HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2009 - MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 1 of 9
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 16, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 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, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, and Walsh
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning
Manager; Todd Prager, City Arborist; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,
Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
3. COMMUNICATIONS – None.
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
2-23-09 Meeting Minutes:
There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman to
approve the 2-23-09 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, Commissioner
Vermilyea, and Commissioner Muldoon (5)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Fishel (1)
ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, and Commissioner Walsh (2)
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00013/ZONE
CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00007/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 2 of 9
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008-00016/MINOR MODIFICATION
(MMD) 2008-00026
- JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
President Inman read from the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or
conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex-parte contacts were reported. No one
challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Muldoon reported a site visit.
Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are
available for review at the City one week prior to public hearings.]
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended
for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification, subject to proposed
conditions of approval.
QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS
There was a question about condition number 2 which states the applicant shall apply for a
variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping
consistent with the standards for buffering and screening, subject to review and approval by
the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Pagenstecher referred the questio n to the
applicant.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Michelle Symant, a planner for WRG Design, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She addressed
the question about condition number two. She said they had spoken with the project arborist
regarding the question and he’d recommended two particular types of trees that will work
within the space constraints given. She said they would submit the revised landscape plan to the
City Arborist for his review. She anticipates it will work out fine and they probably won’t
require seeking the variance but they’d like to leave that in should the City Arborist decide
those trees won’t work. It would leave the option to apply for a variance in the future.
She noted the area is essentially a 3000 sq ft strip that requires this Comprehensive Plan zone
change/lot land adjustment/Minor Modification – a whole series of things for the replacement
of 10 parking spaces. She noted some of the conditions applied to requirements to save the
Sequoia trees with placement of the parking spaces. She said that will happen.
QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT – None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 3 of 9
President Inman noted that no one had signed up either as a proponent or an opponent to the
application. She asked if anyone present in the audience would like to speak either in favor or in
opposition. There was no one present who wished to do either.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATIONS/MOTION
After a short period of deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea,
seconded by Commissioner Fishel, as follows:
“I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of application CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007 as set forth in the staff report, as
well as Lot Line Adjustment 2008-00016, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in
the staff report; and Minor Modification 2008-00026; also subject to the conditions of
approval set forth in the staff report.”
The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty,
Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner
Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Vermilyea
(7)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2)
5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009-00001
- Tree Removal Code Update-
On behalf of the City, John Floyd, Associate Planner, distributed a revised copy of the Draft
Amendments (Exhibit A). He said staff is proposing additional changes (indicated in green)
because of the public comment they’d received.
Six parties had submitted comments prior to the workshop: Jeff Caines, Karen Estrada,
John Frewing, Phil Grillo/HBA, Sue Beilke, and Greg Berry of the City of Tigard
Engineering Department (Exhibit B). Copies were distributed to the commissioners for
their review. As a reminder, Floyd said the scope of this amendment had been defined
narrowly by Council, and, as such, staff recommends that the Commission limit its review to
the submittal requirements and not other issues such as mitigation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 4 of 9
From the comments received, Floyd addressed the major concerns:
HBA
Request for Continuance. On Friday the HBA submitted a request for a 30 day
continuance. The basis for this request was to allow their attorney additional time to
review the material and suggest additional revisions which may result in the HBA
abandoning intent to appeal a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to LUBA. Staff
recommends that the continuance be denied for the following reasons:
o The HBA has been aware of these amendments for some time; this issue was
not sprung on them.
They were present at the Tree Board meeting in December.
They submitted comments at the February 23 workshop.
They were invited by email and at the workshop to meet with staff
prior to the hearing.
The language released last week was substantially the same as that
considered at the workshop.
o The PC is not the final hearing body. The commission can recommend these
changes to Council who can consider their comments and, if they so choose,
remand it back to the Planning Commission.
o The LUBA appeal of our Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment should be
treated as a separate item as a Code Amendment. Staff has made tentative
plans to meet with the HBA and their attorney in approximately 2 weeks,
whereupon we will be discussing the Comp Plan appeal, and the Code
Amendment under consideration tonight.
