Loading...
03/17/2008 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 17, 2008 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, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Doherty, Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss, Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Fishel, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon, to approve the March 3, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, Walsh, NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Hasman EXCUSED: Commissioners Doherty and Vermilyea 5. WORKSHOP WITH THE TREE BOARD Associate planner, John Floyd, introduced himself, Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; and Todd Prager, the City Arborist. He also introduced the tree board members. Tree Board Members present: Kandace Horlings, Matt Clemo, Janet Gillis, Rob Callan, Dennis Sizemore, and Tony Tycer PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 17, 2008 — Page 1 I.VRPLN oreen1PC1PC Minutes 20001TPC 3-07-08 Planning Commission2000031 7.173001c88855bflcea008on Floyd went over his power point presentation (Exhibit A). He gave the background of the Land Use Chapter (Goal 2) and spoke about why there is a "Tree" chapter. He talked about the role of the Tree Board and addressed the concerns of the HBA (Homebuilders Association). He spoke about the next steps and future work. He noted a public hearing would be held April 7 and Council consideration would be on June 3. Floyd finished his presentation, at which time President Inman opened up the meeting to discussion of the goals. Some of the questions and comments from the Planning Commissioners for staff and the tree board follow. Answers from staff / tree board are in italics: Goal #1: There was a question regarding the phrase "associated vegetation"- is that new or has it always been there? Staff: It's been there. We will talk more about that later, in context. As the Tree Boards Planning Commission liaison, Commissioner Walsh commented that the Board had discussed at length what "associated vegetation" is and that it is whatever vegetation the trees impact. Goal #2: President Inman commented: "I get the feeling goal two is focused on the negative. I would prefer to see something looking forward. In reference to the 2Nd part of the goal `development that minimizes the loss of existing trees and associated vegetation and creates a living legacy for future generations' - the last piece of that sentence has as much to do with appropriate planting and moving forward as it does with protecting what we already have. I believe there should be something that gives more weight to the bigger picture — the other side of the coin - what can we do to create an appropriate living legacy — not just hold on to what's already there. I'm concerned the goal sounds like it sways towards minimizing the loss of existing and doesn't capture the desire to promote the future." Tree Board: The Tree Board has been looking at this as ageneral statement and is trying to keep it a broad statement The Tree Board went over this several times and we were focusing on the `well-designed urban development' which would incorporate the future with development and that it be a low impact on design on natural resources. Some of the other policiesgot a little more into what you're looking for. John Floyd followed up on goal 2. He noted that it originally started as a proposal by the HBA — the language evolved from their original comments but the HBA wanted recognition that development would occur and that we're not saying "You can't build on this land." This goal is trying to balance the right of people to develop their property but also trying to minimize the loss of trees to create that legacy. This goal has gone through a series of evolution. The negativity you speak of is really a statement of the document saying "development will occur." I believe the homebuilders were concerned that this section may be construed as putting trees above all else. I think the goal is trying to balance that as well. I want the commissioners to understand the history of that goal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU IES — March 17, 2008 — Page 2 I LLRPLMDoreenWCWC Minutes 2008\TPC 3.17-08 Planning Commisslon 20080317-1730_01c88B55b11cee00 cloc There were no other comments on goal 2. At this point, they went over the policies one by one and commented on, or asked questions regarding, these policies. There were no comments until they got to policy 4, at which point the question came up regarding the way the policy is worded — "the City shall protect major understory vegetation" . . . the concern is that is strong language . . . in other words — if you protect the tree, you have to protect the understory that goes with it. That may or may not limit our ability, or hamper some of the ability to keep some trees. Staff: Your point is well taken. The main goal of this policy is to protect the trees health throughout the whole development process. We may need to tweak the policy. At this point Tony Tycer, speaking as a tree board member and as one who runs a tree service, explained about interlocking roots and the dynamic where the soil will heat up to a certain point where the tree will simply not have the biochemistry to survive. "You're going to find a number of dynamics at play — they're