The URL can be used to link to this page

05/07/2012 - Packet lig Completeness TIGARD Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Name of Board, Commission or Committee May 7,2012 Date of Meeting r -ago= a V Q — Doreen Laughlin 11/6/14 Date I '1 City ofTigard Planning Commission Agenda TIGARD MEETING DATE: May 7, 2012; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 7:05 p.n,. URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002 http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision.asp 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. 6. BRIEFING—PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE 8:05 p.m. 7. BRIEFING—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN REVIEW &APPROVAL 8:35 p.m. (Population & Housing Review Goal 10 & Public Facility Plan) 8. OTHER BUSINESS — 9:15 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT—9:20 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MAY 7, 2012 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 oft 1' City of Tigard Agenda Item #5 Memorandum To: Members of the Tigard Planning Commission From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist Re: May 7, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 25, 2012 Background On May 7, 2012, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the urban forestry code revisions. At the April 16, 2012, Planning Commission meeting, the commission requested additional information on the following issues raised during public testimony: 1. Application of the proposed code on small residential lots (less than 5000 sq. ft.) and small residential developments (Minor Land Partitions). 2. Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees that were planted by developers during the two year establishment period. 3. Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu option. The purpose of the May 7, 2012, hearing is to accept public testimony on the amendment options presented by staff in the "Outstanding Issues" memo on page 1 of the packet, deliberate on those amendment options and forward a final recommendation on the urban forestry code revisions to City Council. Staff is recommending the following amendments to the proposal based on public testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations at the April 16, 2012, meeting: Issue Issue Summary Staff Recommended Amendments 1 Application of the proposed code on • Reduce the effective tree canopy small residential lots (less than 5000 requirement to 33% (Tier 2) for sq. ft.) and small residential residential development with lots less developments (Minor Land than 5,000 sq. ft.. Partitions). • Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for residential development with lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. and for commercial, industrial, mixed use and school development. • 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. 2 Legal requirements for property • No amendments are recommended owners to maintain trees that were because the city attorney has advised planted by developers during the there are sufficient enforcement two year establishment period. procedures available for the establishment period. E 3 Information on the tree canopy fee •• No amendments are recommended in lieu option. because the proposed tree canopy fee in lieu is a reasonable appraisal of the value of tree canopy and its purpose is to incentivize tree planting and preservation. Please note that towards the end of the "Outstanding Issues" memo, staff is also recommending the additional amendments already discussed at the April 12, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Finally, staff has prepared three draft motions on page 23 of the packet for the Planning Commission. The first motion is to incorporate the land use related amendments into the urban forestry code revisions. The amendments are listed by number so the motion can be modified to exclude any the commission does not want to include. The second motion is to recommend City Council approve the land use elements of the urban forestry code revisions (with the amendments from the previous motion). And the third motion is to advise City Council that the Planning Commission finds the non land use elements of the urban forestry code revisions are consistent with and supportive of the land use elements. Procedural Note Because of Oregon land use law, the land use elements of the proposal, such as the Tigard Development Code (Title 18), Comprehensive Plan, ESEE Analysis and Significant Tree Grove Map, will be addressed separately from the non land use elements such as the Tigard Municipal Code (titles other than Title 18) and Urban Forestry Manual. In order to provide for a comprehensive approach to the urban forestry code revisions, the Planning Commission review and deliberations have included both the land use elements and non land use elements of the proposal. However, the Planning Commission's direct recommendation to City Council is limited to the land use elements of the proposal. At the same time, there are many aspects of the non land use elements that are consistent with and supportive of the land use elements. Staff recommends the Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council state that the non land elements of the proposal, including the non land use amendments recommended by staff, are consistent with and supportive of the land use elements. The suggested language for the recommendation is reflected in draft motion 3 on page 23. Packet Materials Page 1: Outstanding Issues Memo Page 23: Draft Motions Recommending Approval and Incorporating Amendments 21,1 City of Tigard 4) Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Outstanding Issues for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Date: April 18, 2012 At the April 16, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, the commission reviewed and received additional testimony on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Amendment requests, considered staff's recommended amendments and further deliberated on the amendment requests and staff's recommendations. The commission decided to continue the hearing until May 7, 2012, for additional testimony and deliberation on the following three outstanding issues: 1. Application of the proposed code on small residential lots (less than 5000 sq. ft.) and small residential developments (Minor Land Partitions). 2. Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees that were planted by developers during the two year establishment period. 3. Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu option. Below, staff has provided additional background for each issue, listed optional amendments to address each issue and included staff's recommended amendment option. Also included are the additional amendments from the April 16, 2012, meeting that Planning Commission indicated comfort with, which include bonus credits for native trees, and minor text and map amendments for clarification purposes. The text amendments for the outstanding issues are in the "Optional Amendments for the Outstanding Issues" section of this document. The text amendment for the additional amendments are in the "Additional Amendments from the April 16, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting" section. Staff will determine the exact text that is 1 forwarded to City Council, based on the policy choices made by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated the Planning Commission will select their preferred option for each outstanding issue and forward a recommendation to City Council on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions at the May 7, 2012, meeting. Issue 1: Application of the proposed code on small residential lots (less than 5000 sq. ft.) and small residential developments (Minor Land Partitions). The peer review results demonstrate that the proposed effective tree canopy requirements are achievable on the range of sites that were tested (see UFCR Volume II, page 463). Two of the residential sites tested have R-4.5 and R-7 zoning, with minimum lot sizes of 7,500 sq. ft. and 5,000 sq. ft. respectively, and met the Tier 1 (40%) effective tree canopy requirements. The other residential site tested has R-25 equivalent zoning, with lot sizes less than 3,000 sq. ft., and met the Tier 2 (33%) effective tree canopy requirement. The proposed code places the R-12 district, which has a minimum lot size requirement of 3,050 sq. ft., in Tier 1. Since an R-12 site was not tested through the peer review, the commission could move the R-12 district to Tier 2 to be conservative, since the R-25 site (which has smaller lots) was able to meet the requirements. 1.A. Options for the R-12 Zone Tier: 1. Move the R-12 district into Tier 2 (staff recommended option). 2. Keep the R-12 district in Tier 1. In addition, there has been discussion of the challenges of the 15% per lot minimum effective tree canopy requirement on small residential lots (less than 5000 sq. ft.). Due to the more limited street frontage of small residential lots, it is more difficult to place street trees for each lot to meet the per lot minimum. Eliminating the per lot minimum for small residential lots would increase flexibility. There would still likely be an incentive to plant larger stature street trees (which is the commission's preference) because selecting larger growing species to meet the requirements would be less expensive than planting additional trees on the lots. If the per lot minimum is eliminated for small residential lots, staff recommends eliminating it for commercial, mixed use, and industrial development as well, since these sites are often comprised of unique lots that could present challenges when meeting the requirements with limited 2 resulting benefits. This could be accomplished by eliminating the 15% per lot minimum for Tier 2 and 3. Alternatively, the commission could consider eliminating the per lot minimum in all districts. This would address testimony received regarding the unique challenges presented by some lots or tracts, even in the low density residential districts. However, this could result in unintended consequences, such as smaller stature and/or inconsistent street tree planting when meeting the minimum tree canopy requirement for the overall development site. 1.B. Options for the Per Lot Minimum Effective Tree Canopy Requirement: 1. Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for Tier 2 and 3 districts only (staff recommended option). 2. Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for all districts. 3. Keep the 15% per lot minimum for all districts. The peer review results do demonstrate that for residential sites, the effective tree canopy requirements can be met primarily through the strategic use of larger stature street trees (see UFCR Volume II, page 463). The incentive to maximize street tree canopy is deliberate as street trees are scientifically proven to have particularly high benefit to cost ratios in urban areas (see UFCR Volume III, page 1). Street trees are increasingly viewed as part of the city's "green infrastructure", as essential as other infrastructure elements such as street lights and storm drains. However, for street trees to achieve their potential canopy growth (and trees in general), adequate soil resources and proper planting methods are critical. The proposed code places a high value on the role of arborists in designing and implementing the conditions for sustainable urban tree canopy, which include providing adequate soil volumes. In some cases, a landscape architect is required if alternative techniques are utilized, such as structural soil volumes under pavement. For general tree planting on sites, the project arborist is required to evaluate soils and recommend amendments if needed to support tree growth. The project arborist is also responsible for specifying and monitoring the tree protection fencing for trees to be preserved, which include neighboring trees close to the property lines. Staff acknowledges that requiring arborists adds cost to projects, but it is consistent with the direction of the urban forestry code revisions: to distribute development costs more 3 equitably (rather than only requiring arborist for projects with existing trees) and to focus on establishing healthy future canopy (rather than only penalties for tree removal). As expressed by some members of the commission, there is value in consistent application of the urban forestry code revisions across residential zones in order to support the goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. That being said, the following options are available to the commission. 1.C. Options for Addressing Urban Forestry Plan Requirements for Residential Zones: 1. Continue to require urban forestry plans for all residential districts (staff recommended option). 2. Do not require urban forestry plans for residential districts that allow small lots (less than 5,000 sq. ft. lot size allowed) which are the R-12 and R-25 districts. Plans developed by a certified arborist for the preservation and planting of trees are currently required for small residential developments (Minor Land Partitions). The proposed code would continue to require plans developed by a certified arborist for small residential developments. Staff analysis of the buildable lands inventory found that the largest share of buildable sites in Tigard is between 10,000 sq. ft. and 1 acre. This means that Minor Land Partitions likely represent a significant share of future residential development in Tigard. The commission expressed some concern regarding the cost of developing urban forestry plans. The cost estimated by staff to develop and implement an urban forestry plan for a Minor Land Partition based on interviews with local arborists is between $4,000 and $5,000 (includes inventory field work, site plan, arborist report, revisions based on city review, and implementation inspections). However, costs associated with the existing code for tree removal mitigation can reach $30,000 for a Minor Land Partition (this does not include the cost to develop a tree plan). Since project arborists are already required to develop urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions, Minor Land Partitions are likely to represent a significant share of future residential development. The costs associated with urban forestry plans will be less in many circumstances than existing costs, due to the elimination of mitigation. Staff recommends continuing to require urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions. However, the commission does have the option of not requiring urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions. 4 1.D. Options for Addressing Urban Forestry Plan Requirements for Minor Land Partitions: 1. Continue to require urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions (staff recommended option). 2. Do not require urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions. Staff has identified an opportunity for creating efficiencies when developing urban forestry plans, while ensuring high quality design and implementation. Arborists and landscape architects have different skill sets. While arborists have expertise with regards to tree biology and growth, landscape architects have expertise with design, soil amendments and creating construction drawings. For projects that rely on street trees with structural soils to meet their requirements, it would reduce costs if the landscape architect could also complete the urban forestry plan (without requiring a certified arborist). Consideration should be given to allowing either landscape architects or arborists to develop urban forestry plans, to allow these efficiencies to occur. 1.E. Options for Developing Urban Forestry Plans: 1. Allow landscape architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans (staff recommended option). 2. Continue to allow only arborists to develop urban forestry plans. Issue 2: Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees that were planted by developers during the two year establishment period. The Planning Commission asked for input from the City Attorney regarding the legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees that were planted by developers during the two year establishment period. The concern raised by the commission was whether property owners could remove trees that were planted by developers. As suggested by the commission, the City Attorney agreed the developer could contractually obligate a property owner to maintain or allow for the maintenance of trees as part of the purchase and sale agreement. In addition, section 6.02.180 (Property Development and Maintenance Requirements, Urban Forestry) would prohibit the unauthorized removal of trees during the establishment period. If a property owner were to remove a tree, they would be subject to penalties in Chapter 1.16 (Civil Infractions). Because adequate safeguards are in place, staff is not proposing changes regarding the two year establishment period. 5 Issue 3: Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu option. The Planning Commission requested additional information on the proposed tree canopy fee in lieu methodology. Much of this information is from the Tree Canopy Fee Memo (see UFCR, Volume III, page 15). The methodology for the proposed tree canopy fee was developed by converting the wholesale median tree cost in the Willamette Valley, developed by the PNWISA to a unit canopy cost. According to the PNWISA, the median wholesale cost of a 3-inch diameter deciduous tree is $174. The formula developed by Krajicek, et al. for open grown, broad spreading trees (maximum crown width (feet) = 3.183+1.829' DBH (inches)) was then utilized to convert tree diameter to canopy diameter. According to the Krajicek formula, a 3-inch diameter tree should have a crown width of 8.67 feet or crown area of 59 square feet. These dimensions were confirmed as reasonable by staff through several local field samples. Using the median cost of a 3-inch deciduous tree ($174) and the crown area of a 3-inch diameter tree (59 square feet), the unit canopy cost or tree canopy fee should be $2.95 per square foot. This methodology is a reasonable approach for three main reasons. First, tree benefits (aesthetic, stormwater management, air quality, etc.) are derived primarily from their canopies, so proposing to place a value to tree canopy is appropriate. Second, in the proposal, tree canopy is valued using the median wholesale tree cost only, whereas standard tree appraisal is based on the wholesale tree cost, plus the cost of tree installation. Finally, the Krajicek formula and field samples by staff are based on the maximum crown width-to-trunk diameter ratio. A typical tree does not have such a high ratio. If the typical ratio were used, the unit canopy cost would increase. As shown in the "Comparative Fee-in-Lieu Rates" memo from the February 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed tree canopy fee in lieu would be low when compared with other fees in the region. Also, the tree canopy fee in lieu in the proposed code is lower than the mitigation fee in lieu in the existing code. Consider the following: Existing Code Proposed Code Mitigation Based Canopy Based $125/caliper inch $2.95/sq. ft. 6 Fee for 12" DBH Tree = $1,500 Fee for 12" DBH Tree = $1,4631 While staff is unclear on the specific methodology of the alternate fee in lieu proposed in public testimony, significantly reducing the fee would significantly undervalue tree canopy. This would likely reduce the incentive for applicants to plant or preserve trees, resulting in increased payments to the city who would then be obligated to utilize the funds. The issue raised by the commission is whether the city is interested in potentially increasing revenue by lowering the fee in lieu (so applicants pay the city rather than plant or preserve trees with development). Staff's perspective is that the purpose of the fee is to create an incentive to plant and preserve trees on private property, rather than to create a revenue source for the city. However, if applicants choose to pay a fee in lieu, the fee should be designed to capture the full value of canopy that will not be provided for the community. This is consistent with the direction of the Citizen Advisory Committee. However, if the Planning Commission would like to encourage payment of fees in lieu of tree planting or preservation, the cost of the tree canopy fee could be reduced. If the tree canopy fee were reduced by half, then 50% of the canopy value would be borne by the applicant with the other 50% borne by the community. 