Loading...
12/11/2006 - Packet • • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION III AGENDA �� •• . DECEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 p.m. TIGARD TIGARD CIVIC CENTER- RED ROCK CREEK CONF. ROOM 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. DRAFT DOWNTOWN GOALS, POLICIES,ACTION MEASURES 6. WORKSHOP WITH TREE BOARD - 8:00 P.M. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing Date: 1a2 - /1 i2tt Starting Time: r) - 0DrN'1 • COMMISSIONERS: V Jodie Inman (President) Gretchen Buehner V Rex Caffall Patrick Harbison Kathy Meads Judy Munro (Vice-President) Jeremy Vermilyea V David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee Gary Pagenstecher Ron Bunch Cheryl Gaines Denver Igarta Emily Eng Duane Roberts Kim McMillan Beth St. Amand Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar Sean Farrelly • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 11, 2006 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,Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall, Munro, Vermilyea, and Walsh. Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Harbison and Meads Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager; Sean Family,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS The secretary reviewed the upcoming meeting calendar with the Commissioners. The Commissioners will have a joint meeting with the Visioning Task Force on January 29th and have a public hearing on February 5th. Commissioner Buehner reported on the Transportation Financing Task Force's second open house for the proposed gas tax. Council will hold a workshop on December 12th; the public hearing is scheduled for December 19th. Commissioner Munro announced her resignation effective at the end of December. With new Commissioners coming on board in January,President Inman requested training on public hearings at the January 29th meeting. Commissioner Buehner advised that the City Center Advisory Commission will meet Wednesday night to begin work on the Fanno Creek Master Plan and to finish up the rest of the land use issues. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the November 20, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioners Munro and Vermilyea abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December I I,2006—Page 1 • • It was moved and seconded to approve the November 27, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioners Harbison, Munro, and Vermilyea abstained. 5. DRAFT DOWNTOWN GOALS, POLICIES,ACTION MEASURES Associate Planner Sean Farrelly discussed the draft document for development of the Downtown goals, policies, and action measures. The goal is to have the final document completed within a year. The format of the draft reflects what the Comprehensive Plan update will look like. It will be organized into findings,goals, policies, and action measures. The goal of this Comprehensive Plan update is taken out of Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) — to create an urban village in the Downtown. The policies are general, long term statements that will guide the City Center Development Agency; they are the basis for implementing all the actions and changes in the Development Code. Action measures are more specific. There are short term and medium term actions that will implement the goals and policies. The Commission asked about the green corridor (urban creek). Farrelly advised that completion of the feasibility study is planned in 2007. He noted that the green corridor/ urban creek is listed in the TDIP, but is not one of the policies or action measures. Planning Manager Ron Bunch advised that staff is putting together a prospectus of the pros and cons and the feasibility of implementing the green corridor. Commissioner Buehner is concerned about how far the Planning Commission can proceed doing the Downtown zoning until the feasibility study for the urban creek can be completed. Bunch reported that the creek cannot be designated, but the zoning districts can be put in place. The urban creek is a design feature. For the urban creek, the City could do a transportation designation or enter into an agreement with property owners and do specific design planning for that designation. Once we have the agreements, the City could put a green corridor overlay designation on the area. Farrelly reported that the draft document will be reviewed by the CCAC on Wednesday. After he receives feedback, the refined document will be reviewed at a joint meeting, possibly on February 5th. He would like to hold the Planning Commission public hearing in March. Commissioner Buehner urged providing a lot of education for the City Council prior to their public hearing. Commissioner Munro asked about the term "workforce" listed in section 11.1.6. Farrelly explained that the term, as it relates to affordable housing, refers to people who work in Downtown businesses being able to afford to live in the Downtown area. Commissioner Buehner reported that there was discussion at the League of Cities PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December 11,2006—Page 2 • • Conference on having day centers for the homeless. She suggested leaving that option open for the Downtown. Commissioner Munro asked about the designations listed under the Oregon Highway Plan. Farrelly reported that Hwy. 99W and Hall Blvd. would be potential designated streets. He said the program focuses on roads that have high capacity that go through a downtown area. It's important to get a lot of traffic through, but it's also important to protect pedestrians. Ron Bunch advised that if there's a downtown dependent on access to a high capacity roadway, ODOT will tolerate less of a level of service in order to provide that access. Commissioner Walsh wonders if section 11.1.3 could be viewed as being"business- unfriendly". What if someone wants to bring in a business that's complementary to one that's already there—are we going to oppose it? Commissioner Buehner said the City would be buying a lot of those businesses. Ron Bunch said that the nature of the Plan is to recognize that businesses are important in the Downtown. The Planning Commission can choose to look at non-conforming uses and decide that they can continue in view of their past investment. President Inman asked when the Commission gets to decide who will be reviewing the design standards and guidelines. Farrelly said that this will be a part of the Development Code. Commissioner Buehner suggested involving some members of the CCAC during this phase. She advised that there has been a strong commitment by the CCAC to see specific design review and maybe have an actual board. Visitor John Frewing reported to the Commission about a new citizen group called Friends of Tigard-Bull Mountain Trails. They are interested in pedestrian features and bicycle trails with a wide variety of designs. The group hopes to develop a map of trails in the area. They are interested in working with the City or providing comments on a variety of issues, including Comp Plan revision and specific development proposals. He reported that the Washington Square Regional Center and the Tigard Triangle have conceptual plans for trails and pedestrian access. As development in those areas occurs, he hopes the Planning Commission will be sensitive to those needs and enforce them as a part of the approval. With the upcoming review of the Street Maintenance Fee, he would like the City to include some money for maintenance of pedestrian ways. 6. WORKSHOP WITH TREE BOARD—8:00 P.M. Tree Board members in attendance: Janet Gillis, Tony Tycer, Rob Callan The Tree Board provided some background on the goals of the Tree Board. The City Council asked the Board to look at updating sections 18.745 and 18.790 of the Development Code. The Board has been working on code changes for the last 2 years. