05/07/2012 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Vice President Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Walsh — arrived at 7:20 p.m.
Vice President Anderson
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Fitzgerald
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Ryan
Commissioner Schmidt
Alt. Commissioner Miller
Absent: Commissioner Shavey; Alt. Commissioner Armstrong
Staff Present: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Marissa
Daniels, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Tom
McGuire, Principal Planner; Todd Prager, Associate Planner/City
Arborist; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner
COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Anderson said President Walsh had been delayed at work and had indicated that
he would be about 20 minutes late. Anderson told the commissioners the agenda would be
taken a bit out of order so President Walsh would be present for the public hearing.
CONSIDER MINUTES
April 16, 2012 Meeting Minutes: Vice President Anderson asked if there were any
additions, deletions, or corrections to the April 16 minutes; there being none, Anderson
declared the minutes approved as submitted.
BRIEFING — PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE (Taken out of order)
Anderson recognized Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, who would speak about Periodic
Review.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Conmission\2012 Packc18\050712.PH-UFCR Coni'd•Periodic RCN B,cling PuldoL tic:1'!an Briefing\ipc 00712 vninues,duc, Page 1 of 7
Wyss noted he was there to provide a brief update on the city's progress in completing its
Periodic Review work program. He explained the timing of the update is predicated on the
fact the commission will be reviewing the public involvement plans for the final tasks after
the update. Periodic Review is required by state land use planning rules and is a process of
reviewing comp plan & land use regulations to ensure they are still consistent with state
regulations. The city was notified of commencement of Periodic Review in May 2008 and
then evaluated the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and developed a work
program. The Committee for Citizen Involvement held a meeting to accept public comment
in November 2008. The Planning Commission did the same in January 2009, and the City
Council approved the work program for submittal to DLCD later that month. Because of
state budget issues, the city work program was not approved by DLCD until April 2010. The
city has three years to complete the work program.
The work program contains 6 tasks:
• Population and Housing review
• Downtown development standards (PC Recommendation Fall 2009)
• EOA (PC Advisory Committee 2010 & Recommendation Spring 2011)
• Public Facility Plan Update
• TSP update (PC Workshops & Recommendation Spring 2010)
• Population Forecast & Coordination with Metro
The final three tasks will be completed over the next year. The Planning Commission will
make a recommendation to council on each task.
Two of the tasks (1 & 6) the Population & Housing Review - and the Population Forecast&
Coordination with Metro - will be completed with a $45k grant funded by DLCD.
Tasks will adopt a population projection and ensure compliance with the state metropolitan
housing rule. They will also position the city to attract the types and mix of housing it
desires. This will be done through a housing trends analysis. Specific attention will be spent
on housing in downtown Tigard, River Terrace, and potential redevelopment associated with
high capacity transit.
The Public Facility Plan update task addresses a 20 year need for water, transportation,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. The purpose is to ensure adequate services
are available for future development. The city recently updated the Water Master Plan &
Transportation System Plan - and Clean Water Services (CWS) recently updated the sanitary
sewer master plan; this is sufficient to cover the 20 year need. The stormwater component
will need to piece together three different plans. Staff will work closely with CWS & DLCD
to ensure they meet the 20 year planning horizon as required by state rules.
Early next year the Planning Commission can expect to hold public hearing on the
remaining tasks. Staff will be back with updates throughout the process to keep the
commissioners informed.
BRIEFING — PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL77
I:ALRPLN\Planning Commisvon\2012 Packers Ax50712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Ilnefiag Pubhe Im%an pnet e0\ipc 050712 rmnurc,d 1-ata age 2 of
Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner, reminded the commissioners that at the end of 2010
City Council gave the role of Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to the Planning
Commission. She reminded them that, since then, they'd reviewed two public involvement
plans for projects that are still being worked on. She briefly went over a memo that she'd
sent out in their packets regarding that role. She said that, particularly for the new
commissioners, she'd attached information about the role of the CCI. At this time she
spoke about the two public involvement plans before them. The two work tasks are the
Population and Housing Review and the Public Facilities Plan. The two are very similar so
she briefly pointed out where they are different and then gave a general description.