3.A. Options for the Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu: 1. Continue to use the tree canopy fee in lieu methodology that captures the full value of tree canopy (currently $2.95 per sq. ft. of tree canopy which is equivalent to $174 for a 3-inch caliper tree, this is the staff recommended option). 2. Revise the tree canopy fee in lieu methodology to capture one half the value of tree canopy (currently $1.47 per sq. ft. of tree canopy which is equivalent to $87 for a 3- inch caliper tree). Amendments from the April 16, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission indicated support for the following additional amendments at the April 16, 2012, meeting: 1 DBH converted to canopy using the Krajicek formula 7 1. Minor text amendment to the summary heading of section 18.790.030.A. 2. Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement to 15% in Chapter 18.790 and the Urban Forestry Manual. 3. Correct scrivener's errors in section 18.790.030.C. 4. Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE and boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62 to reflect changes due to recent tree removal. 5. Minor text amendment to clarify the review and approval process in sections 18.790.070.B.1-3. 6. Grant 1.25x bonus credit for planting native trees. 7. Minor text amendment to remove a repetitive approval criterion for tree removal permit requirements in sensitive lands. Staff has included the amendments towards the end of this document in the "Additional Amendments from the April 16, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting" section. 8 Optional Amendments for the Outstanding Issues Issue 1.A: Options for the R-12 Zone Tier Option 1: Move the R-12 Zone into Tier 2 (staff recommended option). Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 3.N(Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements)) N. The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least: 1. 40 percent for Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7, and R 12) districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J)); 2. 33 percent for Medium High Density Residential and High Density Residential {R-12, R-25, and R-40), Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, . -- -- - .. C-N, C-C, C-G, and C-P), Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Usc Employment 1, Mixed Use Employment 2, Mixed Use Commercial and Mixed Used Residential {MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUC, and MUR)-and Industrial Park (I-P)-districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J)); and 3. 25 percent for the Mixed Usc Central Business District (MU-CBD), Mixcd Usc Commercial 1 (MUC-1) and Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial (I-L and I- H) districts, and for schools (18.130.050(J)) in all districts. [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the Urban Forestry Manual to specify the R-12 district is in Tier 2.] Option 2: Keep the R-12 district in Tier 1. No Amendments Required 9 Issue 1.B: Options for the Per Lot Minimum Effective Tree Canopy Requirement Option 1: Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for Tier 2 and 3 districts only (staff recommended option). Land Use Amendments: (Section 18.790.030.B(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements)) B. Tree Canopy Fee. If the supplemental arborist report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 10, part 3, item N will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets) or that the 20 percent effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, and R-12 districts (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ... [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the code and commentary for Chapter 18.790 to specify that the per lot minimum is applicable to the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5, R-7, and R-12 districts only. If the R-12 district is moved into Tier 2 (33%), then the per lot minimum will not apply to the R-12 district. If the per lot minimum is reduced to 15%, then the text will reflect the change.] Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 3 (Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements)) M. A summary in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the effective tree canopy cover that will be provided for the overall development site (excluding streets) and for each lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, and R-12 districts (excluding streets) as follows: ... [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the Urban Forestry Manual to specify that the per lot minimum is applicable to the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5, R-7, and R-12 districts only. If the R-12 district is moved into Tier 2 (33%), then the per lot minimum will not apply to the R-12 district.] 10 Option 2: Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for all districts. Land Use Amendments: B. Tree Canopy Fee. If the supplemental arborist report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 10, part 3, item N will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets) or that the 20 percent effective trcc canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. [Changes will be made by staff to remove all references in the code and commentary to the per lot minimum for Chapter 18.790.] Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 3 (Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements)) M. A summary in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the effective tree canopy cover that will be provided for the overall development site (excluding streets) and each lot or tract (excluding streets) as follows: [Changes will be made by staff to remove all references in the Urban Forestry Manual to the per lot minimum.] Option 3: Keep the 15% per lot minimum for all districts. No Amendments Required 11 Issue 1.C: Options for Addressing Urban Forestry Plan Requirements for Residential Zones Option 1: Continue to require urban forestry plans for all residential districts (staff recommended option). No Amendments Required Option 2: Do not require urban forestry plans for residential districts that allow small lots (less than 5,000 sq. ft. lot size allowed) which are the R-12 and R-25 districts. Land Use Amendments: (Section 18.790.020(Applicability)) 18.790.020 Definitions Applicability The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations: A. The following land use reviews: 1. Conditional Use (Type III); 2. Downtown Design Review (Type II and III); 3. Minor Land Partition (Type II), except in the R-12 and R-25 districts; 4. Planned Development (Type III), except in the R-12 and R-25 districts; 5. Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); 6. Site Development Review (Type II); and 7. Subdivision (Type II and III), except in the R-12 and R-25 districts. [Changes will be made by staff to all relevant references in the commentary for Chapter 18.790 to explain that the urban forestry plan requirements are not applicable to residential development in the R-12 and R-25 districts.] 12 Issue 1.D: Options for Addressing Urban Forestry Plan Requirements for Minor Land Partitions Option 1: Continue to require urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions (staff recommended option). No Amendments Required Option 2: Do not require urban forestry plans for Minor Land Partitions. Land Use Amendments: (Section 18.790.020(Applicability)) 18.790.020 Definitions Applicability The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations: A. The following land use reviews: 1. Conditional Use (Type III); 2. Downtown Design Review (Type II and III); 3. Minor Land Partition (Type II); 43. Planned Development (Type III); 54. Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); 65. Site Development Review (Type II); and 76. Subdivision (Type II and III). [Changes will be made by staff to all relevant references in the commentary for Chapter 18.790 to explain that the urban forestry plan requirements are not applicable to Minor Land Partitions.] 13 Issue 1.E: Options for Developing Urban Forestry Plan Option 1: Allow landscape architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans (staff recommended option). Land Use Amendments: (Chapter 18.115 (List of Terms)) Landscape Architect [Adds the term "Landscape Architect" to chapter 18.115, no further changes to chapter required.] (Section 18.120.030..A (Meaning of Specific Words and Terms)) 104. Landscape Architect" - An individual registered with the Oregon State Landscape Architect Board as a registered landscape architect. [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the code and commentary for Chapter 18.120 to add the term "landscape architect" where the term "arborist", "certified arborist" or "project arborist" is used.] (Section 18.745.040..A.6(Street Trees)) 6. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: a. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right of way immediately adjacent to the subject site; b. The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the standards in Sections 2 and 12 of the Urban Forestry Manual if it were newly planted; and c. The tree is shown as preserved in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan (per 18.790.030.A.2), Tree Canopy Cover site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and Supplemental Arborist Report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a concurrent urban forestry plan and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. [No further changes to chapter required.] (Section 18.790.030..A (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements) A. Urban Forestry Plan Requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor (the project arborist); 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in Section 14 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in Section 10, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and 4. Meet the supplemental arborist report standards in Section 10, part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the code and commentary for Chapter 18.790 to add the term "landscape architect" where the term "arborist", "certified arborist" or "project arborist" is used, in addition changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the code and commentary for Chapter 18.790 to remove the word "arborist" where the term "supplemental arborist report" is used.] Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 1 (Urban Forestry Plan - Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Requirements)) N. Any supplemental tree preservation specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the continued viability of trees identified for preservation. [Changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the urban forestry manual to add the term "landscape architect" where the term "arborist", "certified arborist" or "project arborist" is used, in addition changes will be made by staff to all other relevant references in the urban forestry manual to remove the word "arborist" where the term "supplemental arborist report" is used.] Option 2: Continue to allow only arborists to develop urban forestry plans. No Amendments Required 15 Issue 3.A: Options for the Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu Option 1: Continue to use the tree canopy fee in lieu methodology that captures the full value of tree canopy (staff recommended option). No Amendments Required Option 2: Revise the tree canopy fee in lieu methodology to capture one-half the value of tree canopy. Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 5 (Tree Canopy Fee Calculation Requirements)) A. The tree canopy fee shall be calculated as follows: 1. If the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than the applicable standard percentage in part 3, item n above for the overall development site find the difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and the applicable standard effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site and multiply the difference (in square feet) by: a. One-half Tthe most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-ISA for a 3 inch diameter deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59 square feet. 2. In cases where the overall development site meets the standard percentage in part 3.N above yet the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than 20 percent for any individual lot or tract, find the difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 20 percent effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot or tract and multiply the difference (in square feet) by: a. One-half Tthe most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-ISA for a 3 inch diameter deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59 square feet. [Changes will be made by staff to all relevant references in the commentary for Chapter 18.790 to explain why the tree canopy fee in lieu in the Urban Forestry Manual is one-half the value of tree canopy.] 16 Additional Amendments from the April 16, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Additional Amendments 1: Minor text amendment to the summary heading of section 18.790.030.A. Land Use Amendments: (Section 18.790.030.A (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements)) A. Urban Forestry Plan Submittal Requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: [No further changes.] 17 Additional Amendments 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement to 15% in Chapter 18.790 and the Urban Forestry Manual. Land Use Amendments: (Section 18.790.030.B(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements)) B. Tree Canopy Fee. If the supplemental arborist report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 10, part 3, item N. will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets), or that the 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. [No further changes.] (Section 18.790.050.D.5 (Flexible Incentives and Standards for the Preservation of Significant Tree Groves)) 1. Adjustment to Minimum Effective Canopy Requirement. The requirement for 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover per lot is not required when: [No further changes.] (Section 18.790.050.D.5, Commentary) The fifth flexible and incentive based standard is an adjustment to the minimum effective canopy requirement. A standard Urban Forestry Plan requires 20 15 percent effective tree canopy per lot in addition to the overall development site effective canopy requirement which is based on zoning (25, 33 or 40 percent). [No further changes.] Non Land Use Amendments: (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 3.0(Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements)) 0. If the percent of effective tree canopy cover is less than the applicable standard percent in item n above for the overall development or less than 20 15 percent for any lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n), calculate the tree canopy fee required to meet the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n above for the overall development site or 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract (only if the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent 18 effective tree canopy cover in item n but individual lots or tracts do provide 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover) according to the methodology in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. (Urban Forestry Manual Section 10, Part 4.A.2 (Urban Forestry Plan - Tree Canopy Fee Calculation Requirements)) 2. In cases where the overall development site meets the standard percentage in part 3.N above yet the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than 20 15 percent for any individual lot or tract, find the difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot or tract and multiply the difference (in square feet) by: [No further changes.] Additional Amendments 3: Correct scrivener's errors in section 18.790.030.C. Land Use Amendments: (18.790.030.C(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements)) D,C. Tree Canopy Fee Use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall [No further changes.] Additional Amendments 4: Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE and correct boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62. Land Use Amendments: (note: the full text from the ESEE analysis associated with these corrected scrivener's errors is not provided) Change "18.70" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, page 22) Change "18.770" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, pages 33 and 83) Change "18.750" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, page 47) Change "18.755" to "18.775" (see UFCR Volume III, pages 34 (4 times), 47 and 64) Land Use Amendments: Adjust boundaries of inventoried Tree Groves #38 and #62 on the Significant Tree Grove Map (note: the amended Significant Tree Grove Map is on page 76 of the packet and provided with the staff report for the April 16, 2012 Planning Commission meeting). 19 Additional Amendments 5: Minor text amendment to clarify the review and approval process in sections 18.790.070.B.1-3. Land Use Amendments: (18.790.070.B.1 (Exemptions[from the Type I Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit])) b. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report are submitted for review and approval prior to removal for review and approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. and The revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report shall demonstrate how either the effective tree canopy cover requirements in Section 10, part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual will be provided by the proposed combination of tree planting, and preservation; and/or; payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting or preservation. will be provided to make up the difference between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and the effective tree canopy cover requirements in Section 10, part 3, of the Urban Forestry Manual for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed. [No further changes.] (18.790.070.B.2) c. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report are submitted for review and approval prior to planting for review and approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. [No further changes.] (18.790.070.B.3) b. A revised tree preservation and removal site plan, tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report are submitted for review and approval prior to modification of the tree protection fencing for review and approval that reflect the proposed modifications to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan. [No further changes.] 20 Additional Amendments 6: Grant 1.25x bonus credit for planting native trees. Non Land Use Amendments: (Section 10, Part 3.M.2 (Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Arborist Report Requirements)) c. The mature canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees in the tree canopy site plan, except for those from the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual, to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way, excluding median trees). d. 1.25 times the mature canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees from the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual in the tree canopy site plan to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way, excluding median trees). e. 1.25 times Tthe mature canopy area (in square feet) of each stand in the tree canopy site plan to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way, excluding median trees). The eligible mature tree canopy area shall be the portion directly above the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way). f. Divide the tree canopy area (calculated per part 3.M.2.a-de above) for the overall development site and each lot or tract by the total area of the overall development site and each lot or tract respectively to determine the effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site and each lot or tract. [No further changes.] (note: above lettering is revised due to the insertion of item d) (note: for consistency the Example Supplemental Report Template in Appendix 9 of the Urban Forestry Manual is recommended for amendment as shown on page 77 of the April 16, 2012 Planning Commission Packet) 21 Additional Amendments 7: Minor text amendment to remove a repetitive approval criterion for tree removal permit requirements in sensitive lands. Non Land Use Amendments: (Section 6, Part 1.B.6(Sensitive Lands Tree Removal Standards)) "The tree is listed on the nuisance tree list. [No further changes.] (note: numbering of the section is revised and the cross reference to the Nuisance Tree List in the sidebar is struck due to the deletion of item 6) (Section 6, Part 1.C(Sensitive Lands Tree Removal Standards)) C. Unless removed for thinning purposes (part 1.B.4 10 above) the city manager or designee shall condition the removal of each tree in sensitive lands upon the planting of a replacement tree in accordance with the Sensitive Lands Tree Replacement Standards in Section 6, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. [No further changes.] 