The URL can be used to link to this page

03/05/2012 - Packet Completeness TIGARD Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Name of Board, Commission or Committee March 5,2012 Date of Meeting Signature Doreen Laughlin 11/6/14 Date III '' City of Tigard TIGARD Planning Commission Agenda y MEETING DATE: March 5, 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 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:17 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED —URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002 7:20 p.m. This is a public hearing workshop. No public testimony will be taken at this meeting. http://wvww.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—8:50 p.m. ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL & 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS 7. OTHER BUSINESS —9:10 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT— 9:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MARCH 5, 2012 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 1pg • City of Tigard Agenda Item #5 TIGARD Memorandum To: Members of the Tigard Planning Commission From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist Re: March 5, 2012 Planning Commission Discussion Date: February 17, 2012 At end of the February 6, 2012 Tigard Planning Commission hearing on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions, the commission raised several issues in response to public testimony for further discussion at their March 5, 2012 meeting. While the commission will not be taking public testimony at their March 5, 2012 meeting, they will have the opportunity to learn more and ask questions of staff regarding these issues. This discussion will prepare the commission for making a final recommendation on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions at their April 16, 2012 meeting following public testimony on amendment requests received. The following issues were noted by staff as raised for discussion by the commission: Issue Issue Question Framed Page 1 Why was tree canopy selected over tree count (number of trees) as a standard in 2 the draft code? 2 Will the tree canopy standards result in a reasonable balance between trees, 3 development and open space? 3 Will the tree canopy standards favor lower quality trees (fast growing, non-native 5 deciduous)? 4 Should averaging of canopy be allowed? 6 5 Should there be minimum preservation requirements? 7 6 How will tree/utility conflicts be limited? 7 7 How will hazard trees on adjacent properties be addressed? 8 8 Will significant tree groves result in reduced property values for properties with 8 groves? 9 Will the code allow the tree canopy fee to be updated as the PNWISA updates the 8 appraised wholesale value of trees in the Willamette Valley? 10 Should the city establish a protocol for protected tree and tree grove information 8 to be filed with the city and/or county so that that information will readily available during title research when purchasing a property? 1 Staff has provided background information below for each issue to help inform the planning commission discussion. The information is based on materials in the project record. Issue 1, Why was tree canopy selected over tree count (i.e. tree density or number of trees) as a standard in the draft code? Staff Discussion of Issue 1 - Reference Source: much of this is from a memo to the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee on page 26 of their August 10, 2011 packet During the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Forestry Master Plan processes, there was general consensus that the existing development code unfairly penalizes property owners with existing trees and encourages the overplanting of replacement trees. The reasoning was that mitigation requirements apply only to property owners with existing trees over 12-inch trunk diameter, and replacement trees or fees are required based on the diameter of trees removed. For example, if a 12-inch diameter tree is removed, replacement with 6, 2-inch diameter trees or a $1,500 fee in lieu of replacement ($125/inch fee) is required. Urban Forestry Master Plan goal 1.2.a recommends the city address this equity issue as part of the development code revisions by developing "... canopy cover or tree density standards for all lots to be met by either preserving existing trees or planting new trees". The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee affirmed Urban Forestry Master Plan goal 1.2.a by general consensus through surveys and group discussions, and staff has worked to draft corresponding development code revisions in the project record (see November 10, 2010 pre- meeting survey and meeting minutes). When drafting the development code revisions, staff studied a tree density standard (requiring X number of trees per square feet of development area) and compared it with a canopy standard (requiring