Daniels asked for any suggestions or comments. Commissioner Doherty spoke about the
importance of involving seniors when dealing with public involvement. One of the ways
she'd found useful was to utilize the Sutnmerfield community's newsletter, the Real Courier,
which comes out once a month. She believes that would be a good vehicle for getting the
word out. She also thought, when talking about subjects that may affect them—
transportation, for example, perhaps a workshop at the clubhouse in the Summerfield area,
would be in order. She said this was just something to keep in mind when talking about
public involvement.
There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty — seconded by Commissioner Rogers: "I
move we accept the Public Improvement Plan Review." It passed unanimously. President
Walsh abstained; he had walked in during the motion.
Daniels stated that if any of the commissioners was interested in participating on an advisory
committee, to please email her.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 16 REOPENED 7:20 pm
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT: CPA2011-00004/
DCA2011-00002
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry
Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the
"Significant Tree Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters
18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18,350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640,
18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798, In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments,
amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40,
8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide.
President Walsh gave a brief history of what had happened up to this point and gave the
scope of what would happen at this hearing. They would receive the staff report covering the
latest amendments; have a question and answer period; accept public testimony on
outstanding issues; close testimony and deliberate. The hope is to bring a recommendation
forward to City Council. If not, they will continue the hearing until they are at a point they can
do so.
T\LRPLN\Planoiog Commission\2012 Packces\050712-Pld-UFCR Col-11'd•Periodic Ru L1nchng Public Irl,PInn I3rIef n\qx 11507!2 minure,dnc. Page 3 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Todd Prager, Associate Planner/City Arborist, gave the staff report dated April 18 which
covered the latest amendments. [The staff report is available in its entirety one week before
the meeting.] He went through the issues using a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A).
Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, assisted Todd in answering
questions. The main issues were:
• Issue 1: Small Lot, Small Development (Staff Recommended Amendments
• Issue 2: Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees that were planted
by developers during the two-year establishment period.
• Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu option.
Staff also addressed these issues in detail in a memo to the commission dated 4-18-12.
As Prager went through the PowerPoint, there were a few clarifying questions and
comments from the commissioners. Some pertained to options homeowners would have for
removing trees they didn't want to keep. There would be several options. The difference
between the old code and the new one was discussed. The new code is more flexible than
the old. There was discussion about the "fee in lieu" as opposed to a "fine."
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
President Walsh noted that written testimony had been submitted by John Frewing (Exhibit
B) and Robert Ruedy (Exhibit C) had been submitted. He asked the commissioners to take
some time to look at the written testimony.
Ken Gertz, of Gertz Fine Homes -- Homebuilders Association Member, 19200 SW
46th, Tualatin, 97062 commended staff on a great job. He went through the items staff had
addressed one by one and commented on them. Proposal 1A — Moving residential lots down
a tier— he believes is a great idea. 1B — eliminate the 15°% per lot minimum in the Tier 2 & 3
districts only. He fails to see why an additional 15% minimum is needed. Street trees will be
there anyway. He thinks it may backfire and cause them to lose some trees because builders
might choose to cut down on trees because, once you do the math, it's cheaper to cut them
down and just meet the 15°% minimum. He said they're okay with the 15% but he wanted to
point out that it could come back to haunt them. He believes the new code is very flexible.
He spoke against the 40% tree canopy — he thinks it creates an undesirable lot (due to the
immense amount of shade.)
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
President Walsh reiterated that he appreciates all the time staff put into addressing these
issues. He appreciated the input from Ken Gertz. He said it's been good discussion. He said
he agrees with Ken on many of the issues. Mr. Gertz interjected that he'd forgotten to
mention one thing in his testimony and asked to speak for 30 seconds more. President
Walsh reopened the public hearing and asked him to make it very short.