Jeff Caines:
Concerned with the word practicable. As stated earlier, Staff proposes to change
the phrasing from “wherever possible” to “wherever practicable”, with the meaning
of practicable defined. This term introduces a degree of reasonableness to the code
rather than an absolute (i.e. anything is possible with enough engineering), as was
done in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which
recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development. What is
being asked of an applicant is a reasonable attempt at preservation, which will be
defined by the applicant themselves as they work with their arborist.
Concern with inventorying trees off-site. The intent of this requirement is to
protect trees off-site, and not to increase mitigation obligations. To address this
concern, staff recommends the following changes:
o Remove references to off-site trees in section 18.790.030.A and B(1), and
reinstate the 25’ rule in 18.790.030.B(4). The revised language would therefore
require “A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the
applicant to protect trees during and after construction, including those within 25 of
the affected lot (as estimated by the project arbor if permission to enter is
not granted by adjacent property owners)”;
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 5 of 9
Preliminary grading and upfront mitigation plans. Staff has introduced a
revisions procedure for Major and Minor modifications, you will find it under Section
790.030.F and marked in green.
Approval Criteria. Staff has prepared the approval criteria in concert with the City
Attorney. That said, we do recommend a slight change in language in criteria #4 to
change “shall also comply” to “complies”.
Final Thoughts. Mr. Caines wants to ensure that any code changes are workable
and that those charged with implementing the code are included in the crafting of it.
For the record, this code was developed in concert with current planning staff and
the City Attorney, in addition to the normal circulation around other city departments
and external agencies.
Karen Estrada
Wants the code to increase the mitigation requirement from one year to two
years prior to application – and require the removal of downed trees.
o The short answer is that these issues are beyond the scope of tonight’s
changes.
o Staff is sympathetic to her concerns as we know that developers and property
owners frequently clear-cut or substantially defoliate their properties to avoid
mitigation fees, and continue to do so to this day, but mitigation is within the
Council’s scope for this amendment.
John Frewing
Many of John’s comments are out of scope or were addressed in responses to
Jeff Caines.
Editorial Changes. Staff appreciates Mr. Frewing’s attention to detail and
recommends the implementation of the following grammatical errors:
o [Comment 2] Reinstate the words “on…lands” in 18.790.010.B(2)
o [Comment 11] Removed the words “that are” in 790.030.B.5.(d)
o [Comment 12] Insert the word “be” before “compensated” in 790.030.B.6
[Comment 9] Content of plans. Mr. Frewing is concerned that one sheet would
show trees while another shows the proposed improvements. In response, staff
recommends the following changes to 790.030.B.(5): “The accompanying site plan
shall include the location of all existing trees in addition relation to the location of
proposed grading…”
[Comment 10] Construction Plans. This was also noticed by Mr. Caines.
Recommend the replacement of the word “construction” with “staging area” or
removal of this word altogether.
[Comment 11] Goal 5 impacts. This amendment is not intended, nor will it affect,
the City’s Goal 5 resource protection program. It merely clarifies submittal
requirements to achieve the stated purposes set forth in 790.010.B1-7 (i.e. water
quality, erosion, aesthetic beauty, etc…).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 6 of 9
Sue Beilke / Fans of Fanno Creek
The letter makes a lot of good points about the value of trees to Goal 5 resources,
but, as stated before, Goal 5 resource protection is not the subject of this
amendment.
We recommend that Ms. Beilke and Fans of Fanno Creek stay interested in our code
amendments, particularly the upland tree grove inventories that are planned for our
2009/10 fiscal year.
Greg Berry / City of Tigard Engineering
The City of Tigard Engineering Department requests that language regarding
“adjacent right of way” be removed to ensure that the City retains authority of tree
removal in the public right of way to ensure public improvement standards are
adhered to.
Planning Department staff finds that the engineering department would not be
hindered by the proposed language. The language only obligates an applicant to save
trees where practicable in the design process – not to override engineering standards
or other requirements of City Code.
In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt DCA2009-00001 as
proposed in attachment 1, as amended through the public hearing process, and subject to
the findings contained in the staff report.
QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS
The definition of practicable – is that definition consistent with the Comp Plan? Yes
- word for word.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY – IN FAVOR
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 signed up to speak both in favor and
against. He distributed a 3rd set of comments (included in Exhibit B). He was advised by President
Inman to choose a side and that if he wanted to speak on both sides, his time would be divided into
two, rather than giving him twice as much time. Frewing said he was speaking both in favor and
against different parts of the subject. Frewing touched on some of his comments addressed in his
written testimony. He spoke about fish and wildlife. He believes it’s a legitimate content
requirement to ask an applicant to tell how they have managed (or addressed) fish and wildlife
matters in their tree removal. He said the word “hazardous tree” makes no provision for saying “if I
cut off the rotten limb, the tree is just fine.” Hazardous tree should be defined as one which cannot
be pruned or otherwise treated to become non-hazardous. That would result in saving another tree.
He believes some arborists may be trying to get another job from the same developer and so will call
a lot of trees hazardous which could be trimmed or somehow managed so that they don’t become
hazardous. So he doesn’t like the definition of hazardous. He also noted that the standard proposed
for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless, and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict.
He suggested that, instead, it read “The required plan for all the trees on the site clearly shows
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 7 of 9
evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made
which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable.”
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS
There was a general question about the age of trees and comments about hazardous trees.
Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97219 went over his comment letter
(included in Exhibit B). In addition, he asked what is the role and liability of the project arborist on
both sides. He believes the City arborist should also have to sign off on the plans.
QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS
There was a general question about set-backs.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY – IN OPPOSITION – None.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
As to the set-back question, the City Arborist, Todd Prager, answered – “25 feet is a good
place to start.” There was a bit of a discussion regarding set-backs.
Can you speak to the third party review and how that would work? Planning Manager,
Dick Bewersdorff, answered – “Basically, if our arborist and their arborist can’t agree, then a
third arborist is hired and that arborist makes the decision and we go with that. The
applicant would pay for the arborist.”
Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing the definition of practicable to Webster’s
definition which is “reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with available means
or resources.”
Vermilyea had a second comment with respect to page 4. E. Approval Criteria #2. He said
he likes John Frewing’s language change. He said it’s a lot more functional than what’s
written.
Who determines the definition of practicable? “The applicant would determine it.”
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – March 16, 2009 – Page 8 of 9
DELIBERATIONS
President Inman summed up the revisions thus far:
1. Section 18.790.030.E.3 striking “original certified arborist” and changing it to “a certified
arborist.”
2. Section 18.790.020.A.4 Commissioner Vermilyea’s definition of practicable to be
“reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with “available means or resources” -
and striking the rest.
3. Section 18.790.010.E.4 “lands” should not be stricken but “sensitive” should.
4. Section 18.790.030.E.2 “the tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmably
attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on project site.” “Where practicable”
will not be included.
5. So far as the Home Builders Association suggesting a continuation - No one thought it
was a good idea to continue the meeting to another date.
6. “Hazardous Tree” definition. Consensus was to incorporate this into their mitigation
discussion.
MOTION
Commissioner Vermilyea made a motion:
“I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of application DCA2009-00001 as set forth in Attachment 1 as amended tonight at
this hearing, which supersedes prior versions.”
Commissioner Hasman seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty,
Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner
Inman, and Commissioner Vermilyea (6)
NAYS: Commissioner Muldoon (1)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2)
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 1
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
Recommended Amendments to
Tigard Development Code 18.790 (Tree Removal)
As Recommended by the Tigard Planning Commission to
Tigard City Council on March 16, 2009
Sections:
18.790.010 Purpose
18.790.020 Definitions
18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
18.790.050 Permit Applicability Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands
18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal Violations and Replacement Standards
18.790.010 Purpose
A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from
a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help
clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers.
B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to:
1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City;
2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees;
3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties;
4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion;
5. Protect water quality;
6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and
7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment.
C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of
development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets,
utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development.
18.790.020 Definitions
A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of
trees contained in this chapter exclusively:
1. “Canopy cover” means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree;
2. “Commercial forestry” means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale.
Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not
considered commercial forestry under this definition;
3. “Hazardous tree” means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition
presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property;
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 2
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
4. “Practicable” means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the available
means or resources;
5. “Pruning” means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized
tree maintenance practices;
6. “Removal” means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root
system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes
the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. “Removal” shall not include pruning;
7. “Tree” means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in
caliper size when measured four feet from ground level any standing woody plant having a trunk
which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 ½ feet) above mean
ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but
below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is
considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be
considered one tree;
8. “Sensitive lands” means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title.