X square feet of canopy per square feet of development area). The canopy standard was selected as the preferred alternative for the following reasons: • The canopy standard allows more flexibility for the project designer to meet code requirements due to the wide variation of canopy shapes by species. A tree density standard presents the project designer with more limited options to meet numerical tree planting requirements. • The canopy standard is more consistent with urban forest science and the city's long-term urban forestry goals. The benefits of trees (economic, environmental, and social) are derived primarily from their canopies rather than number of trees. The canopy standard encourages large stature, appropriately spaced trees, which have the highest benefit/cost ratios. A tree density standard allows small stature, closely spaced trees to meet numerical requirements. • The canopy standard requires the project designer to consider future canopy growth, which helps ensure that trees are properly placed within a site to become long term amenities. The 2 canopy standard encourages appropriate tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by highlighting mature canopy growth, whereas a density standard focuses on planting a certain number of trees and does not take mature growth into account. • The canopy standard provides more consistency in development outcomes. For example, a parking lot planted to meet a numerical tree density standard can look very different after future growth, depending on whether small ornamental trees or large shade trees are selected. The canopy standard helps normalize outcomes. • Planting trees to meet either a canopy standard or a tree density standard both rely upon successful establishment and long term maintenance by property owners. However, the canopy standard focuses more on long term growth during the initial design phase so that trees are more likely to become long-term site amenities. Issue 2, Will the tree canopy standards result in a reasonable balance between trees, development, and open space? Reference Source: much of this is from the Canopy Standards memo beginning on page 7 of Volume III: Staff Discussion of Issue 2 The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee reached consensus to draft achievable and balanced canopy standards for development that are tiered based on zoning district. For example, the standards require development in low density residential areas to have more trees than are required in areas of dense zoning, such as Downtown Tigard. To implement the consensus of the citizen advisory committee, staff analyzed possible percent canopy for each zoning district using the same methodology developed to set canopy goals for the Urban Forestry Master Plan and also in an updated methodology using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume III, page 9). The results of the analyses were then used in conjunction with the minimum percent landscaping requirements in the Tigard Development Code to place the various zoning districts within one of three tiers. The exception is school sites, which were placed in the "dense zoning" tier 3 to ensure sufficient room for sports fields (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume III, page 11): Tier 1: 40% effective canopy' Tier 2: 33% effective canopy2 Tier 3: 25% effective canopy3 It is important to note that effective canopy is very different from actual canopy within the lot lines of a particular development. To meet draft effective canopy standards, the preservation of existing 1 R-1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5,R-7,and R-12 2 R-25,R-40, C-N,C-C,C-G,C-P,MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2,MUC,MUR,and I-P 3 MU-CBD,MUC-1,I-L,I-H,and schools (18.130.0500)) 3 trees is granted double canopy credit, and planting of street trees is granted full canopy credit even though half of their canopies overhang streets,which are not part of the calculations. When considering these factors, the actual canopy required for a particular development would fall into the following ranges: Tier 1: 16-40% actual canopy Tier 2: 13-33% actual canopy Tier 3: 10-25% actual canopy The low end of each range represents sites with many existing trees that are preserved and maximization of street tree canopy. The high end of each range represents sites with no existing trees and no street tree canopy (all trees planted so the mature canopy stays within the lot lines). The possible percent canopy for each zoning district falls within the actual canopy range for their corresponding tiers above (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume III, page 11). The double canopy credit for preservation provides a viable option for meeting canopy standards in the draft code while incentivizing preservation. This is because buildable lands have significant existing tree resources from which to