Loading...
04/06/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 6, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Hasman, Muldoon, and Vice President Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Fishel, Vermilyea, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gus Duenas, City Engineer; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Doherty reported that she'd attended the Metro 101 session in Hillsboro. She gave a short report and distributed CD's with the information to the Commissioners, along with an Urban and Rural Reserves Phase 3 Public Meeting Schedule. Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI (Committee for Citizen Involvement) meeting, and that he found that most of the neighborhoods are up and live with their websites. He said that's going well. He reported that Gus Duenas (City Engineer) is keeping the committee busy with Hwy 99W and street improvements. Vice President Walsh reported that he'd attended the Tree Board meeting the week before and they would be getting an update at the end of the meeting tonight. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 3-2-09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon to approve the 3-2-09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 1 of 9 The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner 1-Iasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (4) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Anderson, Caffall, and Walsh (3) ABSENT: Commissioner Fishel, Vermilyea (2) 3-16-09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon to approve the 3-16-09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioners Caffall and Walsh (2) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00011 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Tigard Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Incorporate Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Recommendations PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for public review at the City one week prior to public hearings.] Wyss said the Planning Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council on CPA2008-00011, which will amend the Tigard TSP and Comp Plan. He noted the Commission previously held a workshop on the proposed amendment on March 2, 2009. He said the proposed amendments will incorporate recommendations found in the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan and those made by the project's Citizen Advisory Committee [CAC] . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 2 of 9 Wyss highlighted a few components of the process: • Intended to develop concept-level recommendations for transportation improvements and additional interventions to meet future needs in the corridor. • The primary focus was to identify potential projects aimed at alleviating congestion and improving circulation. • The planning process ended up evaluating three alternatives • A — partial widening of 99W thru Tigard • B — access management strategy in Tigard • C — Widening of 99W to 7 lanes thru Tigard Wyss noted that in the end, Alternative B was chosen as the preferred alternative as it best met the project objectives and criteria while carrying the fewest negative impacts. He said it was important to keep in mind that choosing Alternative B was not done in a vacuum. Both public involvement and interagency coordination factored into choosing the preferred alternative. The proposed amendments found in CPA2008-00011 were developed as a result of Alternative B being chosen. In addition to the recommendation found in the Plan, the CAC developed a list of its own recommendations to Council which are included as proposed Recommended Action Measures to be added to the Comp Plan transportation chapter. He said the proposed amendments are divided into the following four components: 1 . Update the Tigard Transportation System Plan to include recommended changes found in the Tigard 99WW Improvement and Management Plan; 2. Incorporate the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan by reference into the Tigard Transportation System Plan to serve as findings; 3. Update the recommended action measures for Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 12: Transportation to include language recommended by the Tigard 99W Plan Citizen Advisory Committee; and 4. Amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.A (under Goal 12.2) to reflect recommended through lanes for Highway 99W. (Staff recommended for consistency with TSP amendments.) Wyss noted a few minor changes had been made to the proposed amendments since the PC workshop on March 2, 2009. These changes were based on two things: • PC feedback at the workshop • Comments sent in by ODOT and Beaverton At this point Wyss went over a PowerPoint presentation. (Exhibit A) QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS Is "function" defined? We can do that. PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR — No one signed up to speak in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 3 of 9 PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — No one signed up to speak in opposition. President Inman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this. Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, had a couple of questions regarding changes Wyss had made to table 11 -4 and 11-5 — which he answered to her satisfaction. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS/MOTION After a short deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Caffall: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2008-00011 and recommend the City Council adopt the amendments to the Tigard Transportation System Plan and Tigard Comprehensive Plan as found in Exhibit A [of staff report] ." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) After the vote, Wyss was reminded that they would like him to add the definition of "function." I-Ie said he would. President Inman noted this will go to Council's 6/23/09 Business Meeting. 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from 2-23-09) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2008-00005 - SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - On behalf of the City, Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, handed out a revised memo (Exhibit B) with the changes in red. He said they offer a refinement in staff recommendation — Option 3.c [3.c states: "Pedestrian/bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat."] He said there were some comments [from Brian Wegener & John Frewing] at the back of that memo as well as a memo from Public PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 4 of 9 Works, Steve Martin [Parks & Facilities Manager] . Pagenstecher went over the memo which, he said, reflects the input he'd received. Pagenstecher said there were basically two issues: 1) the elevation criteria; and 2) the wildlife habitat issue. The revised recommendation gets rid of the elevation criteria altogether and instead requires a wildlife assessment for pathways within the floodplain. Briefly, the elevation criteria were originally designed for structure, protection, and maintenance. He said the Public Works memo spoke to that advising him that it simply wasn't an issue. Adding a criterion for wildlife is recommended for trails in the flood plain. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about the difference between bike and pedestrian impacts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR — No one was signed up to speak in favor. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION — John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR spoke in opposition. He went over his written submitted comments at the back of the packet (back of Exhibit B). With regard to 3.c — he said there were several things that caused him concern. He'd like to see 3.c changed to say "pedestrian or bicycle pathways which are either replaced, new, or modified from this date forward, shall include this wildlife assessment." Secondly, he asked `what is a wildlife assessment?" He said he can do a wildlife assessment in about 1 second. Someone else may take more time because it involves fish, or birds, or frogs, or whatever — are there standards that we can reference in that regard? He said he doesn't know. "Thirdly, you've used the word "significant wildlife habitat" that in our [Tigard] code — there's a map of significant wildlife habitat adopted for Goal 5 and I presume that's what you mean, but it doesn't say that here." He went on to say that "CWS right now has a waiver for existing roads and trails in these low lying areas and so anything that exists that you're going to modify, repave, or replace escapes through that provision of CWS. And I don't want it to escape. I want it to have the wildlife assessment." Pagenstecher answered that any trail would go through a design development process and where trails are, for instance, modified for width, you would expect to have an assessment because they would be "new" trails and would be subject to the criterion for pathways in a floodplain. Frewing said that was comforting to him. He then asked about the standard for wildlife assessment. Pagenstecher said there is no criterion for wildlife assessment at this time. It's not in the code and not proposed here. There are standards for it. There are wildlife assessments — they are ordered for a purpose. Secondly, Frewing asked whether wildlife assessment would be done at one point in time, or done over several important seasons. Pagenstecher said wildlife assessments indicate time of year done and try to accommodate for that. Frewing said seasonal differences should be picked up in a wildlife assessment. Did you say that would be picked up? Pagenstecher said yes, I think that would PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 5 of 9 be picked up. Frewing: Lastly, does "significant wildlife habitat" correspond to the city's map? Pagenstecher: What we're talking about here is a criterion that applies specifically to floodplains in the City of Tigard. Floodplains correlate with the highest height and limit value on the habitat map. Frewing: Okay — so it refers to the map. Pagenstecher: Yes. Erik Lindstrom, 6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive, Portland 97225 spoke in opposition — He thanked Gary for meeting with them on Friday and answering many of his concerns. He said he'd studied the watershed very intently for two years as part of writing a book about Fanno Creek. He spoke about management of ecosystem services and wildlife habitat within the City limits. He said he was concerned about the process itself. He doesn't like the idea of modifying code to meet the plan. He's not convinced the details are there that the certain damage that will occur to the watershed as a result of this is mitigated and offset by other activities. There were no questions from staff Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard spoke in opposition. She handed out her comments in written form and went over them (Exhibit C). There were no questions from staff. Brian Wegener, 12360 SW Main Street, Suite 100, Tigard, OR of the Tualatin Riverkeepers hadn't signed up, but spoke in opposition. He said he's concerned about bicycle road kills in these sensitive areas. He'd seen some of them. He's also concerned about trail washouts. Impacts should be minimized. He thinks the wildlife assessment should be defined. He's hoping this will be a "win-win" situation. He likes trails and access to nature but wants to make sure we are not taking away that nature by putting those trails in. QUESTIONS FROM STAFF: What do you believe is the solution? The solution could be perhaps putting trails going through wet areas up on pilings. In a slope situation — there are a lot of different choices. Reduce impervious areas that are causing stormwater run-off - that's very important to areas close to the streams. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Did ODF&W further comment? No. Pagenstecher said he called to follow up on their first comment. He said the comment was global in that when there's a limited resource — generally speaking, the policy is — protect it whenever you can. He said that's consistent with their mission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'1TS — April 6, 2009 — Page 6 of 9 Is there the possibility of the Ci y looking at what sort of surface — what the trail's going to be made out of— before a trail is put in a floodplain? Is there any possibiliy in this code to go through and have that as part of the criteria? There are opportunities to introduce and apply green [environmentally friendly] trail criterion in the design development of any trail segment that the City may undertake. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Inman said a floodplain is not necessarily a natural resource area so, potentially, we could be requiring wildlife assessments for a parking lot. She believes this is above and beyond other standards that are currently out there, and potentially onerous. She said she leans towards faith in CWS and other regulations as far as protecting resources and buffers — there's a dedicated public who will follow the development of the plan and will give input with regard to paths. That being said, she's not opposed to adding a wildlife assessment. The commissioners deliberated at length. MOTION After deliberations, there was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman: "I move we adopt DCA2008-00005 Sensitive Lands Permit Requirement, selecting Option 3.c as amended April 6, 2009." The motion passed on a recorded vote - the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: Commissioner Walsh (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Inman noted this will go to the 5/12/09 Council Business Meeting. 6. URBAN FORESTRY MASTERPLAN City Arborist, Todd Prager, said the slide presentation he was about to present highlights the packet that was distributed to the commissioners earlier. He encouraged them to review the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 7 of 9 packet over the coming months to become familiar with the data that's been collected thus fax for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. At this point he went over his slide presentation as an update of the Master Plan (Exhibit D). QUESTIONS FOR STAFF Why has the tree canopy decreased? Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, answered, "There'd been more development in those years than we've ever had in Tigard." Prager added, "The fragmentation where the larger groves were being replaced with smaller individual plantings may indicate that the mitigation is helping to restore canopy in these residential zones." There were a few other questions and then the commissioners thanked Prager for a presentation they said was well done. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — Joint Meeting on April 21st — Tuesday — ideas for topics: The commissioners talked about some of the topics they may wish to discuss at that meeting. The consensus was that their main topic would be that of communication between the Council and the Commission; specifically, if Council chooses to over-ride one of their recommendations. They wondered what the plan is to communicate Council's reasoning as to why they disagree. Minutes: Planning Commission Bylaws - Article IV Section 12.E There was a decision to change the way the Commission considers/approves minutes. It was decided that, in light of the heretofore overlooked portion of the bylaws (below), in the future they would approve them differently than in the past. Article IV Section 12.E of the Planning Commission bylaws states: "Commissioners are expected to vote for approval of the minutes based on the accuracy of representation of events at the meeting. If there are no corrections, the President may declare the minutes approved as presented, without the need for a motion and vote. A vote in favor of adopting minutes does not signify agreement or disagreement with the Commission's actions memorialized in the minutes." So, if after asking if there are any corrections and, there being none, the President may declare the minutes "approved as presented" without the need for a motion and vote. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 8 of 9 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning C ssion Secretary rjr 4717:61- rd- sirnint ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Pagc 9 of 9