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December 11,2006—Page 3 • • Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff provided copies of a letter from Sue Bielke (Exhibit A). He noted that natural resources will be included as part of the Comp Plan update. During the process, community values will be discussed. He believes there needs to be a broader perspective of looking at code amendments and that mistakes can happen when making minor changes in the Code. Instead of looking at minutia,we should look at the big picture. He would like to see community values established through the Comp Plan process first and then develop code provisions out of that. We could make amendments, but we will risk having to make changes at a later date. He advised that once guiding principles are defined, code provisions are written that relate to those principles. Ron Bunch talked about how the contributing factors that the community values in trees— erosion control, floodplain management, water quality, wildlife habitat. Trees also are an important factor in urban design character. They break up the harsh edges of an urban environment. Criteria can be established in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve trees. The City would need to enforce it, offer incentives, and have a long term program to maintain and promote trees. Commissioner Buehner advised that one of the issues that came up with the PD Committee was creating changes in density (steep slopes), which would also impact tree preservation. The PD Committee discussed having a sliding scale as you get steeper and steeper. She thinks this could also be part of the tree preservation discussion. Bunch agreed and noted that we would be working with all the interest groups —Tree Board, developers, and the community in general. It was advised that the Tree Board is responsible for trees on public property. This focuses a portion of the community's input (from the Tree Board and the Planning Commission) on a limited approach to dealing with the big picture. It should be more of a community-wide decision. Mr. Callan believes there has been a lack of communication about the citizens' desire for tree preservation. There is a feeling of citizen dissatisfaction with the current development process. He noted that once mature trees are cut, they can never be mitigated. Ms. Gillis said there have been a lot of limitations put on the Tree Board. They can only deal with the public portion of trees. They can't make changes to individual property. In some ways, she welcomes this being pulled into the Comp Plan update process —it's what the community needs. Bewersdorff said that by engaging the public, hopefully there will be buy-in by the participants. They'll understand why we have regulations. Bunch advised that in 2002, Metro did away with one of the options of minimum density requirements and instead offered jurisdictions the option of meeting a certain housing target capacity. He said that Tigard can choose, as part of its development alternatives, to allow development to occur at less than minimum density if it can put the housing somewhere PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December 11,2006—Page 4 • • else. For example, along major corridors, housing could go up instead of spreading out so we could still have green spaces. Mr. Callan talked about developers choosing to pay a fine rather than abiding by their approved tree plan. He said the committee should decide that this is unacceptable. To keep developers from cutting trees, Commissioner Vermilyea asked if maybe we should raise the fine to a point where going through a secondary review process would be preferred. Bewersdorff said it's important to hear from developers about the limitations they have. Ms. Gillis said the longer we wait with nothing happening, the more of the City is going to be deforested. Staff advised that it will take 6 months to a year, through the Comprehensive Plan process, to get to the point of changing the code. Commissioner Walsh asked if it was fair to add another year to the 2 years that the Tree Board has already done. Bewersdorff said the Tree Board and the Planning Commission would need to decide that. He doesn't like it, but to do band-aid adjustments to the code without dealing with major issues will cause problems. Code amendments that deal with issues of value to the entire community take a long time and need to be addressed by the community as a whole. The Commission discussed the benefits of wrapping the tree code into the Comp Plan process. The Tree Board is concerned about pushing it further back. There will likely be a lot of development during this time; maybe some band-aids might not hurt us. It might mitigate some of the public's concerns. Tony Tycer suggested that maybe we could draft code for some of the species we want to target for preservation. Ms. Gillis noted that the Tree Board can only deal with what's on public land, not private land. Ron Bunch advised that doing interim standards would require a lot of administrative set up. Ms. Gillis thinks the staff proposal has taken a lot of teeth out of what the Tree Board has tried to do. Mr. Callan said that 10 of the issues were identified as not having any compelling evidence. He finds that hard to believe. President Inman says she sees it differently. She has heard complaints about how difficult it is to work with Tigard's tree code —it's one of the more difficult ones to work with. She would like some balance and feels she is not getting a community perspective. Mr. Callan suggested hosting a public hearing so the Commission could hear citizen concerns. Dick Bewersdorff believes public hearings are not conducive to making planning decisions—things are polarized. He would rather have brainstorming sessions where groups define what's important to them; then work on what makes it happen or stops it from happening, and do an analysis to rate importance. Policy statements can then be adopted. With a public hearing, we will only hear 2 extremes. Commissioner Munro believes this is all connected—how do you talk about public trees without talking about private trees, without talking about the PD plan and the rest of natural PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December 11,2006—Page 5 • • resources? She's not sure if there's an opportunity to increase compliance. Perhaps having a new arborist/planner will allow, during the interim, the ability to take a better look at what's actually happening out there. Ms. Gillis said she would love to see this on a larger scale, but she doesn't want it to drag along. Ron Bunch estimates 6-12 months for the Comp Plan process but if an emergency comes up in the interim, there might be some emergency standards or ordinances that could be adopted. Mr. Callan believes this will amount to another 2 years worth of destruction. Commissioner Caffall moved to wrap this into the Comp Plan, send it back to the City Council, and wait for their direction. Commissioner Buehner seconded the motion. Discussion was held before the vote: Commissioner Walsh thinks we need to balance the fact that the Council asked for something and action has been taken. The Tree Board worked on it for over a year and it's not fair to the original charge and the people involved. He is more willing to look at it in a more selective fashion, to see if there are any `hot' issues that need to be addressed. He agrees there are bigger policy questions that are a good fit for the Comp Plan, but he would like to see if there is a way to take a shot at some of the hotter issues. Commissioner Buehner advised that when it comes up to the Council, she will vote to include it with the Comp Plan. Commissioner Caffall noted that if Council doesn't want it in the Comp Plan, they will kick it back to the Planning Commission. President Inman said another issue is how to limit scope. This is such a good issue, she believes it would be difficult to slide something under the radar for approval. It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan will be done in sections and this section can be moved to the front. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1; Commissioner Walsh voted against the motion. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. *a \1 \ail Jerree Lewis,Planning Cole' ion Secre di AY1EST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—December 11,2006—Page 6 • • Page 1 or 2 Gary Pagenstecher- Revisions for Tree Code and Landscaping From: "SUE" <sbeilke @europa.com> To: "Craig Dirksen" <CRAIGD @ci.tigard.or.us>, "Tom Coffee" <Tomc @tigard-or.gov> Date: 12/11/2006 10:26 AM Subject: Revisions for Tree Code and Landscaping CC: "Dennis Koellermeier" <DENNIS @tgard-or.gov>, <jfrewing @teleport.com>, <aeg @cspro.com>, "Bob Storer" <bobstorer @comcast.net>, "Brian Wegener" <bwegener8 @comcast.net>, <cdsch35 @earthlink.net> Mayor Dirksen, Tom and Dennis, I am writing regarding the current efforts to revise the Tigard Tree Code, Lanscaping sections, etc. I received John Frewings comments and support his suggestions/revisions, especially in those sections where the HBA has attempted to weaken the current code. Rather, the code needs to be strengthened to protect all existing trees and forests in order to protect what is left of our natural resources. There has been very little input in this process of revamping Tigard's comprehensive plan and codes. I have seen no communications with neighborhoods as to getting citizens into city hall to get their input on what is going on. The Planning Commission is doing most of the work yet they are a very tiny component of this community. We need to be having open houses for citizens to come and provide their input, not after the fact after it is all done. In addition, I am asking city staff to further consider as a whole what we have left for our trees and forests here in Tigard, after the unchecked growth that has occurred here in the past 10 years. This growth has caused Tigard to lose a substantial amount of forest in all parts of the city, which has thus affected all of us in some manner. What do we do to maintain some sense of"quality of life" and just what is that? To many of us who have lived here now for over 15 years, it means we want to protect and preserve the remaining forests, trees, and the fish and wildlife that depend on these natural resources. That will help to protect air and water quality as well as provide a sense of"nature in our neighborhoods"which is something most of us want. Some of my suggestions for revisions to the code include the following: • Under 18.790.010.A - We oppose ANY suggestions by the HBA in any way, shape or form, to weaken the current code, in particular their suggestion to delete the reference to noise barriers provided by trees. For this section, we need to include the fact that"trees provide wildlife habitat, such as areas to nest, and overall increase the"livability"of our neighborhoods." • Under the landscaping section, (e.g., 18.745.040.A)we would like to see the following: In order to protect existing trees on a site to the greatest extent possible, there needs to be greater flexibility and incentives for protecting existing trees. For example, the planter strip we now see on sites should be eliminated in order to preserve as many trees as possible. The sidewalk can abut the curb or can be positioned so as to go around an existing tree or trees, in order to save trees. As you are aware, this has been done on some developments in Tigard with great success, including two sites on SW N. Dakota. It is also evidenced along Hall Blvd,just across from Target on the north side of the street, where several large firs were saved. The planter strip is in my opinion, a waste of space as it often becomes a weed infested strip, very ugly and of no use. Or, small, non-native trees are planted that are of no value to the city, don't provide any shade of aesthetic value and often die because they cannot adapt to our soil conditions. • 18.709.020.A.3 - The HBA proposes to quadruple the amount of tree removal before entering the definition of"Commercial Forestry"; this is another example of the wolf running away with the hen house. Citizens do not want to lose more trees and forests, period. We oppose the HBA proposal. Overall, we need to be doing a better job of protecting the remaining biological diversity that remains in Tigard. This can in part be accomplished by purchasing the remaining open spaces for our community. I don't know of file://C:\Documents and Settings\garyp.000\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 12/11/2006 • • rage z 01 anyone who wants more traffic and congestion here, it has gotten so bad in the past two years it is now often impossible to get around during some parts of the day, instead of taking 5 minutes it can take 20. How bad will it get? We need to ask ourselves, what to we get for all this growth?? Lastly, I am hereby formally requesting the City Council hold off on adopting ANY revisions to the code/comprehensive plan until there has been a great deal more input from the community. I suggest we hold a series of public open house meetings from mid-January through May, 2007, connecting with the entire community including CPOs, conservation groups, etc. so that our final changes reflect the desires of the entire community. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters, Sue Beilke file://C:\Documents and Settings\garyp.000\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 12/11/2006 • • pcarci 1---. 1/1/- 10` S - - -— AN r� . c21II QSi b221_ 6.03 45 5 --- 20 97v 3 5 A-I.A-,1 g5H4x.PPce-f' _ 9.51-7). sw ZeA v 2�oi4- L LS c E41,0y. - 3 4_v a q-zo5 S o3- 709 dQ_G_i_ar_�rflYi _tD_u-ids-/ov►e4r_o_pe4-1/-e.4.-corv► -- Ysey�� �itie .0 c 5-03 - Y? - 3370 --- --- - -- — - / Y 'elz 1FLC a , c Ud`/' - - - - - - -- -Com-IAA-cm/4kt' C--0-1k---\ ,>Vr - -- - boo a. © -(2_ 2 - - - --� � ©z Iz�i�? 9-o T, `=coos • • e"3N.Lk( S1(70g454-9 1e 4-14 • /717r- • • �1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner RE: December 11, 2006 Planning Commission Workshop Issues Paper and Staff Recommendations for proposed revisions to the Landscaping and Screening (18.745) and Tree Removal (18.790) Chapters of the Tigard Community Development Code DATE: December 4, 2006 At the November 6, 2006 Planning Commission workshop, Commissioners received comment from members of the development community and representatives from the Tree Board on the Board's proposed amendments to the Landscaping and Screening(18.745) and Tree Removal (18.790) Chapters of the Tigard Development Code. The Tree Board's suggestions are the result of a study requested by the City Council approximately two years ago. After some discussion,Commissioners decided to extend their consideration of the issues to a later workshop,set for December 11,2006. The issues under discussion are the result of substantial deliberation by interested parties over the past several years. Staff appreciates the Tree Board's work and looks forward to working with them to address these issues further. The issues represent, in character, an effort to address practical and technical deficiencies of the existing code, which dates from 1995. However, staff believes it is difficult to view individual code provisions when it is clear that overall policy questions of how the City of Tigard should value trees as art of its natural resource base have not been answered. Current and Long Range Planning staff purge Commissioners to reserve the larger questions that may arise and any comprehensive review of these two chapters to a later date to coincide with Comprehensive Plan Review. That being said, there may be some changes that are now warranted. To facilitate the Commission's discussion and subsequent recommendations to the City Council, Staff has prepared an "Issues Paper" (attached) addressing the pros and cons of the main issues identified by the Tree Board, Planning Commission, and developers. Additionally, staff offers recommendations based on familiarity with implementation of the code, which are made to assist in the decision making process and are not necessarily expected to be the final answer. The issues are presented as they appear in their respective chapters (code citations provided). In summary, staff supports one of the five proposed amendments to the Landscaping and Screening chapter which encourages the use of native species (issue #5). Staff supports one of the ten proposed amendments to the Tree Removal chapter that provides for additional fines to cover the costs of illegal tree removal enforcement (issue #13). Page 1 of 2 • • At this time, in view of the need to take a comprehensive look at the practice of protecting trees and enhancing Tigard's urban forest, staff does not support the remaining proposed amendments for the following reasons: a. Issues 1, 12, and 15 are administrative in nature, which can be addressed without a code amendment; and b. Issues 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 do not have compelling evidence to warrant changes at this time, require further study, and would benefit from a broader policy discussion. Based on the following evaluation, the Commission has options including: 1. Making individual decisions on the issues for which code language would be revised or developed, 2. Elevate the discussion to a policy level as part of Comprehensive Plan policy development and delay action on all, or part, of the issues until that time. Attachments: Issues Paper Public Comment from John Frewing Page 2 of 2 • • LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (18.745)AND TREE REMOVAL (18.790) CODE AMENDMENT ISSUES AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DECEMBER 11, 2006 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (18.745) OVERALL,THE TREE BOARD'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE EXISTING CODE. DEVELOPERS DID NOT PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS CHAPTER. ISSUES: 1.) Should bonds be replaced with cash assurances to ensure mitigation? Over the past few years, cash assurances (check, assigned account number, etc.) have been required in addition to bonds to avoid spending undue staff time administratively processirT adjustments to bonds and bond releases. Currently, the code (18.745.030.D) provides for "bonds" or 'other arrangements" to ensure landscaping requirements have been met. The code currently allows for either bonds or cash assurances. Pro: A cash assurance is more easily processed by staff. Con: Because both a cash assurance and bond are allowed, staff must determine administrative criteria for when each is used. Cash assurances are more expensive for developers, who prefer the lower cost bonds. Cash assurances for tree mitigation have on occasion, reached six figures. Financing large amounts of money is an additional development cost. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission not amend the code as proposed. Current code provides administrative flexibility in requiring either a bond or cash assurance. 2.) Is the Soil Volume Table appropriate and realistic for street trees and parking lots? Apparently, the City has experienced the failure of some street and parking lot trees due to insufficient soil volumes. Currently, the code only specifies size of curb cut but does not specify soil volumes in tree wells. The Tree Board proposed the addition of this table to ensure viability of street trees (18.745.040.C) and parking lot trees (proposed 18.745.070). The City of Tigard Street Tree List mentions available soil volume as a restrictive barrier to selecting street trees but does not provide soil volume requirements. However, the trees selected for the list, in part because of their ability to tolerate urban conditions including constrained space, do include minimum planting strip widths. Comments received from the Public Works department do not support the volumes indicated in the proposed table. Pro: Ensuring adequate soil volumes would contribute to the viability of required street and parking lot trees. Con: The volumes indicated in the proposed table may not be practicable to provide in constrained circumstances which often occur within rights-of-way or which may conflict with minimum parking requirements. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission not amend the code as proposed. If the Commission decides to specify standards for tree planting, staff recommends study of specifications such as the International Society of Arboriculture LISA) tree planting guidelines, the American Institute of Architects Architectural Graphic Standards, 10 edition (guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity), or other appropriate standards. For example, most tree planting guidelines are not necessarily tied to volume but the width of the excavation and a depth equal to the rootball. Page 1 of 6 • • 3.) Should parking lot plans include minimum (x %) canopy coverage after a period of (n) years? Apparently, parking lots approved by the City generally do not produce tree canopies over time that provides substantial shading. Currently, the code does not provide for minimum canopy coverage for parking lots but does require one tree per seven spaces provided and an obligation to maintain landscaping. The Planning Commission did condition the approval of the Tigard Costco (PDR93-00010) to provide 35% coverage over 20 years. The Tree Board has proposed a similar performance standard (proposed 18.745.070.D.1.k.(2)). Pro: Shaded parking lots provide a more comfortable and pleasant pedestrian environment and a variety of natural resource benefits including storm water mitigation, habitat, and reduced heat reflection. Con: Without this performance standard the current code provisions are insufficient to provide long- term benefits. Gaining compliance a number of years down the road is difficult. Reviewing landscape plans at initial application provides little concrete evidence that the goal can be achievec. One metro area city explored this option and decided to abandon the effort. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission delay a decision on this issue. The issue has merit. However, adoption of a canopy coverage percentage alone is not adequate. Standards for shading and plans submittal and review are more complex and needs further study. 4.) Should landscaping and trees be required for residential lots greater than 7,000 square feet? Currently, the code (Table 18.510.2) does not include a minimum landscaping requirement for R-4.5 through R-1 zones. The code anticipates that lots from 7,500 to 30,000 square feet, respectively, would retain at least 20% of their area in landscape given the relative size of houses likely to be built on such lots. The Tree Board proposes to require an unspecified number of two-inch caliper native landscape trees and native shrubs for residential and commercial lots greater than 7,000 square feet (proposed 18.745.080). Pro: The minimum required landscaping would be ensured. Con: Excessive requirement for lots likely to retain existing native landscaping during development and which may underestimate landowner desire for landscaping that they would otherwise provide. There is little evidence that landowners do not choose to plant additional trees and shrubs. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission not amend the code as proposed. Staff finds no compelling reason for this amendment. Rather, an effort to plant trees could instead focus on public rights-of-way,voluntary tree planting programs, and tree planning incentives on private property. 5.) Should there be an emphasis on encouraging native species? There is general interest in the protection and propagation of native landscaping to counter the spread of invasive species, to increase the likelihood of survival of required landscaping and provide a more sustainable ecology overall. Currently, the code does not address this issue. The Tree Board had wanted to "require" native species, but settled on "encourage" the use of trees and shrubs native to the Willamette Valley. The proposed amendment would apply the standard in three sections of the chapter: to the installation of all landscaping, street trees, and in areas subject to revegetation but outside of required landscaped areas. Pro: Planting more native species would better support the overall ecological health of the community. Con: Developers may feel'constrained by the limited selection. Highly urban settings can be hostile environments for some native species. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission amend the code as proposed. Page 2 of 6 • • TREE REMOVAL (18.790) OVERALL,THE TREE BOARD'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE EXISTING CODE, WHILE THE DEVELOPERS' PROPOSALS ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. ISSUES: 6.) Should trees be protected and how? Is the General Approach of Tree Board amendments generally acceptable? The code (18.790.010) outlines the Value of Trees and the Purposes of the Tree Removal chapter. The Tree Board did not propose any amendments to this section, while Developers would include language balancing development objectives with protection to temper the scope of subsequent requirements. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider the scope of the present review as limited to the specific practical and technical issues included in this paper and to reserve a more comprehensive review of the Tree Removal chapter to a time coinciding with the Comprehensive Plan Review. 7.) Should the definition of"commercial forestry" be more or less limited, or left as is? This definition affects the timing and scope of tree removal. When large-scale development requires removing more than the amount allowed, the developer must forgo the commercial value of the timber and account for the trees in their Tree Removal Plan which may required mitigation costs. Currently, the code (18.790.020) defines "commercial harvest" as ten or more trees per acre, per calendar year for sale. The Tree Board would increase the period to two-years, while the Developers would increase the yield to twenty trees. Pro: The hope,in further restricting commercial forestry,is that fewer trees will be cut. Con: Developers have successfully used the County's forest deferral designation to avoid the existing limitation; further restrictions may exacerbate this problem. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code at this time. The issue bears further research to determine the effectiveness of the proposed change. 