Loading...
05/05/2008 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 5, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. 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 (arrived later), Doherty, Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Fishel, Caffall Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; 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 Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Walsh, to approve the April 21, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Doherty, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, Walsh NAYS: None ABS I ENTIONS: EXCUSED: Fishel, Anderson, Caffall 5. WORKSHOPS 5.0 UNINCORPORATED URBANIZATION BRIEFING/MAYOR'S LETTER Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, spoke briefly about the issue of unincorporated urbanization. He referred to his May 5, 2008, memo, and attachments, and asked the commissioners to read this information before the next Planning Commission discussion on urbanization [scheduled for May 19, 2008] . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 5, 2008 — Page 1 E Vpc05.05.00 Minutes doc This meeting, In Is entirety, Is available on Co, end retained el City of Tigard Public Records Bunch also spoke about the ethics rules and the fact that Council will be meeting on this topic the next evening. The "Ethics Rule" which Council will also be meeting on the following evening came up. Commissioners Vermilyea and Walsh informed the commission that they had contacted the Mayor about some of the questions they were being asked. They felt the questions were burdensome, especially for voluntary commissions and committees — as opposed to elected boards. They particularly disliked being asked about distant relatives and having the threat of fines. The commissioners hope for a less burdensome set of rules. 5 .1 CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING "HAZARD TREE" DEFINITION At this point, John Floyd, Associate Planner, followed up on the Mayor's letter thanking the Commissioners for their hard work (Exhibit A). He reminded the commission of how much they'd accomplished so far. He noted that 77% of the Comprehensive Plan has been completed and that they are 3/4 of the way though and thanked them for their hard work and time commitment. Floyd reminded the commissioners that at the 4/21 /08 meeting the Planning Commission had made a formal recommendation to Council regarding the Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00002, with one item withheld for tonight's consideration. That item being the definition of a "Hazard Tree." At this point, he turned the meeting over to Todd Prager, City Arborist. Prager referred to his memo dated 4-25-08 (Exhibit B). He gave the definition of a hazard tree that staff recommends as: "A tree or tree part that is likely to fail and cause damage or injury, and the likelihood exceeds an acceptable level of risk." He said he followed up with a phone call to the ISA [International Society of Arborists] and ran the definition by them to verify this was an acceptable adaptation of their definition. He reported they did not raise any objections to it. After a short question and answer time to Prager regarding the definition, Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion: "I move that the Planning Commission adopt the revised definition of `hazard tree' and incorporate that definition in Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00002 and forward to Council for review and approval." Commissioner Walsh seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Doherty, Hasman, Inman, Vermilyea, Walsh NAYS: Muldoon ABSTENTIONS: EXCUSED: Fishel, Anderson, Caffall PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 5, 2008 — Page 2 E Mpc 0505"08 Minutes doe This meeting, in Xs entirety, Is available on CD, and retained at Cily of Tigard Public Records Commissioner Walsh asked whether the Planning Commission would approve of him speaking to Council the following evening as a representative of the Planning Commission and speak to them regarding the Urban Forest. Commissioner Vermilyea said he would be there as well. President Inman stated that, to clarify, both Commissioner Walsh and Commissioner Vermilyea would be speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission at the next evening's Council meeting and asked whether everyone was agreeable to this. All the commissioners agreed to it. 5.2 GOAL 5 — NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding CPA2008-00003, Natural Resources and Historic Areas [Goal 5] chapter, on behalf of the City (Exhibit C). He reminded the commissioners that this was a result of multiple meetings with Policy Interest Teams. He said the Historic Areas part of it was developed over two meetings, and the Natural Resources portion developed over the course of three scheduled meetings (two of which were attended). He told the commissioners that the workshop this evening was intended to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to ask questions of staff on the concepts or content of the amendment. He noted that Clean Water Services had submitted a letter of comment and that a copy had been provided to them for their review (Exhibit D). He stated that the Public Hearing for this section is scheduled for May 19. At that time, staff will present a lengthier staff report with consistency findings, and public comment will be received and entered into the record. At this point, President Inman told the commissioners they would review the goals, policies, and action measures one by one [pages 6 — 9 of Attachment "I" Exhibit C] and the meeting was now open for questions or