22 Draft Planning Commission Motion 1 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. 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. Draft Planning Commission Motion 2 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. Draft Planning Commission Motion 3 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 1.A, 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 2 and 3 districts. 23 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. 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. 24 ir TESTIMONY SIGN-IN SHEET We ask you to limit your oral comments to 5 minutes.Written comments are always appreciated by the Planning Commission to supplement oral testimony & are entered into the record. Please submit any written testimony to the Planning Commission Secretary (Doreen Laughlin). AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5.1 DATE: May 7, 2012 PAGE I OF FILE NAME Urban Forestry Code Revision Project CASE NOS.: CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME & ADDRESS — Please print clearly Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code /42a) 6-":(27. Name,Address,Zip Code `� � 1 Name,Address,Zip Code _101e-) RUC-DI—I, A 'Kke"iy 141 �LJ�� IO0(2 C, =-c� �- - 1 -` - - Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code — — — — — — — — — — — —Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code r rr• r r r rr. r r rr. r rr.l r r r r. r r. r r. r r. r r Iy " City of Tigard Memorandum To: President Walsh and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Re: Periodic Review Update Date: April 20, 2012 Periodically, cities and counties are required to evaluate their comprehensive plans and land use regulations through a process called periodic review (ORS 197.628-644 and OAR 660,Division 25). On May 20, 2008, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) notified the city of the commencement of periodic review for Tigard. Staff then developed a periodic review work program,which was approved by City Council on January 27, 2009 and approved by DLCD on April 15, 2010. The city has three years from the DLCD approval date to complete all six tasks in the work program. The six tasks in the work program include: 1) Population and Housing Review; 2) Downtown Development Standards Update; 3) Economic Opportunities Analysis; 4) Public Facility Plan Update; 5) Transportation System Plan Update; 6) Population Forecast and Coordination with Metro. Work on three of the tasks has been completed: Task 2 (Downtown Development Standards Update),Task 3 (Economic Opportunities Analysis) and Task 5 (Transportation System Plan Update). The remaining three tasks are just beginning and will be completed and submitted to DLCD, over the next year. The Population and Housing Review (Statewide Planning Goal 10) and Population Forecast and Coordination with Metro tasks are being funded by$45,000 from DLCD's periodic review grant program. The city is in the process of choosing a consultant to assist in completing these tasks. The purpose of the tasks are not only to adopt a population projection and ensure compliance with the state's metropolitan housing rule (OAR 660-07), but also position the city to attract the types and mix of housing it desires when the housing market rebounds. This will be accomplished through a housing trends analysis that will lead to recommended strategies and development code changes to meet the city's vision. Specific attention will be spent on housing in Downtown Tigard,potential redevelopment associated with high capacity transit and River Terrace. Staff expects council consideration for adoption in March 2013. The Public Facility Plan Update task (Statewide Planning Goal 11) will be completed by city staff. The city's public facility plan must address the 20-year needs for water, transportation, sanitary sewer I:\Community Development\Boards Committees Commissions\Planning Commission\2012\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Briefing Public Inv Plan Briefing\Records Division Packet\4-05-7-12 PC Memo Periodic Review Update.doc and stormwater infrastructure. This ensures adequate services will be available for future development. The city has recently updated its water and transportation master plans and Clean Water Services has recently updated it sanitary sewer master plan. City staff will be able to utilize references to these documents in the public facility plan as allowed by state administrative rules. The stormwater component of the public facility plan will need to piece together three different plans developed over the years by Clean Water Services. These include the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan and the Healthy Streams Plan. As these plans are a little older, city staff will work closely with Clean Water Services and DLCD staff during the process to ensure they meet the 20-year needs as required. Staff expects council consideration for adoption in January 2013. If you have any questions about Periodic Review or the specific tasks, please contact me at 503-718- 2442 or Darren@tigard-or.gov. I:\Community Development\Boards Committees Commissions\Planning Commission\2012\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Briefing Public Inv Plan Briefing\Records Division Packet\4-05-7-12 PC Memo Periodic Review Update.doc IN .-- " City of Tigard TI ,ARDMemorandum To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Marissa Daniels Re: Public Involvement Plan Review Date: April 26, 2012 On Monday, May 7, 2012 the Planning Commission will be asked to review two public involvement plans. This memo includes a refresher on public involvement plans and typical outreach methods to assist you in your upcoming review. Additional information about citizen involvement requirements and the role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement is included as an attachment. Public Involvement Plan Review Anatomy of a Public Involvement Plan Public involvement plans vary depending on a variety of project attributes including project impact, desired outcomes, level of conflict, resources available, outside agency involvement, etc. Generally, each plan will include the following components: project background and purpose, project phasing and schedule, outreach and public involvement methods. Other sections for more detailed projects could include key players and messaging or project partners and responsibilities. > Commission's Review. While reviewing this portion of a public involvement plan, and depending on the nature of the project, the following are some types of questions you may want to consider: • Are there opportunities for information, communication, and participation in each phase of the planning process (Tigard Comprehensive Plan requirement)? • Does the level of public involvement effort proposed match the potential project impacts? • Is there likely to be a high level of opposition to the outcome of the project? • Are the appropriate stakeholders listed? Is anyone missing? 1 Outreach Methods— The `Meat"of the Plan The section of the plan which details public involvement or outreach methods represents the core of how the city plans to ensure citizens have information and opportunities to communicate and participate in each phase of the project. There are several common outreach methods used by the city. For example, open houses, email listservs, articles in the Cityscape Newsletter and pages on the city's website are used frequently. Other outreach methods could include the city's Neighborhood Network program, small coffee meetings, or utility bill stuffers. Each of these are used less frequently, and only when the project calls for this type of outreach. ➢ Commission's Review. While reviewing this portion of a public involvement plan, and depending on the nature of the project, the following are some types of questions you may want to consider: • Is the length of the comment period sufficient? • A mailing is listed in the public involvement tools matrix. Is this the best use of resources? Could this information be sent in a utility bill stuffer? • Can we add the school district to the list of stakeholders? • Seniors are listed in the stakeholder list. What can we do to ensure they get the information they need? • A Q&A should be included on the project website. Contact Information If you have any questions about the upcoming public involvement plan review or about the Planning Commissions role as the Committee for Citizen Involvement, please contact Marissa Daniels at 503-718-2428 or marissa@tigard-or.gov. 2 Attachment A Background Citizen Involvement Requirements Statewide Planning Goal 1 Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong statewide program for land use planning. The foundation of that program is a set of 19 Statewide Planning Goals. It is not by mistake that Goal 1 is Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 reads, "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Its focus is the following set of six guidelines: 1. Citizen Involvement -- To provide for widespread citizen involvement. 2. Communication -- To assure effective two-way communication with citizens. 3. Citizen Influence -- To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 4. Technical Information -- To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. 5. Feedback Mechanisms -- To assure that citizens will receive a response from policymakers. 6. Financial Support -- To insure funding for the citizen involvement program. Tigard's Requirements The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement section is divided between two goals: 1. Provide Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. 