J\LRPLN\planning Com ooisaion\2012 Packets\050712-PH-UPCR Coor'd-Periodic Rcv l3nuGoin Pubic Lir Plan 1},We-is,lrpc 050712 miouics-docx Page 4 of 7
PUBLIC TESTIMONY REOPENED
Gertz spoke about when homeowners cut down trees after builders had planted it for the
two-year requirement. He said it would be nice if something was written in the Tree Code.. .
he's okay with assigning it to the homeowner but he'd like to get his mitigation money back
at that time —when the assignment is done because at that point it's between the city and the
homeowner—it's not between the city and the developer.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
Susan Hartnett addressed the testimony. She said she believed it would be up to the
developer to come and say "I'd like to adjust the bond amount." The mechanism is there but
it would be up to the developer.
DELIBERATIONS
There was some discussion of the written testimony. It was decided nothing in the testimony
caused concern. One of the commissioners noted that they consider all testimony brought
forward. They deal with the major issues. She said she's not sure they've dealt with every
single issue that's been brought forward but they believe the document is fluid enough that
down the road, if there's really a problem - that problem can be dealt with. But overall, staff
has done a great job. Harnett said she wanted to add an aside... she suggested the
commission might want to propose to council in their transmittal memo a re-evaluation two
or three years down the line. There may well be things that should be changed and later
realized. A re-evaluation could be helpful in that case.
There were a few more minutes of discussion and then they agreed that a motion was in
order.
MOTION (Three separate motions were made)
The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon and seconded by
Commissioner Doherty:
I move that the Planning Commission approve the following land use related
amendments to CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002, which are more fully
described in the "Outstanding Issues Document" prepared by staff:
1. Issue 1.B, Option 1 Land Use Amendments: Eliminate the 15% per lot
minimum for Tier 2 and 3 districts.
2. Issue 1.E, Option 1 Land Use Amendments: Allow landscape architects, in
addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans.
3. Additional Land Use Amendments 1: Minor text amendment to the
summary heading of section 18.790.030.A..
4. Additional Land Use Amendments 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree
canopy cover requirement to 15% in Chapter 18.790.
I:\L..RPLN\Planning Commission\20t2 Packets\059712-PH-UFCR Coned-Periodic Rn Rne1n�l°aI I lm-Plan Blzerog\t1 e 1)50713 vnnwes.docr Page 5 of 7
5. Additional Land Use Amendments 3: Correct scrivener's error in section
18.790.030.C.
6. Additional Land Use Amendments 4: Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE
and correct boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62.
7. Additional Land Use Amendments 5: Minor text amendment to clarify the
review and approval process in sections 18.790.070.B.1-3.
The motion carried on a unanimous vote.
The following motion was made by Commissioner Rogers and seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt:
I move that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of
CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002 as amended by the prior motion.
Planning Commission authorizes staff to make non-substantive text
amendments to correct scrivener's errors and for consistency with the text
amendments for other projects, such as the code compliance amendments.
The motion carried on a unanimous vote.
The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald:
I move that the Planning Commission advise City Council that the non-land
use elements of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions,which include Tigard
Municipal Code titles other than Title 18 and the Urban Forestry Manual, are
consistent with and supportive of CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002 subject
to the following non land use related amendments,which are more fully
described in the "Outstanding Issues Document" prepared by staff:
1. Issue LA, Option 1 Non Land Use Amendments: Move the R-12 Zone into
Tier 2.
2. Issue 1.B, Option 1 Non Land Use Amendments: Eliminate the 15% per lot
minimum for Tier 1 and 2 districts (corrected afterward to Tier 2 and Tier 3
districts)
3. Issue 1.E, Option 1 Non Land Use Amendments: Allow landscape
architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans.
4. Additional Non Land Use Amendments 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree
canopy cover requirement to 15% in the Urban Forestry Manual.
I;\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packet;\050712-P1-I-LIFCR Conr'd-Periodic Rei Enc hog Pul>I.c lm P1,m 1eI e .rpc 0i0712 m core=doe, Page 6 of
5. Additional Non Land Use Amendments 6: Grant 1.25x bonus credit for
planting native trees.
6. Additional Non Land Use Amendments 7: Minor text amendment to
remove a repetitive approval criterion for tree removal permit requirements
in sensitive lands.
