Loading...
10/21/2013 - MinutesCity of Tigard Memorandum To: Mayor Cook and Tigard City Council From: Marissa Grass Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Review Date: October 21, 2013 The City of Tigard has a proud history of commitment to preserving, enhancing and maintaining its urban forest. The city's trees provide an important backdrop for life in Tigard. The city's vision is that Tigard's urban forest is:  Valued and protected by city residents  A thriving, interconnected ecosystem  Managed to improve quality of life and increase community identity; and  Maximizing aesthetic, economic and ecological benefits As of March 1, 2013, the city's regulations relating to urban forestry were updated. The following discussion details a summary of activity, feedback, and recommended action items related to each key element of the updated code: Urban Forestry Standards for Development, Tree Grove Preservation Program, Tree Permit Requirements, and Hazard Trees. Council requested a six month review of the code as part of implementation. All action items are summarized in Attachment A: Urban Forestry Issues Log. These issues were collected by staff between March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013. Listed in this memo are the action items that require a change to the Urban Forestry Manual (Administrative Rules). The process to implement the changes described in Attachment A are detailed below:  Administrative Rule updates to the Urban Forestry Manual – The Tigard Municipal Code states that “notification shall be made to council of the proposed administrative rule or amendment. At any time following council notification, any councilmember may put the subject on the discussion agenda for the next available council meeting for council consideration or action.” Council has 14 days from notification to decide if they want to discuss the item. If Council chooses to discuss the Administrative Rules, then there is an optional 14-day public comment period and newspaper notice before discussion. 2 If Council chooses not to discuss these items, then there is a required 14-day public comment period and newspaper notice, after which the city manager or designee “will take into consideration the written comments received and may either approve, modify or reject the proposed administrative rule(s).” All administrative rules will be effective on the 14th day after approval by the city manager or designee, unless a written protest is received and a Council public hearing is scheduled.  Development Code Updates – Development Code updates are processed by way of a Type IV land use decision. Type IV decisions require notice to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development, a mailed and newspaper notice sent by the city, and a public hearing of the Planning Commission and City Council. Because the Development Code items proposed in this memo do not warrant a separate project, the amendments discussed here will be added to other upcoming amendments packages. This could be as part of the Parks Zone project or the next round of administrative procedures updates. Either way, we anticipate that all code items will be reviewed by Council by the end of the year.  Municipal Code Updates – No Municipal Code updates are proposed at this time.  Procedural or Material Updates – These updates are administrative in nature and will be implemented by the Community Development Department with supervision from Tom McGuire. Urban Forestry Standards for Development Overview In the Development Code, larger project types (Type II or III) require an urban forestry plan be submitted as part of land use review. This includes projects like subdivisions, planned developments, minor land partitions, site development reviews, conditional uses, sensitive lands reviews, and Downtown design reviews. Urban forestry plans are required to be developed by a landscape architect or a person certified as both an arborist and tree risk assessor. The urban forestry plan requirements consist of three main parts.  Tree preservation and removal site plan - Essentially a demolition/preservation plan identifying trees to remain and trees to be removed.  Tree canopy site plan - Shows all trees to be preserved as well as those to be planted. It is essentially a landscape plan that includes just the trees. It visually displays how the effective tree canopy requirements will be met.  Supplemental report - A narrative for the site plans providing more detailed inventory data on the species, size, condition, and suitability of preservation for trees and stands of 3 trees. This report also contains the details on how the effective tree canopy requirements will be met. The Urban Forestry Manual (Administrative Rules) spells out the requirements for each of the three parts. Once approved, Urban Forestry Plans must be implemented with oversight by the project arborist or landscape architect. The implementation requirements include:  Twice monthly inspections for trees to be preserved.  For Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions, a signature of approval by the project arborist or landscape architect on building plot plans prior to building permit issuance. An example building plot plan is in Appendix 13 of the Urban Forestry Manual.  Prior to final building inspection, the project arborist or landscape architect must document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan.  