2. Ensure all Citizens have access to: a. Opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and b. Information on issues in an understandable form. Role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement On Nov 23, 2010 in Resolution 10-62, the Tigard City Council assigned the state-required citizen involvement responsibility for land use to the Tigard Planning Commission. Prior to this date, the city maintained an independent committee separate from the Planning Commission. Statewide Planning Goal 1 states: "The committee for citizen involvement shall be responsible for assisting the governing body with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen Attachment A involvement in land-use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement." Tigard's Comprehensive Plan requires: 1. The City shall maintain a Committee for Citizen Involvement representative of a broad cross-section of the Community to: a) Make recommendations to the City regarding ways to engage the public in City issues, projects, and the land use process; b) Help implement and develop a public information and citizen involvement program applicable to a wide range of issues; and c) Support the enhancement of Tigard's overall level and quality of civic engagement by promoting meaningful citizen involvement in city government. Public Involvement Plan DRAFT Tigard Public Facilities Plan City of Tigard Periodic Review Work Task Introduction Background Periodically, cities and counties are required to evaluate their comprehensive plans and land use regulations through a process called periodic review (ORS 197.628-644 and OAR 660, Division 25). On May 20, 2008, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) notified the city of the commencement of periodic review for Tigard. Staff then developed a periodic review work program, which was approved by City Council on January 27, 2009, and approved by DLCD on April 15, 2010.The city has three years from the DLCD approval date to complete all six tasks in the work program. One of the periodic review tasks is to complete an update of the Tigard Public Facilities Plan (PFP). State statutes require cities to have an adopted, up-to-date PFP.The information required to be included in the PFP can be found in existing master plans that have been adopted by the city or its service partners. This will primarily require the accumulation of information from different plans, as opposed to an extensive inventory and analysis process. Project Purpose The city's public facility plan must address the 20-year needs for water,transportation, sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure.This ensures adequate services will be available for future development. The city has recently updated its water and transportation master plans and Clean Water Services has recently updated it sanitary sewer master plan. City staff will be able to utilize references to these documents in the public facility plan as allowed by state administrative rules.The stormwater component of the public facility plan will need to piece together three different plans developed over the years by Clean Water Services.These include the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan,the Stormwater Management Plan and the Healthy Streams Plan. As these plans are a little older, city staff will work closely with Clean Water Services and DLCD staff during the process to ensure they meet the 20-year needs as required. Scope of Work Phase I: Project launch • Approve communication plan. • Get the word out. Phase II: Existing master plans review • Analyze timeframes and projects. • Identify deficiencies in compliance with administrative rules. 1 • Present findings. Phase III: Master plan updates • Address deficiencies. Phase IV: Draft Public Facility Plan • Review and refinement. Phase V: Adoption • Planning Commission review. • City Council review. Schedule The duration of the project is expected to last from eight to ten months. Task Month M1 J AS ONDJ F M Phase I: Project Launch Phase II: Existing Master Plans Review Phase III: Master Plan Updates Phase IV: Draft Public Facility Plan Phase V: Adoption Communication Plan Components The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement section is divided between two goals: Goal 1.1 Provide Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: a. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and b. information on issues in an understandable form. Thus,the Communication Plan breaks down each phase of the process and speaks to the ways in which citizens and stakeholders can participate, communicate and receive information about the Public Facility Plan. Key Players Public Facility Plan Technical Advisory Committee The committee will be comprised of agency and service district partners that have expertise in the various components of the plan. 2 Committee for Citizen Involvement The role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement is to review the form and process of city communications with its residents.This committee will have the opportunity to review the Communication Plan at the outset of the project and will monitor citizen involvement throughout the process. Staff The role of staff will be to facilitate the technical advisory committee meetings, gather data and present analysis, and draft the Tigard Public Facility Plan. Staff will also solicit additional input on the plan through the internet and the Cityscape newsletter. Public Involvement Tools Phase I: Project launch Involvement Tools Involvement Type CCI Meeting Participation Interested Parties List Communication Cityscape Article Information Press Release Information Set Up Project Website Information Phase II: Existing master plans review Involvement Tools Involvement Type Interested Parties List Message Communication TAC Meeting#1 Participation Update Project Website Information Phase III: Master plan updates Involvement Tools Involvement Type City Council Update Participation Planning Commission Update Participation TAC Meeting#2 Participation Interested Parties List Message Communication Update Project Website Information 3 Phase IV: Draft Public Facility Plan Involvement Tools Involvement Type TAC Meeting#3 Participation Comment Period on Draft Plan Participation Make Draft Available Online, at City Participation/ Hall and Library Information Interested Parties List Message Communication Update Project Website Information Phase V: Adoption Involvement Tools Involvement Type Update Project Website Information Planning Commission Meeting Participation/ Communication City Council Meeting Participation/ Communication Update Project Website Information 4 Public Involvement Plan Population and Housing Review City of Tigard Periodic Review Work Task Introduction The overall purpose of the project is to improve the chances that Tigard can encourage the availability of a diversity of housing types desired by its citizens, achieve the goals of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and create opportunities to meet the aspirations that have been developed during Metro's "Making the Greatest Places" process. This will be achieved by ensuring a sound policy basis for needed future development code amendments. Additionally, a Population and Housing Review will ensure the City of Tigard remains in compliance with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 as the city goes through the Periodic Review process. The project will also provide a qualitative analysis of trends and market preferences in regards to an aging population and potential recovery from the recent housing downturn. This project will help to meet objectives outlined by Tigard citizens and recently adopted into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. These objectives include: • Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future city residents • Maintain a high level of residential livability • Support housing affordability, special-needs housing, ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation • Promote innovative, well-designed, and sustainable housing developments Scope of Work Phase I: Project Kickoff • Approve Communications Plan • Get the word out • Preliminary analysis Phase II: Assessment and Collaboration • Policy evaluation and report • Development code evaluation and report • Housing strategy report • Advisory committee review and discussion Phase III: Draft Report • Draft Goal 10 Population and Housing report • Advisory committee review and refinement Phase IV:Adoption Process • Planning Commission review and public hearing • City Council review and public hearing 1 Schedule Task Month M J J A S O N D J Phase I: Project Kickoff Phase II: Assessment and Collaboration Phase III: Draft Report * * Phase IV:Adoption Process * indicates an advisory committee meeting Communication Plan Components The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement section is divided between two goals: Goal 1.1 Provide Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: a. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and b. information on issues in an understandable form. Thus,the Communication Plan breaks down each phase of the process and speaks to the ways in which citizens and stakeholders can participate, communicate, and receive information about the Population and Housing Review. Key Players Advisory Committee The committee will be comprised of agency and service district partners that have expertise in the various components of the plan. Committee for Citizen Involvement The role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement is to review the form and process of City communications with its residents.This Committee will have the opportunity to review the Communication Plan at the outset of the project, and will monitor citizen involvement throughout the process. Staff The role of staff will be to facilitate the technical advisory committee meetings, gather data and present analysis, and work with the consultants to draft the Population and Housing Review. Staff will be responsible for implementing the public involvement plan. 2 Public Involvement Tools Phase I: Project Launch CCI Meeting Participation AC Meeting#1 Participation Interested Parties List Communication Cityscape Article Information Press Release Information Set Up Project Website Information Phase II: Assessment and Collaboration AC Meeting#2 Participation Interested Parties List Message Communication Update Project Website Information Phase III: Draft Report City Council Update Participation Planning Commission Update Participation AC Meeting#3 Participation AC Meeting#4 Participation Interested Parties List Message Communication Make Draft Available online, at City Hall Information/ and Library Participation Update Project Website Information Phase IV:Adoption Process Planning Commission Meeting Communication/ Participation City Council Meeting Communication/ Participation Interested Parties List Message Communication Cityscape Article Information Press Release Information Update Project Website Information 3 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 Commission\2012 Packets\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Briefing Public Inv Plan BrieFmg\tpc 050712 minutes.doc. 