04/07/2008 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 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, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon and 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 Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to approve
the March 17, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Doherty
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5 .1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land
Use Planning
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1 : General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU f'h5 - April 7, 2008 - Page 1 of 9
LLNPLNWorenMPCWC Minutes 2006Vpc 04-07-06 draft minutes doe
values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open
Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1 , 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that
the Comp Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight would update the goals, policies, and
recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Staff has found that the language included in the amendment (see Exhibit A) complies with the
applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as
federal, state, and regional plans and regulations.
The proposed amendment went thru a review process that included two Policy Interest Team
meetings hosted back in February by the Planning Commission, where policy principles were
reviewed and crafted into draft language.
He noted that the Commission then held a workshop on March 17, 2008, to discuss the draft
language. A very thorough analysis resulted in the request for a few changes to be made before
bringing the CPA back for this public hearing. These changes (found at the beginning of the staff
report) included:
Policies:
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
Policy 9 was added based on discussion about Policy 8 and situations where development may be
required to pay for public facilities that will be constructed at some point in the future, but will not
construct them prior to, or concurrent with, the development. Staff felt adding this policy was a
better solution than trying to augment Policy 8 with additional language.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 2 of 9
LiLRPLNIDoreen\PCWC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 dren minutes doe
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, te-premete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
23. The City shall require that new urban development doca not diminish the quality of life in the
community.
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the protocol methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and pelieies area plans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Staffs recommendation is to approve the language found in Exhibit A and forward it to the City
Council for review and adoption.
The updated goals, policies, and recommended action measures will provide Tigard a much better
foundation on which to prepare ordinances, associated plans, development standards, programs, and
intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to ensure the City's land
use planning program contributes to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
At this point President Inman asked whether anyone had questions of staff. The following
question was offered:
o Why the addition of 9 instead of rewording 8? Assistant Community Development
Director, Ron Bunch, answered. Retaining policy 8 is important but as discussed at the last
meeting it was felt that it was important to have the option to enter into development agreements and
instead of trying to wed the topics, we flit it was more dear and would provide greater flexibill0 to have a
separate policy. Staff felt it was much easier to maintain clarity of concepts by adding 9 rather than
rewording 8.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the matter of policy 8 and 9. He
stated his concern about the Washington Square Regional Trail (the circumferential trail around
Washington Square) — he noted that it hasn't happened and it relies on the City of Tigard to fmd
staff time and money to acquire land for this. Frewing is concerned that policy #9 does not go far
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 3 of 9
I LLRPLNDoreenWC1PC Minutes 200BOpc04417.00 draft minutes doe
enough in terms of enforceability. He said that maybe if they put in the words "legally
enforceable" arrangements — or development agreements — maybe that would solve the problem.
He would like the words to be strengthened somehow on policy 8 or 9.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - OPPOSED:
No one spoke in opposition.
President Inman asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak either for or against but hadn't
signed up. No one came forward so she closed the public testimony portion of this hearing.
DELIBERATION:
The commissioners and staff discussed enforcement of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Caffall made the following motion that was seconded by Commissioner Fishel:
"I move that we accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 as
presented and amended by staff to us this evening."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABS'T'ENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1 , 2, 5, 6, and 11 .
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that this was the
second meeting on the Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment. The last meeting was the March 17
workshop. He said that, due to scheduling, tree board comments weren't included in the main packet but
came in later in a separate memo (Attachment 1). He noted that the recommended changes identified by
the Tree Board are as follows:
• Replacement of the term "associated vegetation" with "understory vegetation" throughout the
document to provide more clarity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 4 of 9
I LLRPLN\DoreeMPOPG Minutes 30o8Ypc D4-07-08 draft minutes doe
• Modification of Policy 2.2.9 (formerly Policy 16) to read "discourage" instead of "prohibit". This
was preferred to staffs proposed edits contained in the packet distributed on March 31st for
tonight's meeting.
Floyd noted that, due to the reformatting of the document, the goals have been renumbered but
that the text remains the same unless identified by either a otrikcthrough or the new language
being bolded and underlined. He went over all the changes and recommendations in the memo
(see attachment 1).
At this point, President Inman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commission that they'd like to address. Some of the questions/comments were noted (answers
or replies are in italics):
1 . Expressed concern about the word "minimizes" on Goal 2.3. Would like to see the goal read
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that rniaiiffizzes considers the loss of existing trees . . . etc."
Commissioner Walsh (Tree Board Liaison) spoke on behalf of the tree board on this: There
was a lot of time spent on that word — a lot of input was received on this pat-iculargoal and modifications wen
made. I think them was a lot of discussion about having it read "to minimize" the loss of trees.
2. Feels the words "to consider" the loss of trees doesn't have the same impact as "minimize"
the loss of trees.
