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