06/21/2004 - Packet POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
AGENDA
_• v
City of Tigard
Connunity Detet nt
Shaping A BetterCaimaaty
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2004 7:00 p.m.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. COMMUNICATIONS
4. APPROVE MINUTES
5. GOAL 5 UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
1
i
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall
Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Bienerth, Caffall,
Haack, Meads, and Munro
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Buehner and Sutton
Staff Present: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Next meetings — July 19 (Affordable Housing Comp Plan amendment and Goal 5
workshop) and August 16 (Goal 5 workshop)
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the May 24, 2004 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Bienerth abstained.
It was moved and seconded to approve the June 7, 2004 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0. Commissioners Caffall, Haack,
and Munro abstained.
5. GOAL 5 UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
Associate Planner Julia Hajduk gave an update on the Tualatin Basin Partners for
Natural Resources Goal 5 plan (see Exhibits A and B). She reviewed the
Comparison of Goal 5 (ALP) to Existing Regulations and the Metro Title 3
Hydrologic Features maps with the Commissioners. She advised that there are
almost 1,000 additional acres being considered under Goal 5 than are currently
regulated by City standards. The Natural Resources Coordinating Committee will
hold a public hearing on August 2nd in Hillsboro and will make a decision the
following week on the recommendation to Metro. In December, Metro will make
the decision.
Hajduk explained the mitigation process and the proposed enhanced surface
water management fee. Commissioner Bienerth noted that the proposed buffers
are quite large and will wipe out a lot of developable acreage or make it unfeasible
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-June 21,2004-Page 1
• •
to develop. This will push developers for more small, tight developments. Density
transfers were discussed.
The Commissioners made the following comments/suggestions regarding the
proposal:
— Add that the buffers can be analyzed.—is it a valuable buffer area
— Tie mitigation to the quality of the buffer— maybe replace with quality rather
than area
- Regarding wildlife habitat, need connected corridors for migration routes,
even if it impacts density
-- Commissioners would be more apt to allow density bonuses and transfers to
mitigate areas that would not impact wildlife (they would be more likely to not
worry about the reduction in increased density if the trade-off would be to
protect and save wildlife)
See if there is a way to map wildlife corridors
-- The Planning Commission isn't concerned about possible reduction in density
by preserving wildlife habitats
-- The Planning Commission is concerned about maintaining wildlife habitats as
much as possible
Need to make sure whatever regulations and mitigation processes that are
applied are not subjective
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Munro provided an update on the Downtown Task Force.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Je.ree Gaynor °lannin.ommission Secretary
ATTE T: P sident Mark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-June 21,2004-Page 2
L 1014-
• k v"
SUMMARY OF EXISTING NATUTAL RESOURCE REGULATIONS
The City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) have existing regulations for
natural resource areas. There are existing regulations for floodplain, wetlands, streams,
wetland buffers and stream buffers. Below is a brief discussion of the existing
regulations. In some instances, Tigard's standards are stricter, in other instances, the
CWS standards are more stringent. The summary below provides the more restrictive
standard to provide a quick look at what the regulations are for each resource category.
Floodplains
Limited development allowed in commercial and industrial zones with no net increase in
flood level. Floor elevation must be 1' above the floodplain measured from the bottom
of the floor beam. No development is allowed in residential zones.
Wetlands
No development is permitted in locally significant wetlands without an ESEE analysis
and comprehensive plan amendment.
Stream Buffers
Tigard's standards are a 75' buffer from the Tualatin River, 50' along Fenno, Ball and
Ash Creeks and 25' along Summer, North Ash, Red Rock and Derry Dell Creeks. The
CWS buffers vary from 50-200' for streams with year round flow depending on the slope
adjacent to the stream. The CWS standards also provide buffers of 15'-50' depending
on the number of acres draining into the stream and the slope adjacent to the stream.
Each site is evaluated and the stricter standards are applied. Within the buffer, no
structures, development, gardens or lawns are permitted, however, small scale
averaging of the buffer is permitted.
Wetland Buffers
Minimum buffer of 25 feet from wetland edge unless all or part of the wetland is located
within the stream corridor. In that case, the stream corridor width is measured from the
wetland edge. CWS requires a 50' buffer for wetlands greater than .5 acres. CWS
requires buffers from all existing and created wetlands, not just locally significant
wetlands.
Total Acres affected by existing natural resource regulations
Riparian Resources Commercial Industrial Residential
Floodplain 100.81 128.20 376.39
Wetland 51.16 49.44 188.76
Wetland buffer 32.75 32.40 134.84
Stream buffer 43.37 _ 42.98 265.96
Total resource area* 138.21 158.49 634.96
*Note that the total resource acreage is less than the sum due to overlap of the
resource:
Floodolain
Wetland
Stream
i
Steep slopes
In addition to the riparian resources described above, the sensitive lands review section
of the development code regulates steep slopes. For the most part, development is not
prohibited on steep slopes as long as a geotechnical engineer certifies that the land
form alteration will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or
other adverse on-site or off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Steep slope areas
are not included in the density calculations, however up to 25% of the density that would
otherwise be permitted on the steep slopes may be transferred to the remaining
buildable area.
The following table shows the amount of land currently identified as having slopes 25%
or greater:
Acres affected
Commercial 1.44
Residential 252.59
Industrial 0.49
• IA;10;
COMPARISON BETWEEN AREAS OF EXISTING REGULATION AND AREAS
DISCUSSED WITH CURRENT GOAL 5 EFFORTS
How much MORE area is under consideration with the current Tualatin
Basin Goal 5 efforts?
Total existing regulation Total Goal 5 limit Difference
— (including steep slopes)
Commercial 139.65 243.83 104.18
Residential 887.55 1743.37 855.82
Industrial 158.98 217.81 58.83
Why the difference?
• Larger buffers from streams and wetlands (impact areas)
• Upland and riparian wildlife habitat areas
How much of the additional areas are considered buildable?
The following table shows the amount of land in the ALP limit areas that is considered
buildable based on the buildable lands inventory and the draft Tualatin Basin ALP map.
Buildable land within Tualatin Basin Goal 5 limit designated areas
Commercial Residential Industrial Total
Lightly limit 34.97 109.83 34.75 179.55
Moderately limit 2.74 196.05 10.12 _ 208.91
Strictly limit 0 61.72 _ 0 61.72
Total 37.71 367.6 44.87 450.18
a • The buildable land identified in Tualatin Basin limit designated areas represents
roughly half of the buildable land in Tigard and the Urban Services area.
• The majority of the buildable land is within upland wildlife habitat areas
• The land identified as buildable has already deducted areas of existing regulation
so there is no overlap in this category between the existing and potentially
regulated buildable land.
•
•
sr _
CITY OF TIGARD
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
HEARING DATE:
STARTING TIME: 7: 0° Q
COMMISSIONERS: MARK PADGETT(PRESIDENT)
V
JODIE BIENERTH
/\7 GRETCHEN BUEHNER
REX CAFFALL
BILL HAACK
KATHY MEADS
JUDY MUNRO (VICE-PRESIDENT)
SCOT SUTTON
STAFF PRESENT:
DICK BEWERSDORFF JIM HENDRYX
MORGAN TRACY BARBARA SHIELDS
MATT SCHEIDEGGER JULIA HAJDUK
DUANE ROBERTS
KIM MCMILLAN BETH ST. AMAND
GUS DUENAS