draw. Staff performed a GIS analysis of the City's buildable lands inventory and determined that buildable lands have an average of 41% existing canopy cover (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee April 13, 2011 meeting packet, pages 45 to 46 in the project record). In many cases, development (and tree removal) is restricted on a portion of a development site due to existing sensitive lands protections (for wetlands, streams, floodplains, etc.). Staff performed a GIS analysis of existing canopy that is protected on buildable lands due to its location in protected sensitive lands. The analysis demonstrated that an average of 12.29% of canopy on buildable lands would be preserved due to its location in sensitive lands. Therefore, because of double credit for preservation, development on buildable lands would achieve an average of 24.58% effective canopy through the preservation of trees that are already required to be preserved (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee April 13, 2011 meeting packet, pages 45 to 46 in the project record). Attachment 1 illustrates this with a site specific example that would achieve 51% effective canopy through preserving trees that are already required to be preserved (assuming all other trees are removed and no additional trees are planted). Staff and outside consultants tested the tiered standards on a wide range of development projects to ensure the draft effective canopy standards are achievable, result in a reasonable balance between trees and development, and do not force payment of fees in lieu or discretionary review for typical projects. The peer review demonstrates that the standards are achievable without payment of fees in lieu or discretionary reviews (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 463). 4 Attachments 2 through 7 are site plans from the peer review and Attachment 8 is a peer review of the two sites submitted during public testimony at the February 6, 2012 hearing. Based on these analyses, staff is confident that the draft effective tree canopy standards would result in a reasonable balance between trees, development and open space. However, in the discussion of Issue 3 below, staff includes an option for further reducing tree canopy to the following ranges by granting bonus credits for native trees: Tier 1: 16-32% actual canopy Tier 2: 13-26% actual canopy Tier 3: 10-20% actual canopy In the staff discussion of Issue 4 below, staff explains how reducing or eliminating the per-lot tree canopy standard would further reduce the effective tree canopy standards overall development. Issue 3, Will the tree canopy standards favor lower quality trees (i.e. fast growing, non-native deciduous)? Staff Discussion of Issue 3: The peer review noted that the draft code could result in the unintended consequence of shifting Tigard's tree population to broad spreading deciduous trees (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 463). The rationale is that applicants will naturally plant broad spreading deciduous trees, rather than more narrow growing evergreens as the most cost effective method to meet tree canopy standards in the draft code. The rate of growth (i.e. fast growing vs. slow growing) has not been noted as a factor in decision-making because the draft code grants tree canopy credit based on mature size regardless of how long it takes to achieve that size. Staff does not disagree that overreliance on broad spreading deciduous trees is a potential unintended consequence of the code. Since there are more non-native trees than native trees on the recommended tree lists, there is also the potential for overreliance on non-native trees to meet tree canopy standards. It is important to note the draft code requires that collection of spatial and species-specific information on required trees be included in the city's urban forest inventory (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 329). This data will allow the city to periodically evaluate whether there is an overreliance on particular species, because of the draft code. In addition, Clean Water Services requires preservation and planting of native trees in vegetated corridors, which comprise over 9% of land area citywide. In addition, the tree grove preservation incentives pertain to large groves of native trees and intended to facilitate their preservation. Native trees that result from Clean Water Services requirements and tree grove preservation incentives are eligible for credit towards the draft tree canopy standards and could help balance the ratio between native, non-native, deciduous and evergreen trees. 