listed as "A through D" under Policy 4 but you also find other soil ph impacts." At Policy 7 - "The City shall require and enforce the mitigation of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces such as paved areas and rooftops through the use of trees and other vegetation." The question was asked, 'Where are you going with this? What is the background? I'm not quite sure what to read from it." Tree board: We wanted, in part, to create an area where some alternatives would exist to impervious surfaces, which just result in straight runoff. Cost Co was used as an example of islands being made that weren 't big enough to sustain the planted trees. It was noted also that Cost Co was a good partner in this process and went forward and did a good job of taking care of it. That's an example of why we got to the discussion of policy 7. It was decided that some wordsmithing needed to be done on this policy. Ron Bunch agreed to work on doing that and came up with the following: "The City shall require and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation." The commissioners went through the rest of the policies and recommended action measures with more comments and questions. At recommended action measure #v — it was mentioned that the words "failed to thrive" could use some work. President Inman closed the workshop on trees at 8:20pm. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU PBS — March 17, 2008 — Page 3 I:LLRPLMDoreenWCWC Minutes 2000\TPC 3-17-08 Planning Commission 20000317.1786 01c80B55bflcea00 doe At this point, Inman opened the meeting up for comments from the public. Some of the discussion topics brought up by the public present were: o The cost of tree fees. o The importance of saving the right trees — It was noted that some simply are not of the quality to be saved. They will eventually die and actually can become dangerous by blowing over. o The fact that it is to the builders own advantage to save trees whenever they possibly can. They noted that property is worth more if there are good, mature trees on it; however, they emphasized that the trees that are saved need to be worth saving i.e. healthy and safe. o The importance of reforesting. o That emphasis should be on incentives to preserve trees rather than punitive. Inman closed the time for public comments and the commission took a five-minute break. 6. WORKSHOP WITH LAND USE POLICY INTEREST TEAM Policy Interest Team Members Present: John Frewing Associate Planner, Darren Wyss, recapped what had been done so far. He noted that there had been two joint Planning Commission / Policy Interest Team (PIT) meetings and that they'd worked through the Building Block exercise. Based on that exercise and PIT comments, policies and recommended action measures were drafted (included in packet). He said he wanted to use this time to discuss the language, get some questions answered, and bring it back for a public hearing after the discussion. President Inman opened up the discussion asking if there were questions or comments on the goals, policies or recommended action measures. She went through each policy, one by one, asking for comments. There were no comments until they got to the following policies: Policy 8: "I'd like to see perhaps a write in. . . something that would allow a development agreement between the City and the developer, or that gives some out in this type of situation. I'd like to see something that is not so `absolute' and allows for some flexibility." Policy 10: Policy 10 appears to leave the door wide open for `anything and everything' and he wanted more clarity. He said he would like some action measures referencing traffic and environmental hazards associated with this policy. Staff said they could do that. Policy 11 : "Policy 11 sites A thru E. Is that an exclusive list?" No, it is not. These are "such as" — there may be some other things. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 17, 2008 — Page 4 I.LLRPLNNoreenWCWC Minutes 20081TPC 3.17.08 Planning Commis lon_20000317-1738 01c88855011cea00 don Policy 12: "I'm thinking the language is too broad, and the `what ifs' could distract from what we're trying to do." We 're required to do a 20year public faciliyplan and by the time we get beyond 5 to 10 years we really are in the range of `what ifs' and we leave the door open. Eve y public fadlity plan I've worked on has left the door open for significant change. Ifyou're uncomfortable with this policy. then it could be an action measure. (I'm okay with it." Policy 14: There was concern about the language being possibly misinterpreted. After much discussion, it was decided that this would be passed through the City Attorney. Policy 21 : Is this in concert with other parts of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes, it is also consistent with statewide planninggoal, which dictates how we protect natural resources through the land use planning process. Policy 22: The definition of "quality of life" - what is that? That is a very broad statement. It's intended to provide a big latitude for the development of standards or regulations to address things like design regulations, tree protection, wetlands protection, so forth. I can understand why it raises concern. It's very subjective. . . After considering this — it's so broad. I think other statements really do take care of