Before the vote took place, Susan Hartnett asked for some clarification on one portion of
the motion— On number 2. Issue 1.B, she'd thought she heard Commissioner Doherty say
Tier 1 and 2 when, in fact, there is no Tier 1. Commissioner Doherty said she had
misspoken. She corrected the motion to say Tier 2 and Tier 3. President Walsh asked if
everyone was clear on the motion; they all indicated they were clear and the vote took place.
The motion carried on a unanimous vote.
President Walsh acknowledged staff for the immensely hard work on this project. He said he
believed this was the greatest effort he'd seen on behalf of staff since the Comprehensive
Plan. Susan acknowledged the administrative and graphic staff as well — she said they do a
lot of behind the scenes work and she wanted to acknowledge that excellent work as well.
President Walsh agreed.
At this point President Walsh turned the attention of the commission to the upcoming City
Council hearing. He said that when this goes before council he would like two
commissioners to represent the commission. He volunteered to go himself and asked who
would like to join him. Commissioner Schmidt agreed to go as well.
Walsh noted also that a transmittal memo needs to be submitted. The purpose of the memo
is to give council an idea of why they came to the decision they came to. Staff will compose
the memo and wanted clarity as to why the commission decided the way they did. President
Walsh polled the commission round robin style and got thoughts from each commissioner
while staff took note. Those thoughts will be included in the transmittal memo to council.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
OTHER BUSINESS - None
ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:52p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Planning C< emission Secretary
!++-: i1.'resident Dave Walsh
C:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\650712-PN-UECR Con['d-Periodic Re Brirar Puh3tc Iw PlAn Brw[iny\rpc 050712 minty.s.dt,s Page 7 of 7
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
TIGAERD
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Planning Commission Public Hearing
on the Outstanding Issue
Community Development I May 2012
TIGARD
. II
'3 '; '-� Y7•'i �s't� * + lei +i. " 4.
.* + +*r +'i
i4 yew `, �# r.-• _ }* nh,F • �,
F .k h ' r til* J* J.F
*
•
• x Outstanding Issues 1 14 ,v - .:,
_ + w ,. .is A
Mu , '* * '. 1, . ., ,
1. Application of the proposed code on small lots/developments . ; -
2. Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees
4
• 3. Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu -
E
- ,
Orr+ an - _ 6
TIGARD
` r
Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development :;,P+''Y+, f - ; •.
A.
• u .' ..I' y _ .. "AL.'E. -• +-,9'* ,. - ' ,, ..
lir Development Existing Code Proposed Code -Air
likilt Type
Small lot land divisions Arborist required if existing trees Arborist required to meet tree canopy ' ap;,--
(<5000 sq. ft. lots) and soil volume requirements
Mitigation required for tree No mitigation required :{ `
l#' removal r; -,�
}F
*r ti -,-L 't--
Small Developments Arborist required if existing trees Arborist required to meet tree canopy -''_
(Minor Land Partitions) and soil volume requirements ',.
Mitigation required for tree No mitigation required
removal
IIIII
- -• - - - _ - 1 .
CITY OF TIGARD
Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development
. .
aMi ;.,ir - .: . . ..
,yrrlidirrecll
litf•-• .4 - ._._.-6-";91.1;422 .
m 4
%A
1 .... ' .. -
iP_Sg491114r:4'-4 . 1114-3- l'
-: 41:7 .'. '_••I . ' .% . -4: '- '4 .,.,4.. . ,...E pi
c.:F, I - P I
....
i '' ire '' 11114t.
. ..,
- ,E ,'14 X .11.11r J.''
- 396 o' ;,4: - .• II I... :•1..iW, :-. .... r..L. ,... ... .1:41. :4 7: -
_
- 1.4 -i9.44.-: -.-- •
- iii■ _ . ..
) 4 1 10. 4.: .-ii! L , -' ±.341.1111 "-. .:.V1A01-il
'' ..:
• Ali / ,... - . 1 dtitt* L /Pik
, !l'' - •"'1, _ , • :.1-]••
. 41
Pr I .•
It
...
1.1.215 -11 I -
- •
-.
1 • ' Solera I "..4- ''S- .'• ' Iliti Solera I
' Solera II .. .id., Solera II
144E7 ..