5 When surveyed on the issue, the citizen advisory committee consensus supported the city to allow the project designer to select a mix of native and non-native trees depending on site conditions (see November 10, 2010 pre-meeting survey in the project record). A strong preference for native trees did not emerge as part of their discussions. However, staff understands the planning commission is interested in exploring the potential to increase the relative amount of native to non-native trees. One option could be granting bonus tree canopy credit for the planting of native trees. Staff suggests consideration be given to 1.25 times the maturity canopy spread of trees on the native tree list (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 421). Since the native tree list includes several broad spreading evergreens (e.g. grand fir, Douglas fir, and western hemlock) this could also increase the relative amount of evergreen to deciduous tree. Finally, staff understands the planning commission is interested in exploring ways to reduce the tree canopy standards to allow for more open space and development. Granting 1.25 canopy credit for native trees would reduce the canopy ranges for development that relies solely on native trees as follows: Tier 1: 16-32% actual canopy Tier 2: 13-26% actual canopy Tier 3: 10-20% actual canopy Issue 4, Should averaging of canopy be allowed? Staff Response: Early in the process, staff initially proposed the tiered tree canopy standards to be met on a lot by lot basis in addition to the overall development. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee recommended allowing averaging of canopy across the overall development site while setting a minimum per lot tree canopy requirement. Staff proposed a 20% minimum per lot requirement at the April 13, 2011 meeting and the committee approved the proposal by consensus (see minutes in the project record). The rationale for having a minimum per lot tree canopy standard is to spread the distribution of trees, and therefore tree benefits and maintenance responsibilities, more evenly across a development site. However, staff understands the planning commission is interested in potentially providing more flexibility on this issue. Reducing or eliminating the per-lot tree canopy standard would likely not raise major issues since it was not a major part of the deliberations when developing the proposal. Street tree standards would still apply and support an evening of the distribution of trees across the development site even if the per lot tree canopy standards were reduced or eliminated. Finally, the peer review results show that while the tree canopy standard for the overall development site is met, often additional trees are required to meet the per lot minimum tree canopy standard. Therefore, if the per lot tree canopy standard were reduced or eliminated, the effective tree canopy standard for the overall development site would be reduced which may be a desired outcome for the commission. 6 Issue 5, Should there be minimum preservation requirements? Staff Response: Consistent with the direction of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee majority at their November 10, 2010 meeting (see minutes in the project record), staff drafted code that did not require a base level of preservation. At the citizens advisory committee meeting on April 13, 2011, eight were in favor and one was opposed to the draft standards, which included tiered tree canopy targets based on zoning, no base level of preservation and bonus credits to incentivize preservation (see minutes in the project record). The rationale of the committee for not requiring a minimum level of preservation include not unfairly penalizing property owners with trees, allowing flexibility for removing trees that may not be viable or desirable and not limiting infill development. The consensus supported preservation incentives that actually reward landowners with existing trees (see November 10, 2010 meeting minutes in the project record). It is important to note that the proposed incentive based approach, with no minimum preservation requirement, has already led to additional preservation in one high profile scenario. In the summer of 2011, a property owner at Hunziker and Wall Street voluntarily chose to preserve six acres of existing trees to meet the draft code requirements rather than removing essentially all trees as originally planned. This property owner was aware of the double credit for preservation and made his preservation decision to avoid the planting 12 acres of new trees required by the draft code. If minimum preservation requirements are desired in the draft code, staff would recommend a preservation percentage rather than number to limit variability between properties of different sizes. Also, staff would recommend investigation of a tree removal permit process to limit predevelopment clearing, which is a method used to avoid tree preservation requirements in development codes. Such a tree removal permit process could be limited to trees on the city's buildable lands inventory. However, the message to the community thus far has been that tree removal permits are not proposed