorized as small stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet from the face of habitable building -198- iv. Trees categorized as medium stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet from the face of habitable building V. Trees categorized as large stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet from the face of habitable building X. Trees categorized as small stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two (2) feet from any hard surface paving xi. Trees categorized as medium stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two- and-a-half 2 '/z) feet from any hard surface paving xii. Trees categorized as large stature on the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or by the City Manager or desi=ee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than three (3) feet from any hard surface paving xiii. Where there are overhead utility lines, the tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity.will not interfere with the lines. vi. Where there is existing mature tree canopy or other areas with significant shade, the species selected shall be an understory tree according to available scientific literature. However, understory trees shall o& be planted when the lanting of non- understory trees is precluded due to space constraints. n. Any supplemental specifications that the project arborist has determined are necessary for the viability of trees Proposed for Planting o. A signature of wyroval and statement from the project arborist, attesting that the Tree Cam site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8; Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Part 3. Urban Forestry Plan— Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements: a. The Supplemental Arborist Report shall be provided by the proiect arborist in nape DF format. and include all items in Part 3.b-o below b. Date of there ort. c. The name, address, telephone number, email address. ISA certified arborist number. and PNW-ISA certified tree risk assessor number of the project arborist. d. The following inventory idata in table or other such organized format corresponding to each existing open grown tree greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH and each Heritage tree. Street tree. and Median tree within the development impact area and within 25 feet of the development impact area in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan: i. The assigned tree number: u. The genus, species: and common name: iii. DBH (in inches): iv. Average tree canopy area Cin square calculated as follows: a. Average tree canopy area = (average trete e canopy spread/2)2 x Pi. V. Open grown tree or stand grown tree: vi. Heritage tree, street tree, median tree, or other: vii. Numerical condition rating(0-3) as follows: -199- Factors considered Condition Overall vigor Tree Amount of History Pests Extent ram cavo deadwood of failure of decay nsit Q Dead to severe <30%o Large:maior More than Infeste InfestM decline scaffold branches one scaffold conks and cavities 1 Declinin30 60% Twig and branch caffol Infeste One to a dieback branches few conks, small cavities 2 Average 6P90'Lo Smau tmdgs Small Minor Present ran h ping wounds o to 90-100% Little or none None Minor to Absent to excellent Insignificant resent ons runi un viii. Numerical suitability for preservation rating (0;3) as follows: Rating Considerations Q The tree is a"hazard tree"as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Tigard Development Code and "hazard tree abatement"as defined in Chapter 18.120 in the Tigard Development Code cannot be completed ed.n a manner that resutts in tree retention consisten wi h tree care'ndu trystandards. 1 The tree is dead_in severe decline_or declining but t may be retained if desirable for wildlife or other benefits because it is not considered a"hazard tree"or"hazard tree abatement"could be rf rm 2 The tree has average health and/or structural stability that could be alleviated with treatment:the tree will be less resilient to development impacts and will require more frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated as a"3". 3 The tree has good to excellent health and structural stabilit)T:the tree will be more resilient to development impacts,and will require less frequent management and monitoring after develop-m-= than a tree rated as a"2". ix. Proposed for preservation? (Y or N): X. Additional comments. e. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each existing stand in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan: i. The assil4ned stand number: ii. The genus, species, and common name of the tree species estimated to be dominant e = in the stand: iii. The genus_ species_ and common name of the tree species estimated to be the second and third most common in the stand; _ iv. The estimated average' DBH (in inches) of the dominant tree species in the stand: V. The estimated average DBH (in inches) of both the second and third most common tree species in the stand vi. The estimated average condition rating (perms; item d-viii of the dominant tree species in the stand: -200- vii. The estimated average condition rating (per Part 3, item d-viii of both the second and third most common tree species in the stand: viii. The total on site tree canopy areaCin square feet of the stand- ix. Numerical suitabilifor preservation rating of the stand (0-3) as follows: Rating Considerations 0 Nuisance trees are the dominant species in the stand and/or continued viability of the stand is unEkely due to pests,diseases,competition from nuisance tree or plant s ecies. ,dp rologic changes. or other factors. _ 1 The stand requires a currendyy cost prohibitive level of investment and management of pests_ diseases_nuisance tree or plant species,h,d� rolowi or other factors to become viable. 