this issue. So let's just take that one away. This concluded the discussion on policies. Inman then asked for questions or comments on the recommended action measures. There was a question on action measure xii. "Work with the appropriate agencies to review the protocol used in determining development impacts . . . " Review the protocol? Yes. Clean Water Services, for example, has a specific protocol that they use, or methodologies, orprocesses they use to review development impacts and so — sometimes those work for us, sometimes they don 't. Same thing with the Dept of Environmental Qualidy, Army Corp or Engineers. . . so — it's reviewing and being involved with the procedures as long as it meshes with our land use program. If that word doesn 't work — we could just use "to review the methods used in determining development impacts" rather than "protocol. " At this time, Inman opened the meeting up to public comment. John Frewing made some comments regarding the only land use goal basically being to maintain an up-to-date set of documents and that, so far as he's concerned, isn't a good enough goal. He also made mention of the need for an open space overlay. 7. OTHER BUSINESS President Inman said she'd asked Todd Prager, the City Arborist, to send the Planning Director's Interpretation of a section of the current Tree Removal Chapter (18.790) of the Development Code. [The following day, Prager emailed the commission the Director's Interpretation, as well as the appeal filed by the Home Builder's Association] . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU IES — March 17, 2008 — Page 5 I RRPLMDoreenWCWC Minutes 2008\TPC 3.1748 Planning Commission 2008031?-1738-01c88855bf1cee00 doc It was noted the next meeting would be held on April 7 and will have two public hearings — one on trees, and one on land use. 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:53 pm. I d Nat! ! sS _ ;vim Doreen Laughlin, Administrative ecialist II o ��-sue_. ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 17, 2008 - Page 6 11RPLN'DoreenwC1PC Minutes 20080TPC 3.17-08 Planning Commission20080317-ll38_01838855L11cea00.doe EXHIBIT A Tigard ' s Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002 March 17 , 2008 John Floyd , Associate Planner Todd Prager, Arborist Background • Subsection of Land Use Chapter (Goal 2 ) • Partial Fulfillment of Council Resolution 07-30 ( Interim Charge Statement for Tree Board ) • Fulfills Planning Commission decision on December 11 , 2006 to wrap previous tree code updates into Comp Plan Update 1 Why Tree Chapter • Defining feature of Tigard • Extensive literature exists on the public value and contributions of mature and well-managed trees • Community surveys reveal strong support for protection of existing trees (84% approval ) • Homebuilders and Residents desire change in existing regulatory structure Role of Tree Board • Tasked by Council to develop and recommend updates to the Comp Plan • Held 20+ public meetings , including joint meeting with Planning Commission in October 2007 • Consensus based approach • Considered substantial public input 2 Why not Goal 5 ? • Trees provide benefits beyond natural resource systems (economic, social , stormwater management, temperature moderation , etc. ) • Not every tree creates high-quality habitat or contributes to wetland and riparian processes • The Natural Resources Chapter will address trees that contribute to natural resource systems . HBA General Concern # 1 • Desire specific exemptions from existing mitigation requirements (i . e. trees located in road right-of-ways , driveways, building pads) • Staff Response: — Inappropriate level of detail for Comprehensive Plan — Changes to existing protection/mitigation structure should be done in a comprehensive manner — Recommended Action Measure "i" and Council Resolution 07-30 identify and require a comprehensive and coordinated update of all tree related regulations, standards, programs and plans. 3 HBA General Concern #2 • Concerned that draft goals and policies would compromise or deny development rights on residentially zoned land • Staff Response : — Goals and Policies emphasize minimization of tree removal and focused preservation, not absolute protection for all trees — Policies mandates the availability of flexible and incentive based protection and planting standards — Refinement of 18 .790.030(A) that states 'Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. " Next Steps & Future Work • Planning Commission to hold Public Hearing on April 7 • Consideration by Council on June 3 • Interim tree regulations may be developed to temporarily bridge the gap between existing and future regulations 4 Next Steps Continued • Tree Board and Staff will prepare draft amendments to municipal/development codes — In coordination with Planning Commission and Committee for Citizen Involvement — Will include substantial public outreach to notify affected stakeholders, identify options, and develop a regulatory scheme appropriate for Tigard — Historical Tree Canopy Analysis is underway and will inform code update — Both mitigation and protection strategies to be revisited Next Steps Continued • General recommendations will be developed by the Tree Board regarding Management of Tigard 's Urban Forest • Land use densities will also be reviewed as the Comp Plan is implemented 5