'P ',1 < ' „. in. . ifir
'M *
.... .. i I Ir.5 . -1;61 -15N1 Ir-i - 1 FIUMIMIT7'—:11: i
.-••• 4. -
q.., • 111463'. -...,71- . 41111- i 4',...).10 ' .re
...,.., , r4, I i.ir'f451Ii-'- ' ..
i.i t:IP 4111,
.-P-. IllirMilli.
•-• . . ., u_
• . ._, _
.-0 . - :1: . t _4•1-,.''' , 6
•• I 1 4 7 3 •
'lik .j'...: :;' ' 1 . --
• .9
' 5r" '. i•
. I C. • '11 7 --..it
' •••,. - . - - • ,
IH I ' • 1 -..it-rni ,.. . ". . , 1 Lei,
.. • •••
-• . 1 tilil . ..- ... -
I
..m.m.....i - -1
--r.- • ,, --7.-:' ': 11 161;8 Solera II , .....( ,..:.'
Ill cr. .-..
A . '• 1 0%.
... .1
,,,,.....01111
. ... ,
_ _ , ..?...... ,
1.4.; ,...... . Solera I i•
-.1.'.,...... • ,
111646r-‘ . -:-.•-'-'- • • 7.mil
.
- - - ._ "-F.._ - .4•E'A-., _
4 ,.--______, ,.. . _‘"YeUrirG - 0,. -.---'-'--.---..._ UR G",,r.,: r. _!41 rill:-
.: ,
.....
.,..... . _..
__...... - .-..A....4 ...?c-- • .
P... r . 1!
j--- . 1- '.. . I• .
2005 , _ _ 2011
CITY O F TIGARD
Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development
Hellwege Partition
NQRiTH DAKOTA - NORi7H DA#C�b�TA 5
•
. •• 444bP"r
Asti F µrhe h y• ' � •y1J J '
liPirljl
......r_
�� �t
J, Y3.3 1f *,
•
fx . r .if..4,.;....- r ,. , { f :• M.F. 4• ,
ti
ava
1. . 111111 sge.:--- ' - ..,,,..,4 ir...-?inipirls __ _ . •
iiir
III, . 0;4 . -,. Zipli
T �� r K ii.,,-.'•
d JP A• •
r■ ,i itc,
,. •,p=..,0•.
.0, .•-fin
•
..10.
, •_. ,... . P- - ilik ifirovails-. ____
2007 2011
CITY OF TIGARD
Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development
immium
S .r..•;NS g.,n Wel. a.ILNM—.size F... .a• . -, .. ' ). . .' .-*.Sf!Vk, iF�
F . . . r °'; Y •.y� DI Y*•_x. i �_L 'iii
fa a E7 04 to 64 is • • at a 6d as 4e 47 44 45
.I
C?:
ALUTA '1 �f
'I-WI a —"I -
iWrin
1111E. i ..ter rr : . .. ® �_—_
ra,
•
, , .rar..r r.r M. FN. - x nFn n
��.r +- i r#F.arrm��ri.� ".�'l�.a.r +
\....,7 j.1 ZIT.L'ar.M.T.Mr..M.:7 ma tr.r.;-71,2-----—
TIFF OW40F?TLE
. .a..•.. ,.....termss Iv ma..EFFsr
.I.
MM. id 1•1•141.n w
r .. •
tel= .... ice..
-...rate
im AM
•
TfQ {,M1i�4 Y PI..fi.N `r'rr:i• M...% +rw :� i
J. IA. SEOUOIA LdhIDING n
m. ... FIR•FM I
CSI jug tai
OF TIGARDfi.
Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development - : :,: : ; . :; . •
• F . •
54P
- • Staff Recommended Amendments
' -4 je:4).§11X
0 Reduce the effective tree canopy requirements to 33% (Tier 2) fo ;...
residential developments with lots less than 5,000 sq. ft:
911:1*. 0 0 Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for residential developments with
lots less than 5,000 sq. ft., and for commercial, industrial, mixed use .x
and school development
0 0 Allow landscape architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban
forestry plans to reduce costs by eliminating the need for hiring two
urban forestry consultants
TIGARD
-� Issue 2 : Maintenance Durin : Tree Establishment Period `.