comments on them. Some of those questions and comments follow: [This meeting, in its entirety, is available on CD and retained as City of Tigard public record.] GOAL 5.1 — "Protect and restore natural resources, and the environmental and ecological services they provide, through naturally functioning systems that demonstrate a high level of biodiversity." One of the commissioners questioned the word "demonstrate". He said he doesn't think the word adequately gets to what they're trying to say. Another commissioner questioned the word "restore" He wondered "how are we using it and how is it being applied?" After some discussion on this, Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, said a modifier could be well used here — such as "when possible" — so it would read "Protect and `when possible' restore natural resources, etc." Question by Vermilyea — regarding "the environmental and ecological services they provide" . . . what services are provided? How about using the word "functions" instead of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU FES — May 5, 2008 — Page 3 E Ipc 05.05.05 Minutes doe (TMs meeting, In Rs entirely, Is available on CD, and retained at City of Tigard Public Records services? Would it be appropriate to split this into two goals . . . one dealing with protection and natural resources, the other dealing with the restoration of natural resources. Floyd said he can work with that thought and bring it back to next meeting. There was some discussion as to what the "plain language" of this goal is — something the layman can understand. Bunch came up with the "plain language" version of Goal 5. 1 as follows: "Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide; and, where possible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity." He agreed that they have to be separated. President Inman said there needs to be some clarity on what environmental and ecological functions is intended to refer to. She said they will use Bunch's revised definition as the working definition and revisit the issue at the next meeting. POLICIES Policy 1 : Vermilyea likes Policy 1 as a goal rather than a policy. He said it articulates what the real goal is better than the goal itself. He had a question regarding 5.1c — values? How does a natural resource have a value? Is this appropriate? Floyd responded that there are human benefits from different natural resources in terms of psychological quality of life — health. Bunch said there are monetary values and other kinds of inherent psychological / cultural /spiritual values associated with natural resources that affect well being. Vermilyea suggested striking the word "values." He said it's impossible to quantify and shouldn't be in this context. It was suggested that this might be a good place to modify Policy 1 to add "where appropriate" rather than "where possible" — so it would read "and `where appropriate' restore natural resources . . . etc." Policy 2: One of the commissioners doesn't like the words "continue to," and doesn't like "as appropriate" at the end. He suggested deleting the first sentence and dropping everything after that into an action measure. Bunch agreed this would be good. Policy 3: The word "values" was questioned and it was suggested that it be deleted. A new version was suggested for this policy: "The City shall encourage public and private development to use sustainable building technologies and low impact development techniques, and include measures to protect and improve natural resource quality/functions as part of site and building design." One of the commissioners suggested that staff puts this in as an alternative. Inman liked the original version so agreed that a couple of versions would be good. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 5, 2008 — Page 4 E'Vpo 0505.00 Minutes Doc /This meeting. In is entirely, Is available on CD. and retained at City of Tigard Public Records I Policy 4: After discussion, new wording was suggested: "The City shall actively coordinate and consult with landowners, local stakeholders, and governmental jurisdictions and agencies regarding the inventory, protection, and restoration of natural resources." Policy 5: Commissioner Walsh would like the word "guide" used instead of "inform." Floyd said that works. All agreed that was a better word to use in this case. Policy 6: Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing "prevent" to "discourage." Floyd agreed that was more accurate. They also reworded the policy to: "Prior to development application or annexation" so the policy would read "The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives as appropriate to discourage property owners from removing or degrading natural resources prior to application for development or annexation." Policy 7: Vermilyea suggested rewording it to: "The City shall protect and, where appropriate, restore riparian and upland habitats on public and private lands" and putting the rest into action measures. Inman disagreed — she said doing that would lead to subjectivity as to what it's referring to - regarding the public and private lands — she thinks it leaves it open. She doesn't think "c" should be an action measure. She believes "preservation and creation of linkages" should be a policy. It was suggested that both "b" and "c" be separate policies. There was discussion on the original wording including "maximum extent possible." Floyd said the Policy Interest Team (PIT) specifically wanted a very aggressive statement here — they wanted "maximum extent possible" to be included — he noted the word "possible" is a qualifier but it is still a very aggressive statement. Commissioner