8.) Should certain trees be credited towards mitigation requirements and others be exempt from mitigation requirements? Developers view the mitigation requirement as a costly and unfair practice, while conservationists want to protect existing trees and ensure the city is well treed or reforested. Currently, code (18.790.030.B.2) requires mitigation for healthy trees greater than 12 inches DBH; orchard and ornamental landscape trees are exempt (the exemptions are administrative and should be made explicit in the code). The Tree Board would maintain applicability of that mitigation standard, but would add a provision crediting developers' mitigation requirement for trees retained between 6 and 12 inches DBH. Developers would exempt certain trees located within the development envelope from mitigation and want credit for otherwise required street trees. Pro: Crediting trees saved between 6 and 12 inches DBH may result in greater protection of existing trees. Increasing exemptions would reduce developers' mitigation costs. Con: Not crediting the smaller trees reduces their value to the developer and makes them more readily expendable. Without exempting certain trees, developers feel enali7ed by mitigation requirements costs. This approach,while giving credit for existing trees,will increase the amount of conflict over protection of trees from the activities of grading, infrastructure and subcontractors. Enforcement issues would likely increase. Page 3 of 6 • • Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed at this time. The issue bears further review to address the purposes of the mitigation program and the likelihood of developer use of the proposed credit. Staff, however, feels that credit for 6 to 12-inch trees is appropriate if protection can be assured 9.) Should the code simply require mitigation planting of a specified number of trees based on lot size? Developers value certainty in determining costs for development. Currently, the code (18.790.030) requires a certified arborist to establish an inventory of trees establishing their condition, size, and location from which mitigation costs are derived. Pro: Simplifies the code's mitigation provisions and gives cost certainty to developers. Con: The direct relationship between the number and size of trees lost to development would no longer be reflected in the mitigation requirement. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed at this time. The issue bears further review to address the purposes of the mitigation program and the overall examination of what Tigard tree policy should be. 10.) Should trees removed longer than one year prior to a development application be subject to mitigation? Currently, the code (18.790.030.C) requires mitigation of trees cut one year prior to submitting an application to prevent wholesale tree removal. Developers seeking to limit their mitigation obligation will sometimes cut the trees and wait a year prior to submitting an application. Alternatively, landowners can request land be placed in the County's forest deferral program to commercially harvest existing trees and avoid mitigation and waiting the year. The Tree Board proposes to extend the period to two years to further discourage developers from avoiding the mitigation obligation. Developers proposed to maintain the current one-year period. Pro: Perhaps fewer developers would cut trees prior to development thereby ensuring mitigation would apply at time of development. Con: The City would lose mitigation to the extent developers used the County forest deferral program to avoid mitigation. While forest deferral tracts must meet certain County criteria, they can be applied for at anytime and can be sometimes utilized to avoid mitigation. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed at this time. The issue bears further review to address the purposes of the mitigation program and applicability of the forest deferral program to remaining buildable lands within the City. 11.) Should Density Bonuses for tree retention be expanded? Developers have suggested that in calculating the allowed density bonus, rounding up should be allowed when a fraction is above .50. Density bonuses requested by developers as incentives for retaining trees greater than 12 inches DBH (18.790.040.A) are rare and would require large-scale development to be useful. For example, a 100-unit development could add one bonus unit in excess of the maximum density if 2% of the net buildable area of the site containing trees greater than 12 inches in diameter were retained. Pro: Expanding the bonus incrementally would, theoretically, marginally increase density and preserve trees greater than 12 inches DBH. Con: Even as proposed, this incentive may not be practical. Page 4 of 6 • • Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed at this time. The issue of incentives for tree retention bears further review with respect to the continuing applicability of the incentives to the remaining buildable lands. 12.) Should unauthorized tree protection modifications be listed as a violation subject to remedies? Often, during development, required tree protection fencing is moved or fails and is not replaced leaving trees unprotected. These infractions are difficult to monitor and take significant staff time to enforce. The Tree Board proposes to list this infraction as a violation subject to enforcement remedies, which include a proposed third party arborist review paid for by the developer or builder. Although the code (18.790.060.A) currently does not explicitly list failure of tree protection fencing as a violation, it is included implicitly within 18.790.060.A.1.c, "in noncompliance with any condition of any city permit or development approval". Development approvals are routinely conditioned to maintain tree protection measures throughout the development sequence. If there is a dispute, a third party arborist review removes conflict of interest from the applicant's arborist and puts the City Forester in a neutral role. The cost of the third party opinion should be that of the responsible party; however, if the developer or builder is not named, then it may be difficult to enforce against contractors or others, according to our code enforcement staff and prosecuting attorney. Pro: May serve as warning to builders or developers who are close readers of the code. The third party arborist provides a mediated solution to disagreement between the applicant's arborist and the City Forester. Con: May be an unnecessary amendment for enforcement. The City Forester should be able to make a professional call. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed. Enforcement of tree protection infractions is already provided for in the code. An arborist/planner position is soon to be recruited for the Community Development Department. Site inspection and the establishment of programs and policies will be a major part of the position's responsibility. 13.) Should there be additional fines to cover costs incurred by the City in the collection of illegal tree removal fines? Currently, the code (18.790.060.C) provides for a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation, replacement costs for trees removed, and an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of lost trees. The Tree Board's proposal acknowledges that significant staff (Current Planners and the City Forester) time is spent enforcing the illegal tree removal code which is not accounted for. Currently, the level of enforcement is minimal due to staff workload and the time consuming nature of field reconnaissance. Pro: Cost recovery fines are reasonable and fiscally responsible. Fees should provide additional deterrence for those who would cut trees that could otherwise be saved. Con: Administrative burden to track time. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission amend the code as proposed to help support enforcement of the tree code. Page 5 of 6 • • 14.) Should the value of a tree illegally removed be capped? Developers have proposed this cap to limit their liability. They reason that the additional civil penalty is onerous particularly if the funds are dedicated to tree replacement for which there are limited and diminishing opportunities in Tigard. Currently, the code (18.790.060.C.2) does not specify how the funds are to be spent. As a penalty, it seems appropriate that they be used for enforcement. Pro: Capping the value of illegally removed trees limits the liability of developers. Con: Diminishes value of large trees and removes funding for enforcement. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed as it would diminish the value of larger trees and potentially undermine enforcement of the tree code. The arborist/planner position will be investigating a community tree planting program for individual lots, street trees, and concepts such as rebates for trees planted. 15.) Should Fees In-lieu of tree replacement be determined through case by case rate quotes for each development proposal? Currently, the code (18.790.060.F) allows the developer to pay compensation to the City as a fee in-lieu of replacement of trees removed for development. Administratively, the City Forester has determined that the cost to the City of planting a tree is approximately$125 per caliper inch,which has become the rate the City charges for in-lieu mitigation. The Tree Board's proposal would codify the method of determining the rate and tie that rate to the market through quotes by licensed landscaping or tree planting organizations. Pro: The market rate quotes may better represent the actual cost at any given time resulting in a fairer compensation rate. It may actually encourage payment of mitigation fees since the total figure may not be as high. Con: The City may not be able to match the rate quoted if the developer decides not to plant. Since quotes are subject to change with market conditions, a quote given to establish value at the front end of the development process may change by the time tree planting occurs, perhaps two years later. Lower replacement costs may encourage more tree code violations since penalty costs would be lessened. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission not amend the code as proposed. The existing fee in-lieu method works administratively and can be adjusted annually, if necessary, and will be reviewed by the prospective arborist/planner. Page 6 of 6 • • Tom and Dennis, I write to send you comments on some extensive changes which seem to be working through the Tree Board and Planning Commission. Please share these comments with appropriate staff (Matt is gone, so ? looks after the Tree Board, does Bewersdorff handle code revisions for Community Development?)and let me know when meetings occur at which I can explain these comments or answer questions about them. John Frewing TREE CODE REVISIONS AND LANDSCAPE CODE REVISIONS 11/12/06 18.790, Chapter title, Change heading be `Trees', since it is about tree preservation as well as tree removal. 18.790.010A. Oppose HBA suggestion to delete reference to noise barriers provided by trees. Add to second sentence that trees add to business and residential property values in the city, reduce summer heat, soften the geometric rigidity and hardness of structures/ streets and are recognized by a majority of citizens as an essential component of urban livability. 18.790.010B., `Purpose', Add `to prescribe preventive protection measures to avoid damage to trees during site development' and `to preserve the remaining wooded nature of Tigard and protect trees as a natural resource of Tigard.' 18.790.010B.2., `Purpose', delete `on sensitive lands', since this TCDC section regulates trees on developments other than on only sensitive lands. 18.790.020, `Definitions', Add `dripline' —an imaginary vertical line extending from the outermost of a tree's branches to the ground below. Modify the definition of`Certified Arborist' to include the requirement that such person have in possession a currently valid Business License from the City of Tigard. Modify the proposed definition of`hazardous tree' to require that not only a Certified Arborist must affirm the disease, infestation, age or other condition of the tree, but that also a real property insurance agent, licensed to do business in the City of Tigard must affirm the proximity or other situation which creates the requisite `immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property' at the tree site. Such relationship of the tree to damage is beyond the scope of a Certified Arborist. Add `Approve, affirm, verify or consent—to express an opinion on the written description of an action/condition by preparing a written statement of full or qualified agreement and before such approval, affirmation, verification or consent becomes effective, to file both the description of the action/condition and statement of full or qualified agreement in the Current Planning file of the site development that is maintained at City Hall.' Modify the definition of `DBH' to specify `mean ground level' rather than `ground level on the uphill side' and to specify that such diameter is measured by dividing the circumference (flexible tape measure) by pi (3.14159). Delete `decurrent' and `excurrent' since they are not used in the section. • Clarify `removal' by adding `Removal includes, but is not limited to topping, operation of vehicles or equipment, storage of materials, change in natural grade due to unapproved excavation or filling that causes above tree damage or loss.' Add `topping' to mean removal of trees limbs back to stubs 3 inches or greater in the crown of the tree. Define `crown'. Add `building footprint—a two-dimensional illustration of the perimeter of an existing or proposed structure, including sidewalk, driveway, deck, impervious surfaces or other appurtenances as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level.' Clarify the definition of`tree' by adding `or the sum of trunk diameters from a single plant' after the word `trunk'. Add to the definition of `tree' the sentence `For the purposes of this Chapter, English laurel, photinia, arborvitae, poison oak, and English ivy shall not be considered a tree.' 18.709.020A.3. The HBA proposal to quadruple the amount of tree removal before entering the definition of`Commercial Forestry' is opposed. 18.790.030 There is no description of the review process in the TCDC. All of the .030 sections should be part of a new heading `Review Process'. The present numbering system should be modified to begin with 18.790.031 `Tree Plan Requirement' and follow with successive numbers. 