to be required in additional situations. Requiring tree removal permits in additional situations has the potential to result in significant concerns in the community. Issue 6, How will tree/utility conflicts be limited? Staff Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Requirements require utilities to be shown on the plan so conflicts with trees can be easily identified and corrected (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 385). The existing code allows utilities and trees to be shown on separate plan sheets, which makes it difficult to identify conflicts. Staff coordinated with Portland General Electric to include trees in the Urban Forestry Manual that are allowed/required for planting under overhead power lines (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 415). In addition, public works staff on the Technical Advisory Committee 7 identified setback requirements for street trees from public utilities to limit conflicts (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 360). Tree/utility conflicts will be limited by requiring trees and utilities to be shown on the same plan sheet and including utility setback and compatible tree planting requirements. Issue 7, How will hazard trees on adjacent properties be addressed? Staff Response: Proposed revisions in Chapter 8.08 would prohibit hazard trees in Tigard (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 79). If a tree on an adjacent property is a hazard, Chapter 8.08 would allow people to file a claim with the city. The city would then utilize a third party arborist to evaluate the tree. If the arborist determines there is a hazard, abatement would be required. The city could enter a property, abate a hazard tree and recover costs in cases where an owner is uncooperative after obtaining a warrant. The city could abate tree hazards without a warrant in under conditions of imminent threat to public health or safety. Details of the hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure are in Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 357. Issue 8,Will significant tree groves result in reduced property values for properties with groves? Staff Response: The tree grove preservation incentives are voluntary and provide flexible incentives to facilitate preservation (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 317). Applicants are not required to utilize the flexible incentives and may develop their properties as if there were no significant tree grove. Therefore, staff thinks properties with significant tree groves will not have reduced property values. Issue 9, Will the code allow the tree canopy fee to be updated as the PNW-ISA updates the wholesale cost of trees in the Willamette Valley? Staff Response: The tree canopy fee is based on the "most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-ISA (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 396). Therefore, as the PNW-ISA updates their costs the tree canopy fee would be updated as well. Issue 10, Should the city establish a protocol for protected tree and tree grove information to be filed with the city and/or county so that information will readily available during title research when purchasing a property. Staff Response: At the November 10, 2010 meeting, the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee consensus was to not require the filing of deed restrictions for preserved and planted trees (see minutes in the project record). Their rationale was that deed restrictions are ineffective methods for notifying people of protected trees and that requiring deed restrictions places excessive burdens on applicants and future owners. 8 In response to the committee consensus, staff included code language requiring the recording of information on protected trees in the city's publicly accessible GIS system (see Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volume II, page 329). This would allow the public to retrieve information on protected trees from their home computers. This ability to retrieve information would work in concert with the existing city program of sending mailings to new property owners on a quarterly basis to inform them of the city's urban forestry program and regulations. The concern from the planning commission is ensuring people are notified of protected trees when purchasing a property. Staff has listed some considerations on this issue for the Tigard Planning Commission: • Do existing education and outreach methods such as the city website, publicly accessible tree inventory and staff availability, provide sufficient resources for purchasers to identify tree requirements? • Should it be the responsibility of the purchaser to perform their due diligence to identify tree requirements? • Would it cause confusion to note tree requirements only on the deeds of properties that develop after code adoption, whereas existing property deeds will not have tree requirements? • Should tree requirements be the only requirements noted on the deed while other land use requirements such as building height, setbacks and landscaping requirements are not? ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1: EXAMPLE SITE WITH TREE CANOPY IN PROTECTED SENSITIVE LANDS. ATTACHMENT 2: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON AN INDUSTRIAL SITE. ATTACHMENT 3: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON A DOWNTOWN TIGARD SITE. ATTACHMENT 4: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON A SCHOOL SITE. ATTACHMENT 5: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. ATTACHMENT 6: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. ATTACHMENT 7: PEER REVIEW TESTING CANOPY STANDARDS ON A RESIDENTIAL INFILL (PARTITION) PROJECT. ATTACHMENT 8: PEER REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUBMITTED DURING THE FEBRUARY 6, 2012 HEARING. 9 Y fasi,„.;•4 'Ilivik . ,„ . ,. . iK ...mr.' / ,-.., - ;1: i , , ., i - ":"• *. 'd A, .'t .,';,, , ' 1 if, - .. ' 'g. ..; ,014,, t .' I - l' c. to ,, :III,. if, ,,„.„ r-4 ' ..._ Fir ill 0 ., 111, t -2 ' 4 t '% 4 )1 , ,. AA f, , r- .,. r. il 1 Iti 6 1,„4., ,"e f , a 4 pc, itt I ,.)-i 1 I 1 '1 • '4'-,14.I , 6, ,,_.,„..t _ iw _ . 4, bolo,..'•, x,, , Zone: R-25 . 4, 4 4 - • , t•' I,•• ° .- 04 71•F ,,t... Lot Size: 25.68 acres A .1 .4- \ \,'' ' • • , . Canopy that is in / -)P itt: 1 Prot. Sens. Lands: 6.55 acres , , • . 74t.,m,- Ii0,,`.,I.t..7",. "'"-;r'd ..f;r.r . 4; .- .„ , ,,., I ,.. , t f % Effective Canopy if ki 11,, mk / 4 '%qtr„e•,:,_,- .''! ' - ... It • - . . -,- , *._,-_- -v...-e ON . ;- .• 4 „4-0-1„-% r'o-4,4i 4' I only canopy canopy in Prot. ' ele't ' 4 -11;1" '', 1,..-j, , :,. 1.4..w., iev..., „... ,e Sens. Lands is Preserved: 51.08% ..--;, ki . ' ' .- ) !)1-- ', ,,t 'A 4'1,,,i„-"':•,' „ . . ,,„.#. , i 4. -(1ifi Y.`t..' 't:" '* "* k' i . I 1 . IA- -I' iVik-44%radilallilik4*-, .... ,,.,./ k :r Ne tre:1,1s .A,frt. ,y3CO3,,, 7 C-aillOpV on Selected Parcel %., 1 174 M I Subject Parcel , , , A , I. 4 'T r, 14 ,b, + , t 44.,&ter t.:11k, 31i,,,,-, mit *.i-,,jetil • #1:-_,:. ik,_ Imi. % ig I Protected Sensitive Lands imitm ill I. Y'fc:. 10;', 4-"rird-"e‘7-,''.7-' 11;"11t.:1:r;;"..*it'7:::r - !Arc'rit,l'7,- .:,44''.. ;92 .f‘„_4:-, ' 1111 111 '. \ - r.z.,_ _ P., ilt Nil ii 1I'Vwr --1rEilink OA!, '1-'1,-t,.6-1 r 1--Tiai-k -- , '' ii* , ' Z r r ' - r k i— - MT ..- elekA -N / I 2z_Z__i A�► 11- Al, �11�� ,/" ' ` X11 11 11 11 11 11 11 II II _ _ _ Oa ' ''- '�„ia I/• 144 ,,�,' L ��.f/� ��' / �r1 040 i �� ,_ . ,di�� 7' I �� i� �� 11/1/iiir; 039 ��/tbdC)Off. ` 041 1000 - - ♦,;, ' Ir �� 036.' /A1 ,�,o / I d �� 100035 0�2 %� Q002• 11,/, 1:17.5:75iif?, �1 /1/ .\-,'- ' 7,•4 II /��j 042 / ik 511)s --__--___ 1104 0�3 _ / , 004 :1�'i �•�i� ��. 10,/#4:, --11/1,1.:4:1:1:11 I.� 01 �.�ii �� /I� � ® /♦ 034 ,, iA*7 ►d w i' \- -kup� , ,11, �I BUILDING BUILDING I/.rL_ , � , ��•��> 1. - ,, �� ; �� 043 '�' �� 071007 - '003 < /i-, `� • // ��®� .I 18, IN I. A cJ \ 031 ,r ,�1 r IreF , ,,�'�/i.�SCALE 1" = 40 FEET �� •� x,008 �. - . 82,430 SQFT. Wog # ,'030 \ - - _ /��,I i 044 '` /1Fr aP ' �i / `i MA ` 005 I� 40,140 SQFT. N�� - - _ /0/P, 4I / oQ .� g � CO � /!% r ./.i'iiii �,�A, $41,� '045 / I / ►: /.d Z iiia �'; .•,0,,,, .,, x,,411 Ado � 009 , 1 , .� � 029, o -:�� ,;' \ 010 ��`�/�� _ �r>` :',•:.... 'weir* Z I - - - 0011\ i�� Al.- .028 ,� O I - - _ ' WETLAND BUFFER / '♦♦ I 'J ►j ■,■ �� , I cm.. ► Ir •'ll f/'�%II • ,i■ I ■■V■I 1yA■. � .e �',:,��s.% • ■IC■! r') r/►� / 3• \ �� EASTERN REDBUD TYP. ��`! ■ / I ■i ��//�� J ®�� / %/ ■ • • NINO 012 \j-' / 1111•III111� r1 ilui I�� II/0� � /� _ �� • • GREEN ASH (TYP.) 41040o� �� J , Ain* �.. 1 10 �� i air I� . �. / . , -10 ACCOLADE ELM (TYP ) _ _ � ,' I"�' 1�' � , 018 0200;?' I � COVERED SOIL(`fYR.)- ' /i 016 � 023 ' 'i%� - " _ _ , , ®il KOUSA DOGWOOD (TYP.) �� 62 - - - - AI• / ��k ,- %!�'��.!l //IliI'r,.-, ._ ` . .4.�,` . , ' 026 �\ ♦ MATURE CANOPY COVER (TYP.) l` , 'B /►� r / I/6 ,�,� 1 ►�i� i/� jCjj �, ,, �'I�, �\ , ,r OPEN SOIL (TYP.) Aiiii, �'i ��I-I � ��, -- �. . ' ` . . I� I 1 / i ' 019 MaI ' • `' `I .4t ,_ �/,,J i .. 048 1 - ` ' APPROX. LIMIT OF PARKING LOT `,�I� �� X1/,6 ` 1 Illi,l4 , _� , �\�;' , -� II �,�/;F . i i r . , I �y� �: CANOPY (TYP.) �� j i Ii ' �� i 022I �� ' �� ' _�� i �J�fr.►J�� ` .. ,' 021 �.1�� ' �� ' 024 A , - ��/./ ,�.