2 The stand is viable but requires moreLIT quent management and monitoring of pests,diseases_ nuisance tree or plant species,h dv�olog)T or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as-a"3" "3" 3 The stand is viable and requires less frequent management and monitoring of pests,diseases; nuisance tree or plant species,hydrology or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as a"2' X. The total on site tree canopy area lin square of the stand proposed for preservation: and xi. Additional comments. f. Supplemental specifications regarding the location and tWe of proposeprotection fencing. If the location of the tree protection fencing will be phased;indicate the location of the tree protection fencing for each corresponding phase, Tree protection fencingshall be minimum 5 foot tall metal unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. g. Supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the proms arborist has determined are necessary for the continued viability of trees identified for preservation. h. Supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the protect arborist has determined are necessary for the continued viability of stands identified for preservation. i. A general accounting of soil characteristics on site. Areas of existing or potential tree growth limiting soils due to compaction: drainage, fertilit,pH_ contamination, or other factors shall be clearly identified. Methods for improving areas of tree growth limiting soils if tree plantinI is proposed in those areas shall be specificallyv add. j. The following inventorr data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each open grown tree proposed for planting the Tree Canopy site plan: i. The assigned tree number ii. The genus, species_ and common name: iii. The call er in inches for deciduous; or height (in feet for evergreenl: iv. The average mature tree canopy pread (in feet) as identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. If a tree proposed planting is not identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, then the City Manager or ddesivgnee shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread available scientific literature. V. The average mature tree canoe area in square calculated as follows: a. Average mature tree canopy area = (average mature tree canopy spread/212/21 x Pi. -201- vi. The proposed available soil volume (in cubic feet) for each tree according to the methodology in Section 10_P= 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. If the available soil volume is greater than 1000 cubic feet, then it is OK to note soil volume as simply"over 1000 cubic feet": and vii. Additional comments. k. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each stand proposed for planting in the Tree Canoe site plan: i. The assigned stand number: ii. The species_ and common name of trees proposed for planting in the stand: iii. The average spacingin,(in feet) and total number of each tree species pru osed for pl�g_in the stand: iv. The height (in feet) or container size (inalg lons) ofspecies proposcd for plug in the stand. V. The mature tree canopy dripline area of the stand delineated at the outer edge of the stand. vi. Additional comments 1. Any supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the proms arborist has determined are necessary for the viability of trees propos planting. m. A summanr in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the effective tree canopy cover that will be provided for each lot or tract that will result from the land use review type as follows: i. The area (in square feet) of each lot or tract that will result from the land use review type. ii. The effective tree canopy area that will be provided for each lot or tract which shall be considered the sum of following a. Double the canopy area in squares) of all open grown trees in the Tree Canopy site plan proposed for preservation within each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that will result from the land use review type. Only trees with both a condition rating and suitabilityforpreservadon rating of 2 or greater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The lot or tract (or associated right of way) with the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses shall be assigned the effective tree canopy cover area for the corres onding tree. b. Double the canopy area (in squares) of all stands in the Tree Canopy site plan proposed for preservation within each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that will result from the land use review Only stands with both a condition rating and suitability for preservation ratingof�reater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The eligible tree canopyarea shall be the portion directly above each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that will result from the land use review type. The canopy area of any stand grown tree the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses outside of the subject lot or tract (or associated right of way) shall not be eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover requirement for that lot or tract. c. The mature canopy area lin squares) of all o pen grown trees in the Tree Canopy site plan to be planted within each lot or tract (or associated right of wa)) that will result from the land use review type. -202- d. The mature canopy area (in square feet) of each stand in the Tree Canopy site plan to be planted within each lot or tract (or associated rivht of way) that will result from the land use review type.The eligible mature tree canopy area shall be the portion directly above each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that will result from the land use review type. e. Divide the effective tree canny area by the lot or tract area to determine the effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract that will result from the land use review tie. n. If the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than 40% for any lot or tract that will result from the land use review type, calculate the Tree Canopy Frequired to meet the 40% effective tree canopy cover requirement according to the methodolowz in Section 8 Part 4 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. o o. A signature�proval and statement from the proiect arborist; attesting that: i. The Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8_Part 1 of the Tigaard Urban Forestry M ii. The Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8; Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: and iii. The Supplemental Arborist Report meets all of the requirements in Section 8;.Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Part 4. Urban Forestry Plan—Tree Canopy Fee Calculation Requirements: a. The Tree Canopy Fee shall be calculated as follows: i. Find the difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy and 40% effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract that will not provide 40% effective tree canopy cma-and ii. Multiply the difference (in square feet a. The most recent unit tree cost (in $ per square inch) established by the PNW-ISA for coniferous trees in the Willamette Valley_ OR divided by 25. The City of Tigard Ci Manager or designee is authori fed to adopt rules consistent with this section. -203- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 9—Urban Forestry Plan Implementation Standards Preliminary Draft February 9. 2011 Part 1. Urban Forestry P1�Flementation Standards—Inspection Requirements: a. After tree protection measures are installed and prior to any ground disturbance other than what is necessary for the installation of tree protection measures and erosion_ sediment_ and pollutant controls measures_ the project arborist shall Perform a site inspection_ document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestryplan_ and send written verification with asignature directly to the City Manager o�ee within 1 week of the site ins ection. b. Following the completion of item a above_ the project arborist shall perform bimonthly (twice monthly site inspections_ document compliance/non-compliance with the urban foresplan, and send written verification with a signaturapproval directly to the City Manager or desiy_nee within 1 week of the site inspection. c. When the land use review type will result in the division of land into multiple lots or tracts. the applicant shall provide on the building site plan for each resulting lot or tract_ the ma infortion detailed in Section 8_ Part 2 items b-g of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual consistent with the approved urban forestry plan. Prior to issuance of any building ermits for each resulting lot or tract_ the project arborist shall perform a site inspection_ document comv liance/non-compliance with the urban forest y plan_ and send written verification with a signatures royal with the building permit submittal documents. d. When the land use review tune will result in the division of land into multiple lots or tracts_ the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for all lots or tracts that are not proposed to be associated with a building permit_ document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan_ and send written verification with a si=atur�proval to the City Manager or designee prior to the issuance of the first building permit resulting from the land use review type. e. Prior to final building inspection for any lot or tract with an active urban forester plan_ the project arborist shall perform a site inspection_ document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan_ and send written verification with a signature of approval to the Citv Manager or designee. Part 2. Urban Forestry Plan Implementation Standards — Tree Establishment Requirements: a. Prior to any Zround disturbance work_ the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond for all trees to be planted per t�roved urban forestry plan. The total bond amount shall be equivalent to the City's average cost to plant and maintain a tree per the applicable standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual for a period of 2 years after lanting multiplied by the total number of trees to be planted and maintained. b. Following final building inspection or upon acceptance by the City Manager or designee when there is no final building inspection_ the tree establishment period shall immediately begin and continue for a period of 2 years. -204- c. When the land use review type will result in the division of land into multiple lots or tracts_ there shall be a separate tree establishment period for each resulting lot or tract where trees are shown to be planted in the approved urban forestryplan. d. Following the two year tree establishment period for each lot or tract_ the bond shall be cow ondinVly reduced based on tree survival following a site inspection; documentation of successful tree establishment and/or replacement according; to item e below_ and receipt by the City Manager or designee of written verification of findings and a signature of approval by the project arborist. e. For planted grown trees_ successful establishment shall be considered 80% survival of the open gown trees planted on the lot or tract and replacement of 100% of the remaining open grown trees planted on the lot or tract that did not survive. f. For planted stand grown trees_ successful establishment shall be considered survival of at least 80% of the original stand own trees planted on the lot or tract. g. If successful establishment for open grown trees is less than 80% for any lot or tract_ the 2 year tree establishment period shall reset for that lot or tract and the establishment process for en grown trees described in Part 2_ items b-f above shall be repeated until the successful establishment requirement for open g=rown trees is met. _ h. If successful establishment for stand gown trees is less than 80% for any lot or tract_ the 2 year tree establishment period shall reset for that lot or tract and the establishment process for stand grown trees described in Part 2_ items b-f above shall be repeated until the successful establishment requirement for stand grown trees is met. _ The City ofT'igard Citv Manager or designee is authodzed to adopt rules consistent with this section. -205- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 10— Street Tree Soil Volume Standards Preliminary February 9; 2011 Part 1. Street Tree Soil Volume Standards—Soil Volume Requirements: a. Street trees required to be Planted by chapter 18.745 shall be provided the following minimum soil volumes based on the width of the proposed of way measured from the edy-e of the street (excluding curb) towards the subject site: Right of Wa i Minimum Soil Volume Requires if r U to 10 400 Over 10 u to 12 5-0-0 - Over 12 up to 14 6ffl Over 14 a to 16 700 Over 16 u to 18 800 Over 18 Mp LQ=2=09QQ Over 201000 Part 2. Street Tree Soil Volume Standards—Soil Volume Calculation