Trees to be planted must be bonded and survive an establishment period, after which time the bond is released.  After the development is complete, all of the preserved and planted trees are required to be GPS located and included in the city's GIS inventory of trees Summary of Activity The city received 10 applications between March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013, that were subject to the Urban Forestry Plan requirements. All of the applications received during this timeframe used either planting or preservation to meet the requirements, with the majority of applicants using a combination of both. One application, the Bonita Pump Station, qualified for the lowest tier of canopy required (25 percent), while the others were subject to 33 percent or 40 percent requirements. Details about the applications received in this timeframe are available in Attachment B. Feedback More feedback was submitted related to the Urban Forestry Standards for Development, than for any other topic. Please see Appendix B for the full range of feedback collected. For the most part, this feedback relates to the Administrative Rules in the Urban Forestry Manual, and specifically the Urban Forestry Plan and Plan Implementation standards. Proposed Administrative Rule Amendments are included below. Please see Appendix A for the full range of feedback collected. 4 Action Item Summary Details Type of Action Required Do Not Require a Detailed Assessment of Offsite Trees In some situations, it may not be possible to perform a detailed assessment of offsite trees due to access limitations. There should be flexibility for the project arborist or landscape architect to qualify and/or limit their assessment in these situations. Administrative Rule Amendment Trees Outside of the Impact Area An inventory of trees within 25 feet of the development impact area which are greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH or which otherwise require a permit to remove is required on a tree preservation and removal site plan. In some cases this may not adequately protect large trees that have roots that extend more than 25 feet. One suggestion is for a revision to address large trees that are close to the development impact area. Our arborist could work up a numeric standard for such a revision. Administrative Rule Amendment Remove Double Credit for Nuisance Trees The double canopy credit does not discriminate between nuisance trees and desirable species, such that we are providing a strong incentive to preserve nuisance trees. Administrative Rule Amendment Add Bonus Credit for Preserving Native Trees Grant extra bonus credits (150 percent based on mature canopy, perhaps) for preserving native trees that are less than 6 inches DBH. Preserving these trees is more valuable than planting new native trees, which currently receive 125 percent credit. Administrative Rule Amendment Add Parks Zone Canopy Requirement The new Parks Zone currently under consideration would need to be assigned a minimum canopy requirement if adopted. A requirement of 25 percent would be consistent with that required for high schools, where there was acknowledgement of a need for open areas for sports and other activities. Administrative Rule Amendment Remove Inventory Requirement for Homes in Residential Zonin g Districts Because development tree permits are not required in residential zoning districts, this inventory requirement could be removed. Administrative Rule Amendment 5 Tree Grove Preservation Program Overview Flexible standards and incentives are now allowed to facilitate the preservation of the city's remaining tree groves. These standards and incentives were developed in compliance with statewide Goal 5 requirements and allow transfer of residential density from the tree grove to the non tree grove portion of a site, reduction in minimum residential density and increased building heights for commercial and industrial development. The city identified 70 large groves of primarily native trees covering 527 acres that are eligible for incentives. The incentives may be used if at least 50 percent of the portion of the tree grove that is outside of already protected sensitive lands (such as wetlands and stream corridors) is preserved. Summary of Activity The city has yet to receive an application which proposes to take advantage of any of the incentives offered as part of the tree grove preservation program. In addition, the Goal 5 inventory and analysis work has been completed for the River Terrace Area. A map amendment will be adopted as part of the River Terrace Community Plan to include this area in the city’s tree grove preservation program. Tree Permit Requirements Overview The City of Tigard preserves and maintains the urban forest by reviewing tree removal permits for street and median trees, trees located in sensitive lands, Heritage Trees, trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund and trees required with high-density residential and non-residential development. To apply for a permit, applicants must fill out and submit a completed application form addressing all the relevant approval criteria and pay the applicable fee. Permits can be approved by way of two processes: either by a staff process (for simple situations), or by a Tigard board or commission (for complex situations). There is no fee when trees are removed for simple situations. The fee is $375 per tree in complex situations. In most cases, the decision is final and valid for up to one year. Most of the time, trees are required to be replaced if removed. This is to ensure the sustainability of Tigard’s urban forest. Replacement standards for each type of tree requiring a permit are included in the Urban Forestry Manual. 