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 APPROVAL I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Briefing Public Inc Plan Briefing\tpc 050712 nvnures.decs Page 2 of 7 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 Summerfield community's newsletter, the Regal 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. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Briefing Public Inn Plan Briefing\(pc 1)50712 minutes doce 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. IB — eliminate the 15°%o 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°%o 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. 1;\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\056712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periadic Rcv Ileic0na Pubkc lnr Plan IhicAng\tpc 050712 mfnutes.docs 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. \LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Rev Rriefino Public Inc PI:,n eng\q,c 050712 anoint,doc 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 1.A, 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 Packets\050712-PH-UFCR Cont'd-Periodic Re:irking Publ.In Plan Ilnefim\rpc 050712 minute.dc- Page 6 of 7 5. A c dit iori al Non Land Use Amend mere t s 6: Gr tri i 1.25A h on u s caiedit ilor xl lar ting natiN e tit es. 6. A c di l ion al Non Land Use A mend merits 7: Minor lI e xi arrienc rr.enll to tamave a rep etilive appro`al cr,'terion lion liee removal permit rec uiremen Is insensitive tan c s. Ile Bora the vote soak place, Susan J-Iarinati aakad fai soma alarificatlon on ona portion of the motion — On nun bat 2. I's ue I .B, she'd thought she haaid Corti m asianet Elohatty sail Iiar '1 and 2 when, in faci, theta is no Tiat 1. Corr.m.ssiorer Ilohaity said she had rrt.s:poken. She lot teat ed the rrotion to say Tiat 2 rd TI jar 3. itesidenl Walsh asked ill avaryor a was cleat on iha motior.; they all indiaaied they wet e cleat ar d the vola took plana. t h e motion ea/Tied on a u nan:irnou s `ote. Ilre s ident V41'alt h a a knowledged s to hf flor i h e imrr ens ely h at d work on this p.rojeci. Ha said he belie d this was tk a greatest efflot t h e'd seen on behalf of s la ff since ha Corn pt churn ive Plan. Susan aaknovaledged the adminiati ativa and graphic : Alfas well — she said thep do a lot oil behind tha ;cer a s work ar d s ha w2 nt ed to aa knowledge that excellent woi k a s well. Pi e sidenit Walsh a greed. at this poir sident Walsh turned the aiiantion of the commis:ian la iha upcoming City Clouncil h eating. Tie said that when i his goes befoi e a ouncil h e would like two aomm's; ionerr to rapt esenrl the comrn scion. Tia volu nta ared t o go himself at d asked who would like to join hint . Commissioner Sahnidt agreed io go as well. Walsh na ted also i hat a trans: rni to l rr ens o needs t o be subrt iti ed. The put poi a of the rn(Imo is io give counail 2 idea ofwliy ma to the decision they carne to. Siafllwil aorr.pose the it en o ars d via nted class ity a: to why the comm s:ion decided the way tl ay did. The: idem Wah h polled the clan tris:cion iound robin ; tyla and got thoughts ilrom each comms: ioner while sl afll tool?s note. Th a s e thou ghi is will be ina lucled in the transrrr i to l n emo la lour ail. CLCISEU IIUBLICI HEARII\ G CPI HER BUS Ir ESS - on e Al JC IURNMENT Ilr e:ids rut Walsh a cljoui rued th e rrs a etl ng a t 8:52p.ns. Dot ter Laughlin, Illannir.g G< emission Searetary Y -:r 'President Dlave Walsh C:\LH PLT I\Planning II om mission\2012 Pad et\050712-Ph1-I ICOR onl'd-Periodic Rev l;nrfin Puhl c I w Find l eu[rny\rpc 050712 r inuics.do, Page all CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done TIGARD Urban Forestry Code Revisions Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Outstanding Issue Community Development I May 2012 CITY 0 F TIGARD «. 'Y I. ` j�. -'-+. *ia+ t I;41 e jb - - y •�t�F. d µ'rl .. .. 4 ' l M _ it Outstanding Issues _44, i - - ;:ifo, % dr .41 1. Application of the proposed code on small lots/developments , 2. Legal requirements for property owners to maintain trees 4 M_ 3. Information on the tree canopy fee in lieu CITY OF TIGARD . � `� ,! 7 Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Develop ment - a=-: , ,- •-).•-- ti .- Development Existing Code 1111 Proposed Code ;t:lite--.., Small lot land divisions Arborist required if existing trees Arborist required to meet tree canopy (<5000 sq. ft. lots) and soil volume requirements i Mitigation required for tree No mitigation required -3 •, removal - ;_•„X Small Developments Arborist required if existing trees Arborist required to meet tree canopy 1 iiri,-, : (Minor Land Partitions) and soil volume requirements Mitigation required for tree No mitigation required removal CITY OF TIGARD Issue 1: Small Lots, Small Development . _ _ fr ‘- i - 0 1 -z .,:-, -am,....; ...::.:,..:11,1,..171 1 • : ir 11.:_7177'. jy�,, ''.: ' • �" ‘.! , ,,. si. . ''''. , ..,',11:213 lig ' 4. . .2 . ..- witr_ ; )'IP. II 1. 41t- 'illi* - )11° 4 ,.-4---; i.,4,„„ ,t,,,...„ . ..,,,,, , ,.: . L. . , . i . , . . .. . i ,...„. . ii,„.1,0) 1.- ,..,,,,,, :_..: . . or 1.1-11-2 _ '., '4( .1477.4.-,..- . -4'4.4, • JIP ' , i, 142'5 - - iH.' ' a+ ..`'' ._ R . " Solera I `'; Solera I T `� , Solera I I x E P > 144 Solera II , - . 1n-Vn -, • t -+ a<<, 1-11 .. :1 ' , .. oho 1.€17 5 �,- 'I I �y. 1 i. ,. 11481 ,10 f`"'' • '` '7r E ! .' ' - I$ Solera II o , 3 'a.. 41la „ o• . i. ,,._ , ,::k . J +TS I;, , - lime ' ...114y1 ' ',,'.• I..,7 _ . . 2005 ,__ . _, 2011 CITY O F TIGARD Issue 1: Small Lots, Small Development Hellwege Partition ,r t ,IPJ iTFi DAKOTA elir .. litili fillt • fit * a ', Alik , _ , ..; . .. .. ._,„. ....,..,,,, . _, 4,,,,,le A I • ' . :• ‘alliiP•' rr . an ' ' fir. ‘ :_ 11 93_;19 - a - 1T � 9 0 ,3751 ° • � 1 • N.' ►,�� 4 Icy r f • • 0 : nu •• F his. (M► -"I ;9, t y''''...94•19 .j.'y. .r l`.. •' _`rl, a r -, •fillOrill 2007 2011 C I T Y O F T I G A R D Issue 1: Small Lots, Small Development . • . - .. ., ' ..'...4 i . 1.. 41 , 1 ° sa NI N7 in SS 54 lit m ed as ae 47 a + 0 - -,---..__:_ - ._.zw-_._i - - -- I --v---- -_- Ail,4 1 ...WOO! ..e.r act s WallI' 1 L_J -1.•••a.r au .•... y.° rra�..... r.. r rw •. uma ° ro.e— a—awai M. Fla. p•••• IZI ••••• a.w .e A Maim.. ri- iiiF. ..011• r". 1 iK.=Rar imam= .�—a..s .' IIMIIM Rte.-!'®lIEl 1� �tYea.l•.....r M"Itio Y� =ii -' ��Y! 1�61.f a K i�K Iii I K �� •M. eaoa 7.,= .y 4.T� �K .� A` TT 1•1R� iA. r��V �R . =�cNw . TIDE WIfiP4'T.MLE ...or 1-in! TREE CAiFkCRY PLAN "`ir..• . OMAN' mol _' 5 ]110kA LANDING Lo.... H.... w...LAKs ON OREGON CITY OF TIGARD _ ■ A. Issue 1 : Small Lots, Small Development 4 N4 Staff Recommended Amendments SP ✓ Reduce the effective tree canopy requirements to 33% (Tier 2) for residential developments with lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. • - ' ✓ Eliminate the 15% per lot minimum for residential developments with rt‘. , lots less than 5,000 sq. ft., and for commercial, industrial, mixed use and school development • ✓ 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 CITY OF TIGARD Issue 2 : Maintenance During Tree Establishment Period• ` o • e Exis ing o • e ' ropose• o• e ' .: Re • uirement Ensure Trees Tree survival required for 2 years Tree survival required for 2 years Survive After - Planting W Only required for mitigation trees (not Required for all trees (street trees, - ` street trees, parking lot trees, etc.) parking lot trees, etc.) Code prohibits tree removal during 2 Code prohibits tree removal during 2 PP- 46_ year establishment period year establishment period CITY OF TIGARD Issue 2 : Maintenance During Tree Establishment Period Staff Recommended Amendments o No amendments are recommended ➢ Code prohibits property owner from removing trees ➢ Developer could contractually obligate a property owner towar ., _. ' 4 maintain trees as part of the purchase and sale agreement V - CITY OF TIGARD • T Issue 3 : Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu •f � 0. � * ,r • f F .4 Jf'': ti f �f e • ® • ® w +IIn Mitigation Based Canopy Based $125/caliper Inch $2.95/sq. ft. Fee for 12" DBH Tree = $1,500 Fee for 12" DBH Tree = $1,4631 - _ --.3 s 1DBH converted to canopy using Krajicek formula PP - �t CI T Y 0 F T I G A R D Issue 3 : Tree Canopy Fee In Lieu . Staff Recommended Amendments - . \w0"i = . ri a No amendments are recommended , ➢ Proposed fee in lieu is a reasonable appraisal of the value of tree canopy ` ➢ The purpose of the fee in lieu is to incentivize tree planting and tt rowpreservation _ V . CITY OF TIGARD " F , , •-tea. #14;; 4 i Draft Motions (page 23) 'ir --• • itt ••• Motion 1: Incorporates staff recommended land use amendments ••• Motion 2: Recommends approval of land use elements of UFCR - i. } •••• Motion 3: Advises non-land use elements are consistent with and supportive of land use elements • CITY OF T I G A R D . _ - ..1 . .•.2. 7 N.., o- 4/. .'-itmcd L'.I% ' ) ' - S,' h,"-4'4 .-e• , . i `,..• -.,.. t , . 1., A , ,.. ,itte ...., , . , • 1 i'.-1,:- ',Al ,. - ... - ,. • r''-ir 1 A — , ilfr le ' tt".-1&': - - iiitio7.• ,.4,-'-‘,.- -; . ,., . .g t., ., 4,4 ,.... . . , if c -1 '., .„ AS. :fq ... A;e. , :',- - i 2 A .. 'TA. ....f 15 -• , . - M 4 A ..e. 7 - it ... ' .4i„, — - J ,. .......... . _ ' il ' ..' a t- ,. .., - ile i:- L., '-.r .,.. ..liase-.4. .- , v Vie" 10. "- ' 'PI% -.. ..4- . .. .. "" gr , At „.._ .,. A. . 4 7,......;, ri iirr - l iPr ' .....i. - ' -A l'. '.. .7... /miliiimomilM 1-1 -- ------- Questions CITY OF TIGARD •iceY Ty4PER 41MI * � - Z. . _ . 