Requirements: a. For open soil volumes, soil depth is assumed to be 3 feet if the Tree Canopy site Plan (Per 18.790.00(3)) and Supplemental Arborist Report der 18.790.030(B)(411 demonstrate that the tree will not be Planted in an area of tree growth limiting soil or the area of tree growth limiting soil will be adequately amended to a depth of 3 feet in the specified planting area. b. Areas of tree growth limiting soils that have-not been adequately amended shall not be eligible for credit towards the minimum soil volume requirements in Part 1 of this section. c. For covered soil volumes, the soil depth is equal to the depth of the covered soil volume as demonstrated by the soil volume plan in Part 3 of this section. d. Soil volumes for open soil volumes shall be calculated (in cubic feet) by measuring the op=en soil volume area an square feet) times an assumed soil depthof 3 feet, e. Soil volumes for covered soils volumes shall be calculated (in cubic feet) by muldgbing the area of the covered soil volume times the depth of the covered soil volume as demonstrated by the Soil Volume Plan in Part 3 of this section. f. The total soil volume provided for a tree shall be calculated (in cubic feed by adding ddingthe available open soil volume (per Part 2, item c above) to the available covered soil volume (per Part 2,item d above) within a 50 foot radius of the tree. g. The open and covered soil volumes are considered "available" to a tree only when they are directly connected to the tree by a continuous path of no less than 3 feet in width. h. In addition. covered soil volumes are considered "available" to a tree only when demonstrated as available by the Soil Volume Plan in Part 3 of this section. i. All soil volumes calculated per this section shall be displayed for each corresponding tree in the required Supplemental Arborist Report. -206- Part 3. Street Tree Soil Volume Standards— Soil Volume Plan Requirements: a. A Soil Volume Plan shall be required for any street tree required to be planted by chapter 18.745 if a covered soil volume is proposed to be used to meet any portion of the minimum soil volume requirements in Part 1 of this section. The Soil Volume Plan shall include all items in Part 3,b-e below. b. A Standard Size D (24" x 36"), a reduced legal size. and a PDF Soil Volume Plan by registered landscape architect (thy roject landscape architect) that includes all of the following elements: i. Date of drawing or last revision: ii. North arrow; iii. Bar scale: iv. Site address or assessor's parcel number. V. The name, address, telephone number, email address, and license number of the project lope architect. vi. The location of property lin�proposed roperty lines if different from existing vii. The location of proposed building footprints. utilities and irrigation, streets. and other paved areas. _ viii. The assigned numbers (consistent with the Tree Canopy site plan and Supplemental Arborist Report of a concurrent urban fores=plan) of all trees. on ix. The locatiof each open soil volume area and each covered soil volume area considered "available" for each tree. x. The City of Tigard Standard Supplemental Covered Soil Volume Plan Drawings and Associated Specifications unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. If required for clarity, this information may be detailed on ase crate lap she(t. c. When the land use review type will result in the division of land into multiple lots or tracts. the applicant shall provide on the buildingsiplan for each resulting lot or tract, the ma infortion detailed in Part 3 items b-i to x of this section consistent with the approved Soil Volume Plan and a signature of approval pproval from the project landscape architect. d. The project landscape architect shall document compliance/non-compliance (including but not limited to materials receipts and observations from site inspections) with the approved Soil Volume Plan. and send written verification with a siZnature of approval to the City Manager or prior to final building inspection for all lots,parcels; or tracts associated with each particular tree. When the land use review type will result in the division of land intim le lots or tracts, the project landscape architect shall provide the documentaLn/verification described above for all lots or tracts that are not pro osed to be associated with a building permit _prior to the issuance of the first building per resulting from the land use review type. e. If any subsequent modifications to an approved Soil Volume Plan is required to meet the minimum soil volume requirements in Part 1 of this section, a revised Soil Volume Plan that meets the requirements of Part 3 of this section shall be provided that reflect the revisions. The City of Tigard City Manager or designee is authori zed to adopt rules consistent with this section. -207- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 11—Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards Preliminary Draft February 9. 2011 Part 1. Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards—Parking Lot Tree Requirements: a. Parkin;lot trees shall be Planted in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. b. Parking lot trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 t/z inches (for deciduous, or height of a-6 feet (for evergreen) at the time of Planting c. Parking lot tree species shall be from the Parking Lot Tree List_ unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. d. Parking lot trees shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than three (3) fee from any hard surface Davina,including curbs. e. Parking lot trees shall be evenly distributed within the parking area, and no greater than six (6) feet from the parking area. f. Parking lot trees shall be provided a minimum of 1000 cubic feet of soil volume per tree. Part 2. Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards—Soil Volume Calculation Requirements: a. Soil volumes for open soil volumes shall be calculated (in cubic feet) by measuring the open soil volume area (in square feet) times an assumed soil depth of 3 feet, b. Soil volumes for covered soils volumes shall be calculated (in cubic feet) by mules vigg the area of the covered soil volume times the depth of the covered soil volume as demonstrated by the Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plan in Part 3 of this section. c. The total soil volume provided for a tree shall be calculated (in cubic feet) by adding; the available open soil volume (per Part 2, item a above) to the available covered soil volume aper Part 2_item b above) within a 50 foot radius of the tree. d. The oven and covered soil volumes are considered "available" to a tree only when theme directly connected to the tree by a continuous path of no less than 3 feet in width_ and demonstrated as available by the Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plan in Part 3 of this section. e. All soil volumes calculated per this section shall be disPlaved for each corresponding tree in the lemental Arborist Report (per 18.790.03081(4)) when an urban forestry plan is concurrently required. Part 3. Parking Lot Tree Canopy Standards—Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plan Require a. A Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plan shall be required unless the City Manager or designee determines the requirements of a concurrent urban forestry plan per chapter 18.790 will meet the equivalent standards in Part 3 of this section. The Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plan e shall include all items in Part 3_b-e below. b. A Standard Size D (24" x 36")_ a reduced legal size_ and a PDF Parking Lot Tree Can Plan by a re�'stered landscape architect (the project landscape architect) that includes all of the following elements: i. Date of drawing or last revision: ii. North arrow; iii. Bar scale: iv. Site address or assessor's parcel number. -208- V. The name_ address_ telephone number_ email address_ and license number of the project landscape architect. vi. The location of property lines or proposed property lines if different from existing vii. The location of proposed building footprints_ utilities and irrigation_ streets_ and other paved areas. viii. The location of areas of tree growth limiting- soils due to compaction; drainage, fertiliM pH_ contamination, or other factors. ix. Methods for improving areas of tree growth limitingsoilslanting is proposed in those areas. If required for clarity_ this information may be detailed on a separate plan sheet. X. The location of all parking lot striping and the location of the limits of the parking area,which includes all parking spaces_ all landscape islands_ and all parking aisles. xi. Assigned numbers (consistent with the Tree Canopy site plan per 18.790.030(B)(31 and Supplemental Arborist Report per 18.790.030(B)(4) of a concurrent urban forestrplan l of all parking lot trees. xii. The location_ species_ and caliper (in inches for deciduous) or heighhtin feet for evergreen) of a�g lot trees. xiii. Depiction of the average mature tree canopy spread (in feet as identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) for each parking lot tree. If a parking lot tree is not identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual_ then the City Manager or designee shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread using available scientific literature. xiv. The location of each open soil volume area and each covered soil volume area considered "available" for each tree. XV. If covered soil volumes are proposed to meet any portion of the soil volume requirement in Part 1, item f of this section_ the City of Tigard Standard Supplemental Covered Soil Volume Plan Drawings and AssociatedSpecifications unless otherwise approved by t� Manager or designee. If required for clarity_ this information may be detailed on a sWarate ==plan sheet. c. A summary in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the prop _percent tree canopy cover at maturity directly over the parking area as follows: i. The area lin squares of the parking area as shown in the Parking Lot Tree Canopy ii. Theme e mature tree canopy area for each parking lot tree as follows: a. Average mature tree canopy area = (average mature tree canopy spread/V x Pi. iii. The percentage of the average mature tree canopy area for eacha�'�g lot tree that will be directly over the parking area. iv. The total combined mature tree canopy area (in square feet) of all parking lot trees less the percentage not directly over the parking area. V. The total combined mature tree canopy area directlyover arkin; area fin square feet) divided by the parking area. d. The project lope architect shall document compliance/non-compliance (includingrbut not limited to materials receipts and observations from site inspections) with the approved parking lot tree canopy plan_ and send written verification with a signature of approval to the City Manager or designee prior to final buildinginsspecti�n or prior to final acceptance when there is no final building inspection. -209- e. If any subsequent modifications to an approved Parking Lot Tree Canopy Plarequired revised Parking Lot Tree Canobv Plan that meets the requirements of Part 3 of this section shall be provided that reflect the revisions. The City of Tigard City Manazer or designee is authorised to adopt rules consistent with this section. -210- Parking Lot Trees recommended for parking lots,large stature Common Name Scientific Name Height feet Spread(feet) Soil Type Suitable for under powertines Special Features/Consideration Bi leaf Ma le Acer macro h Ilum 70' 60' any No native to Portland metropolitan region Red Maple Acer rubrum 50' 40' any No brilliant red fall color Euro can Beech Fa us s lvatica 50' 40' well drained No beautiful bark White Ash Fraxinus americana 60' 45' any No plant seedless varieties Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 50' 40' any No plant seedless varieties Maidenhair Tree Ginkgo biloba 60' 45' any No many large stature varieties available,plant males only Kentucky Coffeetree G mnocladus dioicus 65' 50' any No fragrant flowers Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandilkra 70' 60' any No broadleaf evergreen,large fragrant white flowers Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 55' 40' any No evergreen conifer Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 70' 40' any No evergreen conifer Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestns 50' 40' any No evergreen conifer,striking orange