- - Code Existing Code Proposed Code ' ' }
•
Requirement ,;..- -
Ensure Trees Tree survival required for 2 years Tree survival required for 2 years —1,,
- Survive After t � - .
r 1 Planting
..i. Only required for mitigation trees (not Required for all trees (street trees, ,
illir
- street trees, parking lot trees, etc.) parking lot trees, etc.)
' ' - Code prohibits tree removal during 2 Code prohibits tree removal during 2 ;
year establishment period year establishment period
-
•
- I
TIGARD
1,} g' ., ,' - *_ 4 * : *{.
• Issue 2 : Maintenance Durin : Tree Establishment Period `.
Staff Recommended Amendments -F . ; t
No amendments are recommended
0 0 Code prohibits property owner from removing trees '� . • "`y '
0 0 Developer could contractually obligate a property owner to •`_ }. 47
911, maintain trees as part of the purchase and sale agreement
_I
116a 4. poi it
~ n _
TI G A R D
} *_ : : ,
� • �}
,
4. .. - .Fir*' .}
-.i. •-.' i. Issue 3 : Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu .: f ��! ; •.
I" Existing Cod - Proposed Code . +`*µ }
i ' Mitigation Based Canopy Based ; - R .,�»-
$125/caliper Inch $2.95/sq. ft.
4
. 1DBH converted to canopy using Krajicek formula
TIGARD
. , iN Issue 3 . Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu � .
•.
Staff Recommended Amendments . .- 1, 4-2 }�, ,v >. ; t
oNo amendments are recommended :F , •,--
0 0 Proposed fee in lieu is a reasonable appraisal of the value of tree
. canopy 4migaramosit.
k 0 0 The purpose of the fee in lieu is to incentivize tree planting and
.. - preservation - . .
-
TIGARD
} • *_ : :
M+r ' •}
_ • * } •
• F- . N'•.- ', Draft Motions (page 23) f �' ; •
0 0 Motion 1: Incorporates staff recommended land use amendments •dr
0 0 Motion 2: Recommends approval of land use elements of UFCR - -1 'r
,
01 :r
0 0 Motion 3: Advises non-land use elements are consistent with and
• supportive of land use elements
- n — I
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
•
-11.1i,41; .:,:i*. . ' ° triir.P '' •A.'..- '':. • +.-• : 'Z''''!.' ..d....AL' lii .t go—'e.e' . . ,., • ,
-.- . •-:' - -"Z'.141r- 6.I.%! .7..•V.'' li i .. .,;...,41 1 4.11!' ....:.';' . Tyt:!. .4:;i7.' ':.-.;'.
•
tom, f , .: I i• y. y�
7.
1` ►
r yfi„5F rf 114
•+P`
'LL4 �r4 _
."
. _
__
ANN
�` — —
M.—
�— -
Questions
CITY OF TIGARD
— i
. i Q7 : 55 I% ST BM JIM 64 M 1 6a EI 6d a ! 46 a 4e. 45
Ill
•t 7 —.-- - i
ALLEY,'
, t
I
f r LIZ=
� .M3. -- a..— i* i M.= El ----—
MI
Fla +....P.
aFyF - '- ' ' r.. .!i c F
•Im amR s=41•10• -���.��+#Fa aFr.m�r..I
_ �l^R� rl .ISI I= PMPOMIi• .aoop-�•M.• �Yw. '."P•"..lam
I
MEE CANDI:re TABLE
ani-TT ' _6AM31=.MCIMIlil
r:-.rar
_ .... �-
54110kA LOOM n
C74 tor HI 1
C I T Y 0 F T I G A R D
I , : _ ....M, 1
•}' —e-
i T
w 4B '7 1c ! i I
I I i $ 14 1 13
I• I I
�.'� '�.; � { tib , y5}' .A. ,1 IJ
•{' r • ..y + •i 11 kms.-.J 55 I
14/
r :-:...