President Inman commented that, to her, it means you have to take it into account for the
application process, not that you actually have to reduce the number of existing trees that are
affected. Another Commissioner noted that the word "consider" leaves too much open as
opposed to the word "minimize."
3. Policy 1 under goal 2.3 — We should at least acknowledge the City's responsibility to make
sure that we are supporting the developers wish to be able to save trees.
4. Policy 2 — Expressed concern that "understory vegetation" is not defined appropriately
enough. Is afraid too many trees will be taken out because of understory. It seems to focus
on vegetation when that's not entirely the intent. The emphasis hem is on protecting trees through the
planting of vegetation within certain criteria. If it's not clear, perhaps this should be rephrased..
5. Regarding the definition of "understory vegetation" . . . we're really talking about "non shade
tolerant flowers/vegetation that happens to be under the tree" - vegetation that supports the
well being of the tree. We need to get a definition that's closer to that — I think it might help
your understanding of it if we could get a very detailed definition.
6. Expressed concern about the word "require." When the word "require" is used, we have to be
able to quantify it, and therefore we have to be able to enforce. If we (in policy 2) "require"
that you preserve the understory, plant, or replace — are we going to get into situations where
you have to mitigate understory because you kept a tree next to a sidewalk? I don 't see it going in
that direction but we can certainly take a look at it if that's a major concern ofyours.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 5 of 9
I.LLRPLMDOreenWCWC Minutes 2000upc 04-0700 draft minutes doc
7. Expressed concern about 2.3.2 "require preservation" — concerned that the language may be
too strong.
8. Policy #4 (2.3.4) — Commissioner likes the rewording, but having a hard time as to how it
applies to residential. Is there a way to address that? The commissioner feels it would be
harder to say we have met this policy on a residential project. There are really 4 categories of land
use that this would apply to — one certainly is commercial, then there's industrial, residential/multi family, and
then, the other kind of employment/office park and public faciliy type of use. For
employment/commercial/public facili0 use, certainly, these kinds of site design landscape techniques can apply.
And also for multifamily residential and for attached single family residential. In residential — good site
design, good planning would meet the criteria. This is a broad statement that could be applied across the board.
At this point, President Inman said she realized they were getting too much into deliberations and
she moved on to the public testimony portion of the hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Tanet Gillis, Tree Board chair, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said the tree board was
in support of amending the update for the Tigard Urban Forest. She noted that it's especially
appropriate as this very week is "Arbor Week" and that Tigard is being honored for the 70'
consecutive year as a "Tree City USA". She referred to her memo of 4/7/08 (Attachment 2). She
also addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up regarding goal 2.2, Policy 9 — they
were looking at "discourage" instead of "prohibit" because the concern was how would the City
actually go in to a residential property and prohibit a particular plant. Yes — we should discourage
— but how could we prohibit it without a whole lot of work from the City. Another question was
goal 2.3 on policy #2 — she was not liking "as appropriate" because following that is the word
"require" as another part — then it would have to be quantified— so who's going to decide what's
"appropriate" — is it the individual homeowner? Is it the Planning Commission? She thinks policy
#2 should be rephrased so that it's more appropriate. She also thinks the City should come up
with another policy of addressing home mitigation in a separate policy instead of trying to blend it
into 2.3, policy #1 . It should be a policy that directly deals with mitigation.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated concern with respect to the "7 day
rule" about the material that came out on April 4 and later.
Frewing expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 of Floyd's memo (page 1). He spoke about the City
of Portland's "Citywide Tree Project Issue Paper" (Attachment 3). He noted how succinct and
informative it is and that the city of Portland has many of the same concerns as the City of Tigard.
He submitted it for the record, and would like the Planning Commission to review it before the
next meeting. Frewing stated that he feels policy 3 is worthless as there is no direction provided
outside what is already required. He agreed that "understory vegetation" needs to be defined
more clearly.
Tony Tycer 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on policy 2 of goal 2.3. He said the
real "teeth" of this policy is required preservation of understory - it's not just the understory
(foliage) underneath the tree — it has a lot to do with how the tree is going to be preserved. He
said it was important to not compromise the roots, structurally, and for the good of the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 6 of 9
I:uRPLMV)oreenwcwc Minutes 201)H pc 04-07AB draft minutes doe
Commissioner Walsh asked Mr. Tycer's opinion on the word "minimize" — whether he believed
the word was too strong or not. Tycer answered that he did not feel it was too strong, but that it
was appropriate. Tycer also spoke about using appropriate incentives rather than punitive
measures.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan DeHarpport, 5740 SW Arrowhead Lane, Portland, OR 97225 spoke on behalf of the
Homebuilders Association (HBS). He said he agrees with Mr. Frewing on notice. He said he
knew of several people who wanted to testify who weren't properly "noticed" and he hoped this
hearing would continue in two weeks. DeHarpport spoke on mitigation fees being very high. He
commented about street trees. He would like to see street trees being counted towards mitigation
incorporated into the policies. He said he fears if mitigation fees increase it will, in effect, shut
down development because if type II procedures are all that's going to be allowed — as he believes
that's how this could be interpreted at the code level - it would effectively shut down
development, particularly in type II procedures which restricts subdivisions. He said that if the
priority is to preserve trees, you'd have to preserve the trees in a tract. If that's the case, the lot
sizes will be reduced on the remaining portion of the property to the point where you'll have to
do a planned development, which will result in dense development in one corner of the property
with preservation of the tract in the rest of the property.