��' , 4-�. di AVA1A mss., i�i�iii�f�`�i�Ii., I _ �/ 1II I 10;--","'� �� `r o ,, o ` �r 027 / � �. .' EXIST. TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) ' 5 - _ _ _ - ` Is al - - - I - - - - -------________________:.....,_ -- _ __-IL-- -- -- -- -- - - • C ite iii TREE LEGEND ,, -=(:)‘ o * s0 I ' O SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING ��'� 1 i , . ----X- • \ ---__________________ � X L.7 / // 12 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN \ \\_ EXISTING BUILDING ++= 9 CORNUS KOUSA KOUSA DOGWOOD B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN �i 13 FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA GREEN ASH B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN '� NOTES: 1. TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS: REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT. Iat 14 ULMUS 'MORTON' ACCOLADE ELM B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 2. IMPROVE AREAS WITH TREE GROWTH LIMITING SOILS; REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT FOR SPECIFICATIONS. TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY %CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT AREA OVER PARKING LOT QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY 038 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 70% 342 s.f. 491 s.f. TREE CANOPY TABLE 039 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 44% 550 s.f. 1,256 s.f. TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY °A CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT AREA OVER PARKING LOT QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY 040 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 001 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 39% 1,102 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 041 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 002 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 25% 124 s.f. 491 s.f. 042 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 003 Green Ash 237 c.f. 795 c.f. 1,032 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 85% 1,067 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 043 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 004 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 100% 491 s.f. 491 s.f. 044 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 005 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 100% 491 s.f. 491 s.f. 045 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 006 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 26% 729 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 046 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 007 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 23% 114 s.f. 491 s.f. 047 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 008 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 79% 986 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 048 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 491 s.f. 009 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 30% 148 s.f. 491 s.f. 010 Accolade Elm 576 c.f. 864 c.f. 1,440 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 66,203 s.f. 011 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 40% 197 s.f. 491 s.f. CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT SUBTOTAL 43,010 s.f. 012 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 100% 1,256 s.f. 1,256 s.f. EXISTING TREE CANOPY 013 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 31% 870 s.f. 2,826 s.f. TREE# 1000-1014; 1016-1019 EXISTING SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 3,623 s.f. X2 = 7,246 s.f. 014 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 38% 1,062 s.f. 2,826 s.f. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT EXISTING SITE CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT SUBTOTAL 1,437 s.f. 015 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 41% 1,165 s.f. 2,826 s.f. TREE# 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019 016 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 99 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 17% 83 s.f. 491 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING TREE CANOPY AREA: 73,449 s.f. 017 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 243 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 80% 1,007 s.f. 1,256 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING TREE CANOPY AREA OVER PARKING LOT: 44,447 s.f. 018 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 390 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 15% 75 s.f. 491 s.f. 019 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 150 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 80% 1,005 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 020 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 84% 1,049 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 021 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. / 11 022 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER AOPEN SOIL VOLUME AS SHOWN SAS SHOWN OPEN SOIL VOLUME 023 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 100% 1,256 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 024 Accolade Elm 384 c.f 984 c.f. 1,368 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 4 PARKING LOT SURFACING 100% - - INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE COVERED SOIL VOLUME 025 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 491 s.f. 1,256 s.f. 026 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 198 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 100% 491 s.f. 491 s.f. 1..._....._..