Loading...
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