Regarding specific concerns: On Goal 2.2 Policy 5, (scratched out 11), they'd like to add a
sentence to the bottom of that communicating, "Street trees shall count towards tree mitigation
when possible."
Regarding Action Measure i — he believes an individual has the right to landscape their yard the
way they see fit, whether it's underneath a tree or not. Regarding Action Measure iii under the
same goal — he said street trees are actually the responsibility of the city after the developer is done
with their "winter maintenance period".
On Goal 2.3 — he said he'd support "consideration" versus "minimizes." On the first policy, he
asked whether the intent is to restrict removal for individual property owners and if so then every
resident in the city who has a tree on their property should be noticed.
DeHarpport agreed that many of the policies were written at the tree board level. He said there's
a lot of weight given the tree board; however, his concern is that there is no builder/developer on
the tree board so he believes their [builders/developers] comments and concerns aren't weighed
as heavily as they would like them to be. He said in the future there should be a
builder/developer member on the tree board and he's sure that one of them would be glad to take
on that task so their positions are weighed in as heavily as they'd like them to be.
On Policy 2 — he noted that one way to enforce that would be deed restrictions on properties. He
can see that being interpreted as requiring anyone who had understory on his or her property, or
large trees on their property, to put deed restrictions on properties. He's concerned that that's the
way that could be interpreted down the road.
On Policy 4 — He said this is "the meat" of everything from the homeowners standpoint. He
believes an appropriate way to word this particular policy is to acknowledge that properties zoned
for development are allowed to remove trees and that rights of ways (ROW) and building paths
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 7 of 9
I:LLRPLMDoreenwc1PO Minutes 20080pc 04-07-08 draft minutes doe
should be exempted from the mitigation standards because you have to put in a ROW — you have
to put in a road. The state engineering requires that. At this point DeHarpport used the white
board to illustrate his point. He believes the trees in the ROW should be exempt from mitigation
because there is no choice for the developer. He said they believe it's important to acknowledge
property zoned for development. He noted that would be a good addition for goal 2.3. He gave
some examples from the City of Beaverton (where he served as a former Planning
Commissioner). He wanted to make sure the policies and action measures are flexible enough so
that when it's time to get down to the code writing itself, that other ideas can at least be
considered. He believes goal 2.3 policy 4 has that possibility.
One of the commissioners asked the question — how are the mitigation funds structured and
used? Todd Prager, the City Arborist, explained their use.
Another commissioner commented that the general perception is developers don't care about
aesthetics and she would like DeHarpport to bring that back to his clients.
President Inman asked DeHarpport "Why do you feel that specifics need to be elevated into the
policy?" He answered - Those roads have to be built and to requin mitigation for impervious services that air
required is a punitive measure. It's not a fair and balanced measure and that's why I believe it should be included
in the policy.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114, Tigard, OR 97223, commented. Her comments are in the form of a
letter dated April 7 (Attachment 4).
At this point, President Inman asked if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished
to speak. No one came forward.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATION:
The question was brought up; do we need to write a policy to allow the City to choose to buy land
using the tree mitigation fund? Ron Bunch said the City could administratively, through adoption
of a resolution or an ordinance, do that so it's not necessary to write a policy for that. He said an
action measure might be more appropriate if you wish to go that way.
President Inman said she feels it is very important that they get this correct so she proposed that
they have some other deliberations to give the staff a little more direction on some of the
comments that they've heard. She said she would like to continue the public hearing to the next
Planning Commission and potentially open up public testimony again then. Commissioner Walsh
stated that he would like it moved along to closure as quickly as possible but is okay with it
continuing.
At this point, President Inman and the other commissioners went over a list of things one at a
time that they would like staff to address at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: The Public Hearing on CPA2008-00002 Tigard Comp Plan
Update pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest will be continued to April 21 .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 8 of 9
I LLRPLMD0reenWCWC Minutes 2o08Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes doe
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting 9:30 p.m.
g at
Doreen Laughlin, Administrativ cialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 7, 2008 — Page 9 of 9
IARPLNV)oreenWCWC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes doc