6 Summary of Activity The city received 25 Tree Removal Permit applications, for a total of 108 trees, between March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013. To date, all of the applications received have qualified for the simple free tree permit process. By far, roots causing damage is the number one reason cited for tree removal (40 percent of applications). In addition, trees that are infested with pests or disease or tree removal that is required for the purposes of an approved permit are often valid reasons for simple removal. Details about the applications received in this timeframe are available in Attachment C. Feedback The main difference between implementation of the Tree Permit Requirements portion of the code and other key elements is that organizational changes have also impacted the way we process tree removal permits. First, previous tree removal permits were primarily handled by the city’s arborist who is no longer on staff. Second, the planning staff now rotates in a “planner on duty” schedule at the front counter. This means there is a wide variety of staff reviewing and processing tree removal permit applications. For this reason, we’ve received several suggestions from planning staff about process improvement. Please see Appendix A for the full range of feedback collected. Action Item Summary Details Type of Action Required Street Tree Conflicts with Buildings Add a spacing standard to the Street Tree Planting and Maintenance Standards to address acceptable distance from buildings. This will have the effect of allowing street trees which are causing damage to buildings to be removed according to the free simple process. Administrative Rule Amendment Hazard Trees Overview Tigard’s new process for resolving hazard tree conflicts aims to be more equitable, objective and efficient. While neighbors are encouraged to work out their issues amicably, a third party arborist could be hired to provide an objective voice and a path toward resolution. The Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement procedures include two options: 1) informal reconciliation, between parties without city involvement; or 2) formal reconciliation, where the claimant submits an application, provides information and pays fees to the city. City will accept the application for formal reconciliation only after the informal process has been completed. 7 Individuals or organizations who can demonstrate that their life, limb or property is at risk by a tree in question have the right to file a hazard tree dispute resolution application. This is intended to limit the concern that people could use the hazard tree process as a means of harassment or intimidation. If the city has reason to believe a hazard tree poses an immediate danger and there is not enough time to complete the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement procedure, the city may choose to take immediate action Summary of Activity While we have had several inquiries about the Tree Hazard Evaluation and Abatement process, we have yet to receive an application for formal reconciliation. The city did receive one emergency abatement request, but our Arborist determined that the clai mant had time to use the Evaluation and Abatement procedures. Feedback Clarification of the Emergency Procedures has been requested by staff to ensure that applicants are not able to bypass the informal reconciliation process. The emergency process should only be used in cases that warrant immediate attention. Please see Appendix A for the full range of feedback collected. Urban Forestry Code Revisions 6 Month Update 1 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Susan P Shanks, Senior Planner Re: River Terrace Community Plan Update Date: October 21, 2013 The city is moving forward with its effort to complete the River Terrace Community Plan (RTCP). Since the Planning Commission’s last project update in May 2103, a number of significant changes and events have occurred. These are summarized below. PROJECT TEAM UPDATE The following staff changes have occurred:  Susan Shanks was hired to replace Darren Wyss as the RTCP project manager. Her first day was September 3, 2013. She can be reached at susans@tigard-or.gov or 503-718-2454.  