Walsh said he's concerned about the wording "maximum extent possible". Inman summarized that what she's hearing is with Vermilyea's proposed new language, the commission is contemplating removing the "maximum extent possible" language and then in the public comment later, they can give some feedback on that. Vermilyea said, to clarify, that he thinks this is just a language issue - the language is superfluous — that the idea is if we "shall protect and restore where appropriate" then necessarily it is the maximum extent possible. He just doesn't think the language is necessary. Policy 8: It was suggested that the strategies be dropped to action measures - that "preserve" be changed to "protect", that "maintain" be dropped and that "where appropriate" be added. So the policy would read: "The City shall protect and, where appropriate, restore the diverse ecological and non-ecological functions of streams, wetlands, and associated riparian corridors." It was suggested that "b" in 8 is basically the same as "b" in policy 7 above so they can combine the two and just keep the "b" in policy 7. In "d" it was suggested that the word "regime" be changed to "system." Floyd agreed that the word system is better than regime. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU 1 ES — May 5, 2008 — Page 5 E Ups 05-05-08 Minutes doe [ibis meeting. m as entirely. Is available on CO. and retained at CJy of Tigard Public Records Policy 9: It was suggested that this be shortened to "The City shall implement measures to protect groundwater" and put the rest into action measures. Policy 10: The question was raised "Do we have an adequate baseline inventory today that can be maintained or do we need to put in some language that says we will improve / develop / etc." Ron Bunch suggested the language: "The City shall periodically update to improve its baseline inventory of natural resources through surveys and monitoring." Policy 11 : It was suggested to remove "planned development" or possibly drop Policy 11 completely. 1 & 2 changes covered this policy. Possibly add an "e" to policy 1 about assisting landowners. RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES: A general suggestion agreed upon by the commission was that staff keeps the language in the action measures congruous with the language in the policies. ii. The Planning Commission found this action measure to be too vague and the suggestion was that alternative language be made by staff so this action measure is more understandable. iv. They would like "regionally significant" to be measurable and identifiable. v. It was suggested this one be stricken and revisited should they feel necessary after public comment. vi. Suggestion was made to add "identify and make steps to correct" gaps, conflicts, and opportunities for enhancement." viii. They believe this is redundant. xi. The commissioners suggested that this be reworded to be more easily understood. It was felt to be too broad. Flesh this one out. GOAL 5.2 "Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources." The commission liked this goal as written. POLICIES: Policy 1 : It was suggested and all agreed that this be changed to read "The City shall actively promote the protection and preservation of historic resources and consider the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 5, 2008 — Page 6 E Upc 05 05 00 Minutes doc [This meeting. in 0s entirety. Is available on CD, and retained at City of Tigard Public Records I development and implementation of new culturally significant resources and cooperate with organizations involved in their protection." RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES: No changes were recommended. At this point the meeting was opened up to public testimony. The following two people testified: John Frewing • The amount of time allotted for public comment on this chapter is a concern. The material is admittedly rough as the opportunity for citizen involvement has been limited. • There should be no limit to the degree of specificity or lack of specificity included in the policies. The things that should be policies are the things that are important regardless of whether or not they are more specific, or more general. • The Planning Commission should request of staff a comparison of the current and proposed Comprehensive Plan policies. In some degree, the current plan is better than what is proposed, in others it is worse. • The introduction to the proposed chapter should be expanded to include real information beyond that which is currently in the proposal. The policies of the proposed Plan should refer to maps in the expanded background information, as is the case in the current Plan. • The creation of natural resource zones should be talked about and added to the policies. • To explain action measure xi: The state permits wells and pumping from streams for residential and commercial uses. If you don't pump for a period of five years the permits can be canceled. There are currently thousands of those permits sitting out there which have not been used in years. Tigard should aggressively pursue getting rid of the ones that pump water from Fanno Creek, for example. Tigard should make sure we know what water rights exist, are they current, are they being used, etc. • The word "values" should remain in the document. Metro's Standards and Guidelines for Sustainable Sites comments on both the functions and values of ecosystems, which are different. The definition of "values" should include both the economic value and the intrinsic value of these resources which is ascribed by humans. • Trying to wordsmith the document too closely is fraught with problems. The language must represent what the people of Tigard want, be understandable by lay citizens, but does not need to be defensible in a court of law at this stage. • Insertion of language such as "where appropriate" should be removed in addition to "the maximum extent possible". Let's not leave some of the specificity in and take the rest out. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'I ES — May 5, 2008 — Page 7 EAtpc 05.05.08 Minutes doe (Ills meeting. In ds entirely. Is evmtede on CD. and retained at Guy of Tlgerd Public Records I • In policies related to goal 5. 1 it is important and Tigard citizens would support language to minimize water use, minimize the use of air polluting mechanisms, recycle waste, minimize noise, night light, and other things that impact us and our natural systems. This language is appropriate in the Environmental Quality section, or here in the natural resources section which is better. • Policy 3 should be applied to individual site, not just development projects (structures). There are good ideas in the Metro document Standards and Guidelines for Sustainable Sites. • Strengthen Policy 4 to "The City shall manage its natural resources through consultation with. . . " It is his experience that the City does not do this very well currently. • In Policy 7, the language "maximum extent possible" should be taken out only if "where appropriate" is also taken out. • Policies 7 and 8 should be separated so that one policy addresses upland habitat and the other addresses riparian areas. Mitigation can come out as a separate concept. • The proposed chapter should mention Metro's model ordinance, Tide 13 which is a stronger action than riding along with the rest of Washington County's voluntary habitat friendly development provisions • On the subject of high scenic quality and view sheds, Portland does this already. Tigard downtown does this as well. The policy should read for sites other than downtown. For example, the view across the meadows of Cook Park to the Tualatin River, and along Fanno Creek somewhere. Sue Bielke • The Policy Interest Team was not given enough time to go through the policies, or put together the action measures. She would like to meet a few more times to cover everything. • Standard wording is protect, conserve, and restore natural resources. This should be in the Comprehensive Plan as well. We can define what these things mean. • The Comprehensive Plan needs a really good glossary so we don't have to dumb everything down. • On the subject of services vs. functions, John mentioned the Metro Plan. "Functions" and "services" are commonly used in natural resource documents and should be used here as well. We can define these as well. • The wording "where appropriate" does not belong in the Comprehensive Plan because it gives the City an out for things the community should be doing. • In every single policy we want to make sure Uplands are included. We do have uplands that are important. They are ecologically just as important as a wetland. • The word values should be left in and defined. • In Policy 7, leave the wording "fish and wildlife" because that was important to the PIT. Sometimes you restore habitats just for habitat value, other times for fish and wildlife habitat. • The "maximum extent possible" should be left in, but we can define it. Lots of time this will be limited by funds. Wants to discuss this concept some more. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU 1ES — May 5, 2008 — Page 8 E upcosasas Minutes doe (TMs meeling, In ns enllrely, Is available on CD, and retained at Ctly of Tigard Public Records • Additional Policy language: • The City shall create a distinct zone for open spaces, greenways, etc. in order to protect the natural resources that occur in these areas. • Protect and restore rare habitats and species such as oak prairie habitats. • Includes Fish and wildlife too • We can define rare. Very valuable. • Hydrologic regime should remain, because it is a scientific term. It is not the same as a function. A wetlands example is the regime of how much water is there in winter vs. summer. As a land manager you have to look at that hydrologic regime to restore the functions and the values. • In Policy 10 she disagrees with Staff; she does not think we have a good inventory. Alternative policy language: • The City shall conduct surveys of all natural resources in order to establish a baseline inventory. • You can't have a baseline inventory until you do your surveys. • The City shall periodically maintain and update that natural resource inventory. • Alternative Action Measures • Conduct surveys and monitoring of habitat and species periodically. (Might depend on funding). • Engage citizens in surveying, monitoring and evaluation. • There are people who are more than willing to participate • Identify opportunities for funding availability. (such as grants) • Action Measure 9 should be changed to the Oregon Conservation Strategy. This is a blueprint for how we want to manage our fish, wildlife, and plant species statewide. The next step is to get funding. • Agrees with John and recommends Metro's Title 13. The CWS standards set up to protect water quality, not habitat. 6. OTHER BUSINESS — It was decided they were not ready for this to go to a Public Heating and that this workshop would be continued to the next meeting — May 19. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11 :00 p.m. yTh Doreen Laughlin, Administrati - S • ecialist II ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 5, 2008 — Page 9 E upc05-05-08 Minutes doe (This meeting, In Rs entirely. Is available on CO, and retained at City of Tigard Public Records