bark London Planetree Platanus x aceri olia 'Bloodgood' 50' 40' any No disease resistant,pollution tolerant Oregon White Oak uercus a ana 65' 50' any No native to Portland metropolitan region Willow Oak Querrusphellos 60' 45' any No tolerant of urban stresses Red Oak Quercus rubra 60' 45' any No beautiful fall color Accolade Elm Ulmus'Morton' 70' 60' any No graceful vase shaped tree,disease resistant substitute for American elm Lacebark Elm Ulmus a-i olia 60' 50' any No interesting mottled bark Pioneer Elm Ulmus'Pioneer' 50' 50' any No rounded spreading crown,disease resistant substitute for American elm Ore on M rtle Umbellulana calf arnica 70' 50' any No broadleaf evergreen Zelkova Zelkova serrata 65' 50' any INo attractive shade tree -211- Columnar Trees (canopy spread of less than 20 feet at maturity,small stature) Common Name Scientific Name Height(feet) Spread(feet) Sod Type Suitable for under powerlines Special Features/Considerations Armstrong Mable Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' 45' 15' any No orange-red fall color BOwhall Maple Acer rubrum 'Bowhall' 40' 15' any No bright red fall color Frans Fontaine Hornbeam Carpinus betulus 'Frans Fontaine' 35' 15' any No narrowest of the Caoinus b. cultivars Dawyck Purple Beech Fagus ylvatca 'Dawyck Purple' 40' 12' any No purple leaves for entire growing season Princeton Sentry Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 'Princeton Sentry' 40' 15' any No seedless,bright yellow fall color Arnold Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulpifera 'Arnold' 40' 10' any No fast grower Edith Bogue Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 'Edith Bogue' 30' 15' any No broadleaf evergreen Galaxy Magnolia Magnolia x 'Galaxy' 30' 15' any No showy pink flowers Tschonoskii Crabapple Malus tscbonoskii 30' 15' any No good fall color Arnold Sentinel Austrian Pine Pinus nigra `Arnold Sentinel' 35' 10' any No evergreen conifer Fastigiate White Pine Pinus strobus 'Fastigiata' 30' 10' well drained No evergreen conifer Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides 30' 15' any No native to the Portland Metro region Capital Pear Pyrus callegana 'Capital' 35' 12' any No glossy summer foliage Chanticleer Pear Pyrus callegana 'Chanticleer' 40' 15' any No resistant to fireblight Columnar Sargent Cherry Prunus saTentii 'Columnaris' 35' 15' any No pink flowers and reddish bark Skyrocket Oak Quercus robar'Fastigiate' 45' 15' well drained No may hold brown leaves into winter Crimson Spire Oak Quercus roburxQ.alba 'Crimschmidt' 45' 15' well drained No red fall color evergreen conifer,species native to the Giant Arborvitae"Virescens" Tbuja p icata 'Virescens' 25' 12' moist No Portland Metro Region Corinthian Linden Tilia cordata 'Corzam' 45' 15' any No narrowest of the linden cultivars Columnar Zelkova Zelkova serrata 'Musashino" 45' 15' any No fine textured leaves -212- Native Trees Common Name Scientific Name H6- ht feet Spread feet Stature Suitable for under powerlines Primary Habitat Types Grand Fir Abies randis 150' 40' Large No Wetland,Riparian,Upland Bi -leaf Maple Acer macro h llum 65' 50' Large No Upland Red Alder Alnus rubra 100' 40' Large No Riparian,Upland Madrone Arbutus men .esii 40' 30' Medium No Upland Pacific Do ood Cornus nuttallu 40' 30' Medium No Upland Black Hawthorn Cratae us dou lase 25' 20' Small Yes Wetland,Riparian,Upland Oregon Ash Fraxinus lati olia 60' 30' Large No Wetland,Riparian Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 200' 30' Large No Upland Black Cottonwood Po ulus balsamifera ssp. trichoca a 175' 40' Large No Wetland,Riparian uakin As en Po ulus tremuloides 30' 15' Medium No Wetland,Riparian Bitter Cher Prunus emarZinata 30' 20' Medium No Riparian,Upland Dau las Fir Pseudotsu a men esu 180' 40' Large No Upland GaLry Oakuercus a ana 65' 50' Large No Upland Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 35' 25' Medium No Riparian,Upland Pacific Willow Salix lucida ssp.lasiandra 40' 30' Medium No Wetland,Riparian Ri 'd Willow Salix rigida van macrogemma 30' 20' Small No Wetland,Riparian Scouler Willow Salix scoulenana 40' 40' Medium No Wetland,Riparian,Upland Pacific Yew Taxus brevi olia 40' 30' Medium No Riparian,Upland Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 100' 30' Large No Wetland,Riparian,Upland Western Hemlock Tsu a hetero h lla 150' 40' Large No Riparian,Upland -213- Nuisance Tree List Common Name Scientific Name Photos Photos Photos NOYwa ma le Acer latanoides leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Sycamore ma le Acer seudo latanus leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima leaf detail fruit detail flower detail European white birch Betula pendula leaf detail fruit detail flower detail English hawthorn Cratae us mono na leaf detail fruit detail flower detail English hollIlex a ui olium leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa leaf detail fruit detail flower detail White o lar Po ulus alba leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Sweet cherry Prunus avium leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Black locust Bobinia pseudoacacia leaf detail fruit detail flower detail ,European mountain ash Sorbus aucu aria leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Siberian elm Ulmus pumila leaf detail fruit detail flower detail -214- City of Tigard Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Re: Tree Grove Preservation Program Date: January 21, 2011 Introduction The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be providing staff with input on the Tree Grove Protection Program at its February 9, 2011 meeting. Please note that this topic will be discussed at several meetings. Staff is proposing to address the broader conceptual topics at this meeting, then discuss specific program/code proposals in April and if needed, again in June. This memo is intended to provide the CAC with background on the topic, commentary on CAC priority issues related to the topic, and discussion items for potential options for this portion of the UFCR project. The table below summarizes the code topic, relates it to CAC priority issues and Urban Forestry Master Plan goals, and lists the main code sections that will likely be impacted by the revisions. Code Topic CAC Priority Issues Urban