The city is actively seeking to hire a planning intern to help with RTCP and Tigard Triangle project meeting support and public engagement efforts. The consultant project team is comprised of four firms that will share responsibility for the various public facility plan updates identified in the RTCP scope of work. Otak is the primary managing consultant. A contract for professional services was signed on August 14, 2013, and a kick off meeting was convened on September 3, 2013. The consulting firms and their specializations are as follows:  Otak (Parks, Stormwater, and Project Management)  Murray, Smith, and Associates, Inc. (Water and Sewer)  DKS Associates (Transportation)  FCS Group (Finance) PROJECT UPDATE As you are aware, the city will need to design and construct many different major public facilities in the River Terrace area. Collectively, we refer to these facilities as infrastructure, RTCP Project Update Page 2 of 4 and we often talk about them in terms of systems, e.g. the water system, transportation system, etc. The RTCP project team is currently conducting a preliminary assessment of each of the systems that will be built in and around River Terrace. These assessments consist of comparing the assumptions and methodologies in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan against the policies and standards contained in Tigard’s master plans and other relevant studies, if any. Once the preliminary assessments are complete, the RTCP project team will prepare a draft master plan addendum for each system. Collectively, these addenda will become the Public Facilities Plan for River Terrace. Individually, they will serve to update the city’s various master plans, which guide all of the city’s long-term infrastructure priorities and investments. In this way, River Terrace infrastructure improvements will be both physically and politically integrated into the city’s existing systems for water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and parks. OVERVIEW OF RECENT MEETINGS The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) have each met four times in 2013. These meetings occurred in March, August, September, and October. Land use and natural resource maps have been reviewed by both groups, and the final proposed maps for inclusion in the RTCP contain the following refinements:  The land use map (Attachment 1) contains a reconfigured commercial zone area in response to recommendations made by Leland Consulting Group in a market analysis requested by the city. The overall size of the area was not changed, it was merely stretched over to the west so that it would have frontage on Roy Rogers Rd. Both groups unanimously supported this reconfiguration.  The title of the natural resource map (Attachment 2) that shows the locations of wetlands and water quality resources was changed from “Wetlands and Stream Corridors” to “Wetlands and Riparian Areas.” This map no longer shows all local wetlands. It only shows significant wetlands since local wetlands are included within the water quality resource areas. A few SWG members expressed concern about the accuracy of the boundaries shown on the Wetlands and Riparian Areas Map. The project team explained that this particular map is meant to show approximate, not precise, boundaries and that this is a common practice across the region. It is Tigard’s Community Development Code and Clean Water Services’ (CWS) Design and Construction Standards Manual that determine the exact location of each natural resource boundary at the time of development. The project team has followed up with the group to ensure that each member understands the purpose of the various natural resource maps and how they work in concert with their associated regulations. Both the TAC and SWG have also had preliminary finance discussions in preparation for the more detailed finance work that will happen after the master plan draft addenda are RTCP Project Update Page 3 of 4 completed in 2014. See the attached handout (Attachment 3) for an overview of the River Terrace Financing Strategies process. Project staff gave a lengthy project update to CPO 4B at their October 10 meeting. The group’s main questions and concerns revolved around how the anticipated transportation and stormwater impacts would be mitigated and how the proposed parks and trails in the concept plan would be implemented. OVERVIEW OF UPCOMING MEETINGS  The next several TAC and SWG meetings will include substantive discussions on parks and transportation. One of the main changes that has occurred with respect to the parks element in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan (WBMCP) is the decision to no longer show the locations of future proposed parks on the RTCP maps. This is consistent with current city policy to not designate specific properties as park properties until they have been acquired by the city or otherwise dedicated to the city for park use. The project team has also decided to apply the city’s current level of service (LOS) standards to the River Terrace area so as to be consistent with the city’s recently adopted Parks System Master Plan. The table below shows the difference between the LOS standards in the WBMCP and Tigard’s recently adopted standards. Table 1: Comparison of Park Standards Park Type WBMCP Hybrid City of Tigard Pocket Park (Tot Lot) 0.5 acre / 10001 No standard Neighborhood Park 2.0 acres / 1000 1.5 acre / 1000 Community Park 3.0 acres / 1000 3.0 acres / 1000 Linear Park/Trail Contributes to Core Standard 10 acres / 1000 1.25 acre / 1000 (Park) 0.26 miles / 10002 (Trail) Special Use Area Contributes to Core Standard 10 acres / 1000 No Standard  The project team is proposing some minor revisions to the TAC and SWG meeting schedule in order to allow for more in-depth discussions on the transportation and finance topics. See the attached schedule (Attachment 4) for more information.  The next Community Meeting is tentatively scheduled for early December 2013. RTCP Project Update Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Land Use Map Attachment 2 – Wetlands and Riparian Areas Map Attachment 3 – River Terrace Financing Strategies Attachment 4 – Proposed Public Meeting Schedule Revisions