. 7-,
•'•%•4:ek' . , LIMO
•
II I' 1 i� }•4 .11.4+.. a_..—
•
�^ 5 ........ IT:
.III
'Ir
II
II' �� l'i -
}]/0JJff _!_ s -- - • r. TREE CAMPY TABLE
r'f.' +F'� i. i Rt 4� LLL7Wd lILJ11n wr
rf R•, SF OO'N7LrNPM MACIMOfi®��YM ,Z� �'n_i �'""If ''9%.
rte.
— •�' __r w.....,�_wwwMei— J� •w +~�
5aar
�a1 multi _ •�_ L.
M. Calm s s..
__ gin _
ra a W M
LS ay
•
7 W' 41.1 MI
4I� . 'Lia!
SITE TREE CANOPY FLAN :�r,M;o.f4 iEWOOp NO 2
M.
TIGARD CRECIC 1 1 Or I
RECEIVED
MAY 032012
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
BEFORE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, MEETING ON 5/7/2012
TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING
AGENDA ITEM 5, URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM
CPA 2011-00004
DCA 2011-00002
This testimony relates to the first two items under consideration this evening pursuant
to the April 25, 2012 staff report; canopy cover requirements for small lots and
elimination of a 15 percent minimum canopy cover on individual small lots.
I feel that the reasoning behind these two proposed code changes is sound but
incomplete. The loss of canopy and the redistribution of canopy afforded by these
changes is a real 'loss', 'take away' or 'subtraction' from the previously drafted code
requirements. This loss should be mitigated or compensated by two further changes
which I propose in this testimony:
1. For the larger lots in Tigard, retention of a minimum of one existing tree (i.e. > 6
inches DBH) in the front yard and one existing tree in the back yard of the
development impact area (if they preexist on the lot) should be required,
notwithstanding the canopy cover requirements proposed in the code. Such trees
should be located on the lot itself, not right-of-way or easement or sidewalk planter
strip. This mitigation measure will provide at least some retention of canopy cover in
the near term, long before any planted trees reach maturity.
I believe that the appropriate place and wording would be an addition to TDC Section
18.790.030, adding "5. Notwithstanding the various requirements and options
elsewhere in this chapter and in the UFM, the plan for all except small residential and
commercial/industrial lots shall show and assure that a minimum of one existing tree
(i.e. > 6 inches DBH) in the front yard and one existing tree in the back yard of the each
lot's development impact area (if they preexist on the lot) shall be protected and
retained."
2. Incorporate ODFW comments (January 20, 2012) into Tigard land use code
requirements and the subsidiary UFM language. Specifically I would highlight what is
called comment NLU 6 (page 43 of April 5, 2012 staff report) regarding retention of
snags, comment NLU 17 (page 50 of April 5, 2012 staff report) regarding a tree
removal season and comment NLU 18 (page 50 of April 5, 2012 staff report) regarding
assessment of habitat potential in tree inventories. Such mitigation measures will
ensure that the remaining trees are useful to wildlife. Incorporation of these ODFW
comments will meet the state rules regarding coordinal:ion of land use regulations with
other agencies.
Regarding NLU 6, the appropriate location and change to support retention of snags
where possible would be to add language in a new numbered sentence to TDC
18.775.070 B, C, D and E, saying "Where hazard trees exist in these sensitive lands, at
least 15 feet of the tree trunk should be retained, even if abatement requires much of
the tree to be removed,"
Regarding NLU 17, the appropriate implementation would be an addition to the
language of TDC 18.790.060 A, saying "Implementation of tree removal pursuant to an
approved urban forestry plan shall be restricted to the months of September, October,
November, December, and January in order to protect nesting migratory birds."
Regarding NLU 18, the appropriate implementation would be an addition to the
language of TDC 18.790.060 D, saying "Each such required urban forest inventory
shall include an assessment of tree habitat potential."