Forestry Primary Tigard Master Plan Code Sections Goals Urban Forestry -Tree Code (clear standards,view towards future) 1.1, 1.2,3.1, 3.2, Chapter 18.370 Standards for -Balance development and standing trees 5.1, 5.2,6.4 Chapter 18.715 Development -Review Mitigation Chapter 18.730 -Groves and Forest Functions Chapter 18.775 -Incentives for Tree Retention Chapter 18.790 -Conservation Easements Paid for through Mitigation -Multi-level permits -Lot standard size flexibility and street variation to support tree retention -Nuisance vs. Desired Species -Solar access/view corridors Background Developing a tree grove preservation program was identified as a top priority of the community during the Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) process. This is partly in response to a significant decline in tree grove acreage over the past decade. The intent is to preserve Tigard's -215- remaining groves of native trees through a flexible and incentive-based program, while allowing for the full development of property under current zoning. The program will be developed following State Goal 5 rules, which are specific about process and evidence requirements needed to adopt land use regulations intended to protect natural resources. Even though the City's approach to tree grove preservation is proposed to be flexible and incentive based,it must meet the same Goal 5 standards as if a more regulatory approach was intended. While developing the program, it is important to consider the differences between publicly and privately owned properties and also the differences between properties already afforded protection from development through the City's sensitive lands code and that which has no protection. The CAC will primarily be focused on privately owned, developable property, but will also need to consider whether to strengthen protections for tree groves on sensitive lands. There are currently five types of sensitive lands in Tigard: a. 100-year floodplain b. Slopes exceeding 25% c. Drainage ways (Title 3 streams and stream setback areas) d. Wetlands (Title 3 wetlands and wetland setback areas) e. Significant habitat areas (Title 13 lands) Sensitive lands identified in a-d above have regulations in place to protect them from development. Item e overlaps the other sensitive lands in a lot of cases. However, outside of the overlapping areas there are no regulations in place for Title 13 lands protection;it is all voluntary. Winterbrook Planning has inventoried 70 significant tree groves (544 acres) within the City of Tigard. Tree groves overlap all five of the sensitive lands and some are located outside of sensitive lands (see Attached Maps). • 335 acres of tree groves overlap sensitive lands a-d (some protections from development are in place) • 159 acres of tree groves are located on Title 13 lands outside of a-d (no protection from development, some incentives for preservation are available) • 50 acres of tree groves are not located on sensitive lands (no protection, no incentives for preservation) • 131 acres of tree groves are located on buildable lands (these groves are the most vulnerable to development) Although sensitive lands identified in a-d above are regulated and all sensitive lands require a tree removal permit, tree groves per se are not protected in any of these areas. Proper erosion control is the only criteria for issuing the permit and no mitigation is required if outside of a development application. Most of Tigard's citizens are on record as supporting tree grove protection. However, many property owners in Tigard are concerned that additional regulations may limit their development potential or increase uncertainty costs associated with future development. The City Council is interested in protecting tree groves so long as the development potential for each privately owned property is maintained. -216- So, incentives such as density transfer; adjustable building height, setback, parking, access and lot coverage standards; relief from minimum and maximum density requirements; tax incentives; and public recognition are all on the table. The Community Development Code currently contains some language that could relate to the preservation of tree groves. Below are some sections that could be used and/or strengthened to be used as part of a preservation program. Chapter 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments Chapter 18.370 allows for some flexibility to lot line setbacks, subdivision development standards, minimum density requirements, minimum parking standards, street improvement standards, and some other standards that may not be applicable to preserving a tree grove. The purpose of the chapter is to allow adjustments and variances for unusual circumstances, including adjustments for street requirements to preserve natural resources and mature trees. The Goal 5 adopted tree grove inventory could be included as criteria for being granted a variance or adjustment under this chapter. Chapter 18.715 (,Density Computations) Chapter 18.715 establishes the criteria for determining the minimum and maximum number of dwelling units permitted during development of property. The chapter outlines the lands that do not count towards the net developable area of a property. This includes 4 of the 5 sensitive land types as defined in Chapter 18.775. The sensitive lands to be subtracted include: 1) 100-year floodplain; 2) Slopes exceeding 25%; 3) Drainage ways; 4) Wetlands. Significant habitat areas are the 5`'' type of sensitive land and are not required to be subtracted from density computations,but it is optional. The chapter also establishes density transfer standards for the sensitive lands that are subtracted to calculate net developable area. Lands located in the 100-year floodplain, slopes exceeding 25%, and drainage ways are eligible for 25% density transfer to the net developable area. Lands located in wetland areas are eligible for 100% density transfer in R-12, R-25, and R-40 zoning districts. Density transfer is not currently allowed for significant habitat areas. Chapter 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards) The purpose of this chapter is to present exceptions to the height and setback standards which apply in various zoning districts as detailed in Chapters 18.510, 18.520 and 18.530. Flexible and/or more stringent setback standards are designed to allow for the maximum use of land and to allow for a varied building layout pattern while ensuring there will be adequate open space, light, air and distance between buildings to protect public health and safety. Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands). -217- Chapter 18.775 defines sensitive lands as 1) 100-year floodplain; 2) Slopes exceeding 25%; 3) Drainage ways; 4) Wetlands; 5) Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat as designated on the City's Significant Habitat Areas Map. The chapter identifies what development can and cannot take place in each type of sensitive land and when a sensitive lands permit is required. The chapter also outlines the process for adjustments, variances, plan amendment options, and verifying significant habitat areas. Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) Chapter 18.790 outlines mitigation requirements for tree removal during development. The chapter also outlines incentives for tree retention, requires tree removal permits in sensitive lands (see definition above), and outlines the process to address illegal tree removal. Permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands, and are issued if adequate erosion control is provided. Discussion Items Staff would like the CAC to provide guidance on the following options for consideration when developing tree grove protection program standards: 1. Should protection of an inventoried tree grove be included as a valid reason for being granted a variance or adjustment? a. Yes b. No 2. Would more flexibility in granting variances and adjustments for tree groves be acceptable? a. Yes b. No 3. What incentives do you think are appropriate for preserving tree groves without restricting development potential? a. Transferring density from the tree grove portion to the non-tree grove portion of a site? Full Partial If partial,what limitations would you place on density transfer? b. Relief from zoning restrictions for the purpose of preserving a tree grove? Building setback? Yes No Building height? Yes No Building coverage? Yes No Parking requirements? Yes No Local street widths? Yes No c. Relief from Metro minimum density requirements so long as the minimum density on the buildable area of the site (as opposed to the tree grove itself) is maintained? Yes No d. Other? Please describe: -218- 4. If tree groves are to be preserved while maintaining the development potential of privately owned properties, the community will need to accept some sort of clustering on the remaining buildable portions of a site. Which of the following do you think the community would be willing to accept if necessary to protect a significant tree grove? a. Small lot single-family housing? Yes No b. Attached (row) housing? Yes No c. Multiple-family housing? Yes No d. Reduced front and side yard setbacks?Yes No e. 3-4 story buildings? Yes No f. More on-street parking? Yes No 5. Currently, the decision to grant a variance or adjustment is made by the Planning Director and can be appealed to the Hearings Officer. If greater flexibility is granted to property owners with an inventoried tree grove,is a decision by the Planning Director still acceptable? a. Yes b. No 6. Currently a neighborhood meeting is required for a Type II or higher decision. Does this provide enough opportunity for neighbors to review and comment if the discretionary variances and adjustments granted to save the tree grove result in more dense development on the non-tree grove portion of the site? a. Yes b. No 7. If tree groves are to be protected on private property, should property owners be able to count on clear and objective standards for development review? In other words,if incentives such as density transfer are provided in exchange for protecting a tree grove (or a portion of a grove), should neighbors not be able to limit the application of these incentives due to perceived adverse neighborhood impacts? a. Yes b. No 8. If incentives are provided for tree grove protection and the full development potential of a property is allowed, should the City also assist with the purchase of the tree grove or funding a conservation easement? a. Yes b. No 9. Should funds be identified and budgeted for the preservation of tree groves through purchase and/or conservation easements? a. Yes b. No 10. Currently, a removal permit is required for trees on sensitive lands and the only criterion for issuing permit is adequate erosion control. Should the City alter the review criteria to provide more protection for trees within sensitive lands and tree groves? a. Yes -219- b. No 11. Currently,mitigation is required for certain trees during the development process. The preliminary draft of the code is going away from this model for individual trees as long as replacement canopy is provided. Should mitigation for tree groves be required as part of the package to incentivize the preservation of part or the entire grove? a. Yes b. No 12. If mitigation is required for tree groves, should a development be exempt from mitigation if it preserves a portion of the grove? a. Yes b. No 13. What percentage of a tree grove would be acceptable to preserve in order to be exempt from a mitigation requirement? a. 25% b. 40% c. 50% d. 75% e. Other 14. Should the City consider creating a new Parks/Open Space zoning district that would apply to City owned properties purchased for their park/natural resource value? a. Yes b. No -220- Tree Grove Preservation Program City of Tigard 1 ■ .. �', � •- .111 ■ -�� 70 ' • � ,. �E fIGARDITrec 544.1 I /r/� ■��® mm M WE IN M M 11 101 LIN RER WE NVA Ar Tigard City Bound; Inventoried Tree Grove L Significant Habitat Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory IF -�,S ` ■� i _ate Lir ` � � f ■ :o - ��'� � _ ��'! �r , � � . ' ■ iii, _ ■ „�/ ,� Tree Grove Preservation Program City of Tigard 70 groves N ' 544.1 acres 0125 250 500 1 , i Feet I October 6 2010 I I I I I I I I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 o I 00 0 o I 0 0 0 I I I I I I QInventoried Tree Grove Protected Sensitive Lands Unprotected Sensitive Lands Example Property Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory Taxlot Boundary -222-