B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include
the future and words in the singular shall include the plural.
18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by
a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which
a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or
conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible practicable.
B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City’s preference for tree protection has been
incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following:
1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees, including trees
designated as significant by the city;
2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement
guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive
of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program
in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees;
b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal;
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 3
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect
trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as
estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property
owner);
5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction
techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must
address each technique with a “yes” or “no” answer, followed by a written explanation as to
how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable.
The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in relation to the
the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements.
a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to
become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability
to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses
and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow?
b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be
preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil
within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved?
c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and
other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees?
d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building
footprints located outside of the driplines of existing trees?
e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no,
can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall
requirements?
f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain
existing trees?
g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width and depth to
preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3);
h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the
protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to
prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no – dig pavement
installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and
longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted?
6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing,
and planting specifications for the replacement trees and/or the amount of caliper inches
that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting.
C. Subsequent Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development
application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to
Section 18.790.060D.
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 4
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at
their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third-party certified arborist under
contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third-party certified arborist shall
be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval.
E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree
plan based on the following approval criteria:
1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through
(C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and
amendments; and
2. The tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmatively attempted to protect, as
opposed to remove, trees on the project site; and
3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-party
arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by a certified arborist, or
condition(s) of approval; and
4. Tree removal on sensitive lands complies with requirements set forth in 18.790.050.
F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following
manner.
1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans
A. Determination request. An applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved tree
protection plan or existing development by:
1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan;
and
2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the
changes listed in subsection B below.
B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or
more of the following changes are proposed. There will be:
1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined by the
whole of the original project; or
2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more;
C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree
protection plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new development application in
accordance with the original project approval.
2. Minor Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development
A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major
modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification.
B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification as follows:
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 5
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan;
and
2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification.
C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied
following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that:
1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title;
and
2. The modification is not a major modification.
18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more
of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan
according to Section 18.790.030:
1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that
are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density
computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one
development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed
in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes
greater than 25%, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development;
2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any
land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot
size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space 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;
3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any
land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required
by the underlying zone;
4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees
over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and 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 may be granted. 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 canopy cover provided by existing
trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1%
reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required
amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development.
B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may
thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or
as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other
section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of
any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 6
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be
considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a
hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director.
C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements
granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including
but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval.
D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of
public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with
safety or increase maintenance costs.
18.790.050 Permit Applicability Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas
A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which
is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree
shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval
criteria:
1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes:
a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public
or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct
deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion;
b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or
evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not
filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified
Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules.
2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland,
tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover
if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%.
B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date
of approval.
C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree
removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in
compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no materi al facts stated in the original
application have changed.
D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree
which:
1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title;
2. Is a hazardous tree;
3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code;
4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor’s
office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands.
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 7
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2.,
excluding D.4. above, is not permitted.
18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal Violations and Replacement Standards
A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter:
1. Removal of a tree:
a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or
b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or
c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or
d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title.
2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or
its root system.
B. Remedies. If the Director 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. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,
which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of
the tree was permitted by this chapter;
2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any
other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard;
3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title;
4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code;
5. Take any other action allowed by law.
C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter
pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be
required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and
2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or
damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture’s Guide for
Plant Appraisal.
D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines:
1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics;
2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the
Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value;
3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be
viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the
following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the
Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 8
DCA2009-00001
March 17, 2009
estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably
available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,
the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the
City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property;
4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth
to maturity.
E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of
the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement.
F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive.
March 16, 2009
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
RE: Development Code Amendment 2009-00001 / Tree Removal Code Amendment
Dear Planning Commission members:
We are writing to comment on the proposed changes to the Tigard Tree Removal Code,
Section 18.790. Fans of Fanno Creek is a local non-profit organization that works with
many citizens to improve the health of our watershed for citizens, and the fish, wildlife
and habitats that are located in Tigard. We are especially concerned with the large
numbers of native trees that have been removed in Tigard in the past 10 years, especially
on such sites as Dorothy Gates property on SW 81st street, this was a 3 acre fully mature,
wooded forest of all native trees that was clearcut! It included a pair of nesting hawks
that had nested here for years. Another clearcut was on the Senn property on SW 74th
street, this was a mature western red cedar forest that was also clearcut and the developer
further damaged any “trees to be retained on the tree plan” to such an extent with his
bulldozer that even these had to be cut down. Tigard can no longer afford to lose native
trees and every effort possible must be made to save all of our remaining native trees
whether they be single trees or part of a grove or forest stand.