Sincerely,
Joh s Frewing
711 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, 97223 jfrewing@teleport.com
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-
00002
Resident/Property Owner 25111 BB, TL500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: May 7, 2012
Testimony by: Robert E. Ruedy
14185 SW 100th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224-4951
(503)620-5997
The additionally Amended UFCR Plan continues to remain in essence a broad-brush approach to
an eventual solution, my questions, comments, and finding at this initial stage of my recent (1
week) notice of this "additionally amended" City of Tigard (COT) UFCR Plan are as follows:
1. Virtually all of my prior written testimony has been set-aside by City Staff and/or the Planning
Commission, yet this respondent continues to urge implementation of those deficiencies
and/or irregularities so stated for the record.
2. My prior written testimony Item #10 (from the March testimony)  (from the 4/16/12
testimony) requested that the City or its planning commission address the issue that "I am in
agreement with other testimonies relating to this initial enactment of the proposed UFCR Plan
only affecting Single Family low-density properties such as R-3.5 and R-5 land use zoning
within the COT. All others development requests must take a case-by-case approach to add
common sense to the UFCR objectives", has not been adequately addressed to date within
the"amended" draft UFCR Plan being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. This
oversight is unacceptable and my request is that the Planning Commission return the
"amended" Draft UFCR Plan to City Staff to complete their responses to all testimony
presented.
I will expand upon this concern within this testimony, due to its relevance on the agenda topic
#1 for this planning commission meeting revisit of the issue.
The R-3.5 Zoning allows a maximum of 3.5 Units/Acre or 12,445 SF/Lot vs. an R-12 Zoning
which allows a maximum of 12 Units/Acre or 3050 SF/Lot. This private property Owner
requests and recommends a "straight line" sliding scale approach of"Lot Size" (in square feet)
to percent of tree canopy requirements. An example would be for R-12 Zoning/Land Use, to
reduce the required tree canopy by 75 percent, since 3050 SF/Lot is 75 percent smaller Lot
than R-3.5 at 12,445 SF/lot. This is simple math and easy to utilize within the Land Use
Approval process (even without a calculator).
Anything less than this private property Owner recommendation is not only discriminatory
against the higher density properties, but also would likely be categorized in the Oregon
Courts System as collusive and fraudulent actions.
It is simply, if not obviously, prejudicial and discriminatory in nature against undeveloped and
under-developed private properties with higher density allowed uses, and is an unfair burden
on those private property Owners. If the City truly wants to reduce the requirements of having
more than 1 arborist consultant on the City payroll, this is suggested recommendation is how
Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-
00002
Resident/Property Owner 25111 BB, TL.500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: May 7, 2012
that would be accomplished. The primary benefit would be a "level playing field"for private
property zonings and their allowed Land Use (Le. housing"density"where it is needed most!).
Undeveloped and under-developed Private Property Land Owners simply want the City to stop
stealing our land development capabilities through Land Use Regulations and/or by the heavy
handed approach of being financially exhorted by the City with a Fee-In-Lieu option just to be
allowed the Land Uses we purchased with our hard earned money!
The voters, numerous times, have made it very clear with constraints on the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB)to contain growth by enhancing "Urban Density" in lieu of"Urban Sprawl"
detriments. This current UFCR Draft is contradictory to those voter demands.
If this currently City Staff suggested draft is not modified to reflect a non-discriminatory
approach to its impacts on Privately Owned undeveloped and under-developed properties, I
will seek, and encourage others within the UGB to seek, Measure 49 exceptions, exclusions,
and protection(s) and/or legal challenge(s) under Oregon Land Use Law.
In conclusion, again I wish to state that for the City of Tigard to enact a luke-warm, incomplete, or
unenforceable UFCR Plan and expect sanity to be applied to the initial regulatory codes' insanity,
is at best a hap-hazard way to provide sensible regulation, and at worst, grossly irresponsible. My
recommendation again is to take an additional year to create a rational, enforceable, and
comprehensive UFCR Plan. We've been without one since November 6, 1982. So for 50 years
we've done just fine without it, and another year to ensure that it's comprehensively written,
reasonable and legally applicable, given the availability of reduced staffing at the City and the need
for additional public comment and revision to the current draft plan would seem to be both prudent
and rational under the circumstances. Besides, it's not like we're experiencing a "housing boom"
right now or in the foreseeable future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Owner of 25111 BB, TL500
Page 2 of 2