18.790.030A. Since the code relies in significant manner on requirements and guidelines of the International Society of Aboriculture and Oregon Landscape Contractor's Association, add a provision that the Director shall maintain reasonably available for public inspection during review periods, a current edition of such requirements and guidelines. 18.790.030B.1, Modify to read "Identification of the location, size (including drip line) and species of all existing trees on the site and within 15 feet of the site. Such information shall be displayed on a site plan showing proposed grading changes, utilities, streets, sidewalks, other impervious surfaces and building footprints." 18.790.030B.2. Retain existing wording that mitigation is `exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots.' Oppose HBA proposal to exempt from mitigation existing trees that are located within existing or proposed public right of way or building pad. 18.790.030B.2.e. Agree with HBA markup which deletes a provision allowing mitigation credit for retaining existing trees between 6 and 12 inches DBH. 18.790.030C. Oppose HBA proposal to halve the Tigard period before development application when tree removal counts as trees removed from a tree plan. 18.790.035 (proposed), Add `Approval Criteria for a Tree Plan. • • A)An applicant for development requiring a tree plan shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Director may require applicant to pay for an independent consultant, engaged by the City, to verify that these criteria are met: 1) Trees proposed in a tree plan for removal are for landscaping or to construct development approved by the TCDC and its processes. The Director may require the building footprint to be staked to allow accurate verification of these criteria; 2) Tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks; and 3) Tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood. B)The Director may grant an exception to criterion 3) above when alternatives to tree removal have been considered in the application and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the Director may consider adjustments to setbacks, utility easements, sidewalk locations, curb placement, etc and may require applicant to submit site plans with alternative building size and arrangements, with alternative building placement, or with alternative landscaping that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the TCDC. C) Requirements of Clean Water Services' Environmental Protection, Erosion Control and Design and Construction Standards are hereby incorporated as approval criteria for this Chapter.' 18.790.035, Add `Prohibited activity. No person who is required to install tree protection measures per TCDC 18.790.030 B.7 shall do any development activity including but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, including exploratory excavation, or demolition work on a site without first installing tree protection measures which have been approved in writing and inspected by the City Forester or his designee.' 18.790.036 (proposed), Add `Tree identification. As part of any development application involving removal of trees, those trees planned to be removed shall be marked on site with yellow tape. Such marking shall remain in place throughout the application and review process until removal is approved. Before the City of Tigard accepts an application, its review for completeness shall include a site visit by qualified city staff to verify the location, size and species of trees shown on the tree plan.' 18.790.040A.1. Add the words `including vegetated corridors defined by CWS' after the word `wetlands'. Oppose the HBA proposal to increase density bonus for fractional calculation of additional units. 18.790.040A.5. Agree with HBA wording of the last phrase `granted for any one development.' 18.790.040C. Revise the words `building plan' to read `detailed site development plan at a time prior to noticing an application for public review'. • • 18.790.050A, add the words `including vegetated corridors defined by CWS' after the words `sensitive land area. 18.790.050A. 2., change the words `as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland' to read `as defined by Clean Water Services'. 18.790.050B. Oppose HBA proposal to increase Tigard wording regarding effective period of a tree removal permit by 50%. 18.790.050D2. Clarify conditions not requiring a tree removal permit to specify that the tree "Is a hazardous tree according to a Certified Arborist and is within a distance equal to its height of an existing or proposed building, sidewalk or street. 18.790.060B.5. Oppose HBA proposal to force Tigard to search out parties other than developer/builder for payment of determining damage to tree protection measures. 18.790.060B.7. Add the words `Cancel the license for the developer/builder/Certified Arborist to do business in City of Tigard.' 18.790.060C. Remove the words `up to'just before the word `$500'. 18.790.060C.2. Insert the word `twice' before the words `the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, . . . .' 18.790.060C.3. Modify Tigard proposal regarding payment of fines and City costs to collect fines to specify `developer or builder' rather than the vague `negligent party'. 18.790.060D.3. Modify the replacement formula by replacing the word `DBH' with `trunk area at DBH height' in two places. 18.745.010, Purpose, add after the word `standards' the parenthetical phrase `approval criteria.' 18.745.020A. Add that this chapter is also applicable to ongoing maintenance of landscaping, since such requirements are included in the text, eg 18.745.030A. Section 18.745.030. The title of this section should be `General Standards' since that is theterminology used above in 18.745.020B. 18.745.030E.1, modify to read `The developer shall identify in his/her application and when approved, implement these methods . . . .' 18.745.030E.3 (proposed). Add `The developer shall minimize disturbance of natural landscaping by defining and using spoil areas and equipment laydown areas which utilize public right of way already to be disturbed, by removing trash and unused equipment and • 0 materials weekly, by fencing and signage to keep equipment and material off of otherwise unused areas, etc. 18.745.030F., modify to read `Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be identified in the application and when approved, shall be implemented as part of the site development unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public.' 18.745.030G., replace the word `required' in the first line with the word `existing'. In the last line replace `conventional development' with `new landscaping'. 18.745.040, change title to `Street Tree Standards'. 18.745.040A., add a provision explicitly authorizing an adjustment to move sidewalks three feet in any direction and to modify parking spaces (eg use curb extensions) in order to protect existing vegetation (landscaping or trees). 18.745.040C.1., modify to identify trees in the same manner as Chapter 18.790, ie use DBH rather than `caliper'. Modify similar language in 18.745.080A.1. 18.745.050, 060, 070 and 080, modify section headings by adding the word `Standards'.