7Ms. - ."11 iJJJ- -- i� - s r t LI I [ - - 4 _.ALL.19:—.11 I 1 •j [ ND .6. . r.ra 1 I _-_ I =�w 3i- Y Fa NOM -- 149 ANE w=.81 J ,....._ slaw Y.Ng — Fla Am.* 888...1•.••• 11T.•.1 • te . ffiY.�i r. • Yui �— .1i+1.Yi 1 _•sig aim I.M.i.da 1•• S▪WIM 1 WM..lf.PRAM SE Id All 181.1.•l•MA•Mlf woo i ie..worms. % c MBE CSNOPYIABLE l m u e II !.'•1••111.9 Ivo • WM �flOIWI s 9ak• R.: CANOPY -8888. '— o- 1.: .... - 1 C I T Y O F TIGARD 1 Po'' 16 17 ie t$ ' t to a 4. Jr Ii amoml— - r q. TFLPuG "$rte V –.a,:N1.. __ d ; AI .. e,.. F r _ P ' 1i— ' \ y eek ill } y 1 i I! , q I 1 `,- . L . I p�� —!—_ ,., �w ee.r .. ... q TABLE _��wyp�n �,�� few 8.�. 1611114 4',/%/ ere �. .� ' 4 e -- iF — t+ . sr a� AI �S®A�� r �a"il�� S.I.ri:l 'I'U.. ,i�^w�� MNIMMINMII!I nye' KM !a U..= ! n rw ev ea-..n.,13 l w� r seHG`va.ii Fws� e. �wV ea r �., Mal J .�.arrw WO 9P — EINTINI=ri 7.1 e!e.Mes s PIi-al --.•".•- — Iim•abF.e••>titwra o ^`•. MI. 31112111113.11SIPPendille UAW 74 r. 2 4. am ura e WY r r+w l p-t MEAL .:vitlLL +.... TREESITE CANOPY was, — v.� CI NO 2 /matt im .vo RECEIVED MAY 0 3 2012 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING BERCRE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSICN, MEETING ON 517/2012 TESTIMONY OR JOHN BREWING AC ENDA ITEM 51, URBAN RCRESTRY PROG RAM CRA 20- 1 -00004 DCA 2011-00002 This testimony relates to the first two items under corsideration this evenirg pursuart to the April 25, 2012 stall reporl; canopy cover requirements for small lots and elimiration of a 15 pervert rririmurr caropy cover or individual small lots. I feel that the reasorincl behind these two proposed code changes is sound but incomplete. The loss of caropy and the redistribution of caropy afforded by these charges is a real 'loss', 'take away' or 'subtractior' from the previously drafted coce requirements. This loss should be mitigatec or compensated by two further changes which I propose in this testimor y: Ror the larger lots ir Tigardretentior of a minimum of one existinc tree (i.e. > 6 irches DBH' in the frort yard and ore existinc tree in the back yard of the development impact area (if they preexist or the lot) should be requirec, notwithstanc ing the canopy cover requiremerts proposed ir the code. Such trees should Ire located or llhe lot itself, not right-of-way or easemeril or sicewalk planter strip. This mitigation measure will provide at least some retentior of ciaropy clover in the near term, lorg before any planted trees reach maturity. I believe that the appropriate place and wording would Le ar adcilion to TDC Section 8.790.030, adding "5. Notwithstanding the various requiremerts and options elsewhere in this chapter and in the UFM, the plan for all except small residerlial and commercial/irdust ial lots shall show and assure that a minimum 01 one Exislling tree (i.e. > 6 inches CIBH; in the frort yard and ore existing tree ir the back yard of the each lot's cevelopment impact area (ii they preexist on the lot; shall be protected and retained." 2. Ircorporalle CDRW comrrents (January 20, 2012) into Tigard land use code recuirements and the subsidiary URM language. Specifically I would highlight what is called comment NLU 6 Ilpage 43 of April 5, 2012 stall report) regarding reterilion 01 snags, comment N L U 17 (page 50 of April 5, 2012 staff reporll) regardir g a tree removal season and comment NLU 18 (page 50 of April 5, 20- 2 Mail report) regardirg assessmert of habitat potential ir tree inventories. Such mitigation measures will ensure that the remaining trees are useful to wildlife. Incorporatior of these OCIRW comments will meet the state rules regarding coordination of land use regulations with ollh e r agencies. Regarding NLL 6, the appropriate location anc change to support retentior of snags where possible would be to acd language in a new numbered sentence tc TOC 18.775.070 B, C, D ar d E, sayinc "Where hazard trees exist in these sensitive lards, all least 5 feet of the tree trunk should be retaired, even if abatement) requires much of the tree to be removed." Regarding NLU 17, the appropriate implementation would be ar addition to the language of TDC 18.790.060 A, saying "Implementation cf llree removal pursuant to ar approved urban forestry plan shall he restricted tc the morths cf September, October, November, December, and Jaruary it cirder to protect nestlirg migratory birds." Regardirg NLL 1E, the appropriate implementation would be an adciticn tc the larguage of TDC 18.790.060 D, saying "Each such required urbar forest inventory E hall i r cluc a ar assess mer tl of tree habitat) potential." Sincerely, Joh Frewing 71 - SW Lola Lane, Tigard, 97223 jfrewing@teleport.com City of Tigard Put tic Hearing Tesll imony on the WI:an Forestry C oc e Revision IDUF CR) Fluoje ct Ic entifiE C cel I CPAP 2011-0C 0( 418 I1DCA] 011- COCC2 Resident/Rraperty Owner 2S11.1BE , T U 500 VI rtti len 1 eti tim tiny :luta issicin tcir tli e F ecard Testimony Ca e: Mayl, ;012 1 ea tirr any by: Robert El. R uedy 14185 SW 100" Avenue 1 iga nd, OR 97224-4951 (!. 03; 620-.5997 1 t e additionally Pia ended UFICF Fllan can times to nen air in essence a broad-brush approach io an erienival solution, my quer lions, comments, and finding at this initial stage of my Recent (1 week; notice oil this "additionally amended" City of lig nd (COT L FCIF Plan are a s folla►nis: 1. 1,irtuall)l a II of my prior written testimony has been set-aside by City :Raft and,lon the Manning Clommission, yet this respclrident continues to urge implementation of those deficiencies and,lon iriegiiiarities so stated ilor the irecord. 2. My prion written testimony Idem 410 (from the ti arch leslimon)II 81 (lion the 4116112 testimony' nequesled tt al the City or its planning commissian address tt e issue that "I am in agreement with other testimonies relating to this initial enactment of the proposed U RCIF Alan only aflecting Single Barr ily low-density pnoperties such as F •3.5 and R-5 land use zoning wilt in the COT. All others development requests must take a case-by-case appnoach 10 add common sense to the L FICR objectives", has not burn adequately addressed 10 dale Hiithin the"amended" draft L FICIR Fllan being discussed by the Alarming aomrn fission tan ig hi. T his oversight is una ace table and n )I nequesI is ilhal the Fllanning Clommiss iori return the "amended" Draft L RCIF Plan to City Staff io complete their respaniei io all testimony plies en ted. I will expand upon tt is canaem within this testimony, die to its relevance on the agenda topic 41 ton this planning commission n aef'ng revisit oil the issue. the F-3.5 coning altaws a rnaxin urn oil 3.f. L niIsAcie or 12,445 SF1ILotlits. a n F-12 2loning whin h allows r maximum 0.112 L nits [Acne on 3050 SFI ILot. This private p noperty Owner iregiiests and 'recant mends a "stnaight line" sliding scale app poach of"Loi Size" (in square feel; io penceni oil Tree canopy requinemen Is- PIn exarr pie wauld be liar F-12 coning(Land Use, io 'reduce the req wined lime canopy by 75 penceni, since 3050 SFiILol is 75 percent smaller Lol than F-1.5 al 12,445 SFAlot. T his is simple malt and easy filo u ilize within the Land L se lip proval pro cels (even without a calculalon). 1lnything less than this private property Own en mecum mendalion is not onhl clic crirn inatory against It e higher density pnoperties, but also would likehl t e categorized in II e Oregon Cour s System as collusive and Iraudulenl aclions. II is simply, ill nal of riiously, prejudicial and discriminatory in nature agains I undeveloped and underr-developed private proper ies with higher density allowed uses, and is an unfain burden on It ase private proper y Owners. If the City truly wants to reduce the rflq uinemenis oft aviri g more than I a nborisi consultsint on the City payroll, It is is suggested recommendation is how Flage 1 0l2 C lity� cf Tic Id FI L t Iic Hearing i lestimon y on the U rt an F c i estry Coda Flelvision 1 U F C IRI Flrc jeat Identifies a,l 1 CPAP 2011-0C100418 I�DC A] : CI'I 1 CIaoa2 Fk side r t/PrdI Owner' 2S'I'I I BB, 11L4 00 Written 1 lest int ony Sub n issic r 11c r thfl F ecc rd -lest irnony pate: May 7, 2012 iha would I e accompli; had. llhe prima)l benefit would be a "level playir g laid"fclr private pvc perty zc nings and their allowed Lanc L se (i.e. housing"density'where it is needed mc std . L ndevelol~et and under-developed Rrivslllel Prtpflrty Lend OwnEni simr ly want the Clitl to step stealing cun land cen+ellc pment capabilities thrnuc h Lard Use Re'gtllations and/or by tile heavy har ded a{iproact of being financially exhorted bytliEl City with a F eelln,tlielu option just to _NJ allowed the Land L :Eh we purchased with Cour hard earned money! llhe �iotas, numerous limes, have made it ver})clear with constraints en b'f L rban Growtt H ounde ry (L GB; Io contain growth by E nhancing "Urt an DE r : it}l' in lieu add"Urbe r Sprawl' detriments. -this current I FCFI C raft is contra dictorj I to those vcrler demands. !tl tf is currently(lit) Staff sugge:ted dr of is not mocified .Ice ref est a non-di;criminatory approach to its impacts on Privately Ownec underreioped arc underr derrelopeld palpertieIs, I MI seal., and encourage oche ra within tt'e LGE 10 se E 11, N easu.e 49 excl ept'ons, exciusior s, and r rale ction(s; andiorr legal chailent ells) under Ore gon Land Use Law. In conclusion, ag air I wi t to stale tell for the) City 01 ligard 10 E nact a luke-iwarrr, incomplete, or unE nforceablE UF CR Alan and expect sanity tcl t e applied to the initial negulatGlni codes' insanit)l, is al bes a t apihazard way)to providE sE nsiblE regulation, and al worst, grossly irrespqnsible. My rE commendation again h to take' an additior al year.Ic create a rat'onall, enfc rr eable, and comprehensive L FCFI Rlan. We've been withc ut one since November 6, • 962. Sd Mor 50 yea-u we've donE just fine wthout it, and another year to ensui E that ilia compr e'heens ively write E n, IE a:onable and legally applicable, giruE n the availabititl of rErducE d staffing all thE Clityl and the need Ibr additional public commE nt and I evision lo the currant draf I plan woc Id seem to be both prudent and rational undE n the citcumstaancf: . FE side's, it's nal like we'IE E xper'encing a "how it g boom" righl now or in the fclreseeablE future. lhankyoun lime and aon: ideration. Respectfully submitEd, Owne'n o 351"I Al, -11L500 Fage 20112