Our comments are as follows:
Applicable Review Critieria (ARC) – Goal 5 is not listed as one of the ARC but
should be as it relates to protection and conservation of natural resources which
includes “trees”. It is a major error to not list Goal 5 and how the proposed
changes may affect trees, including trees not located in Sensitive Lands.
18.790.010. A – Value of Trees – This section needs to have added that “trees
also are crucial in providing important wildlife habitat for a diverse assemblage of
species in the city of Tigard.” This will help to 1) meet Goal 5 requirements and
2) this is directly related to the Director’s Interpretation to save trees rather than
remove them as trees provide habitat for many species of wildlife.
18.790.020 Definitions – We recommend that trees should not be labeled
“hazardous” if there is only a part of the tree that poses a threat, such as a dead
limb. For example, several native trees in our neighborhood had dead tree limbs
which were about to fall on property, and taking off the dead limb was sufficient
in removing the “hazard” the tree posed. Age should not necessarily be a reason
for a tree to be removed. Some native oaks in Tigard are over 150 years old but
healthy, should someone be able to remove them just because they are old? We
recommend that the “hazardous tree” definition be “a tree by which reason of
disease, infestation, or other condition, whereby pruning of certain dead limbs for
example will not remedy the perceived hazardous situation, presents a known and
immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property.”
18.790.010 – An additional purpose needs to be added, which could read “Protect
trees in order to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats.”
18.790.050 – We recommend that tree removal permits should be required for the
removal of “any native tree, regardless of whether it is on private or public
lands, no matter where it is located in Tigard.” We recommend this because
many private landowners have significant numbers of native trees (Oregon white
oak, Oregon ash) on their properties which provide many benefits to wildlife (e.g.,
nesting habitat), and for which said properties are NOT located on Sensitive
Lands. Just recently someone off Tigard Street cut down on Oregon ash tree
which we estimated was approximately 80-100 years old. It was the largest,
tallest, ash tree remaining in our neighborhood and the owner cut it down because
it “left a lot of leaves on the ground”, not because it was a hazard tree. This was a
terrible waste of a wonderful tree that did not need to be cut down.
A permit to remove a native tree on private or public lands should be required and
approved only if the tree is deemed to be a “hazard” tree by a certified arborist.
The city should provide incentives for private landowners to protect and retain
native trees, especially since Tigard is one of the few local cities where many
native trees such as ash and oak still remain. Our native trees are very important
for wildlife and for providing numerous benefits to humans. I have spoken to
several members of the Tree Board who have native oak trees on their properties
and they agreed it is important to provide incentives for landowners to retain
native trees.
18.790.050.D – The proposed changes in this section state that “a tree removal
permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which is land registered with
the Washington County Assessor’s office as tax-deferred tree farm or small
woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands.” This wording means that an
entire forest of native trees could be cut down removing important habitat for
birds, mammals, amphibians and many more species of wildlife. Just because
trees are not on designated “Sensitive Lands” does not mean they are not
important! Again, we recommend that regardless of where the tree(s) are
located in the city, even if it is on small woodlands, a permit should be required
for any native tree proposed to be removed and it should only be permitted to be
removed if it is hazardous.
Uplands – The proposed changes to the tree removal code fail to address the trees
located in uplands, whether on private or publicly owned lands. Trees in uplands
are no less important than trees along streams or in riparian corridors, since they
also provide shade, provide habitat for wildlife and many other benefits. Similar
to our recommended wording above, we suggest that the another
As it presently stands, the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Section of the
Development Code fail to adequately address the need to protect and conserve native
trees and forests as stated in the recently revised Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Natural
Resources and Parks and Open Spaces Sections. We therefore request that the Planning
Commission DENY the City of Tigard’s recommended changes and work with citizens
such as myself to rework this section of the Development Code to benefit native trees,
forests and wildlife.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Tree Removal
Code.
Sincerely,
Sue Beilke,
Wildlife biologist,
Board member of Fans of Fanno Creek