�... �._itiffi._M,-CETAC. 7. r \ � Ito � � � � �_S._� 027 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. _ _ _ 0 1t � �� \�'y o COVERED SOIL p �`�^-� EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE III-I -I -) -I _ 0 • - i • • 028 Accolade Elm 699 c.f. 804 c.f. 1,503 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 86% 2,431 s.f. 2,826 s.f. -I I-I I-I I I-I I I- 3- I' O ,� O •\ \��\ 0°0 . , I I-I I I-I I IH I- II-I I- VOLUME 029 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 72% 901 s.f. 1,256 s.f. I I-III-III-III-III 11-4 a • a •/ / • O • O I I-III-III-III=III=III- COMPACTED 030 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 68% 851 s.f. 1,256 s.f. TOTAL SITE AREA: 280,090 S.F. PARKING LOT AREA: 98,617 S.F. III-III-III-III-I - - - " - - - -III-III-III SUBGRADE =1 I =I I IIII I I=III1 rill =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 I!1 031 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 73,449 S.F. TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 44,447 S.F. - - ,-� III-11 III-1 I III III III-11 1- 032 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 79% 987 s.f. 1,256 s.f. % CANOPY COVER: 26% % CANOPY COVER: 45% CUR: 033 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 100% 2,826 s.f. 2,826 s.f. MINIMUM °/0 CANOPY COVER: 25% MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 30% DRAINAGE 034 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 28% 137 s.f. 491 s.f. PARKING TREE WITH COVERED SOIL DETAIL 035 Eastern Redbud Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread (491 s.f.) 29% 142 s.f. 491 s.f. 26% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 25% TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS 32% CANOPY COVER OVER THE PARKING LOT, EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED NOT TO SCALE 036 Accolade Elm Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 40% 1,140 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 30% COVERAGE. 037 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 39% 488 s.f. 1,256 s.f. DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX SITE TREE LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK 4� DRAWN BY: KAH .SCALE: AS NOTED SW F"I U N Z I K E R AND SW WALL ST. JOB NUMBER CHECKED BY: KJ XX CANOPY PLAN Offices Located In: INDUSTRIA L 13910 SW GAR 971 H DR., SUITE 100 SH ices Lo, OREGON PREPARED FOR: SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON SHEET PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON Tigard OREGON 1 OF 1 FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www•aks-eng.com TREE LEGEND SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING 7 /' 0 2 ACER RUBRUM 'ARMSTRONG' ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 7 y Z V / ° 9 CORNUS NUTTALLII PACIFIC DOGWOOD B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 7 ‘C/ / / /.: *04 / BUILDING 16 0%°cR 7 ` a j / 0i j NOTES: / ` 1. TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS: REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT. �� - / 2. IMPROVE AREAS WITH TREE GROWTH LIMITING SOILS; REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT FOR SPECIFICATIONS. 7 Q ,/`/ i„, EDGE OF 7.<7.-"",, . ,NPi J►�� WATER—N\ ARMSTRONG MAPLE (TYP.) j l �� TAX LOT 700 Z10009 / .: �� , ,� COVERED SOIL (TYP.) , - - °�`� /.A�� r�� TAX MAP 2S 1 02AC ,� � `! �� i!� °�P� TREE CANOPY TABLE / I i9a��j� ++�> \ . ' �_•� ` 0/0 CANOPY OVER AREA OVER QUALIFYING SITE 10010 7 °. �� \ i ' 0Y",./#4.� , - -�� +- , < - - -c - CO d *� TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY(FT/SF) PARKING LOT PARKING LOT CANOPY / ' /;+ `��" �i.% j 10000 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 25% 153 s.f. 707 s.f. �' d + +.7 �' �!�J :I`I,jI�►. PROPERTY BOUNDARY28% / /i ; �, �+ + ' 4 �. ` � jj ` 10001 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 174 s.f. 707 s.f. / a ®+ _I ///�`vjj� 10002 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 34% 238 s.f. 707 s.f. ��, AC a: i 't'i'jj� I jja, 9 p / �f/ I� �`�� 'jI►j�1• FP- j�N� 10003 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 25% 173 s.f. 707 s.f. / / I a "'p.' \ ',�j A A�,� � j j �.� ,�. 10004 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 25% 178 s.f. 707 s.f. ��♦j�y,�e jj', jr 10005 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 23% 162 s.f. 707 s.f. / j�P / as �,� ,11j.��ji��*�rjj �� 1j/ e 9 p / ��a '' �- `�••• •40r�jjj j��`I� �Q APPROXIMATE 100-YEAR 10006 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 26% 181 s.f. 707 s.f. f� '.--. �� \*te' ►�rl '1��R ` 10007 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 26% 183 s.f. 707 s.f. `I,%� �.1� ��A �Ij # C FLOOD PLAIN EL: 150.00 g p / / "� ��r l;,�'I `,�J ` 10008 Pacific Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 30'spread 707 25% 178 s.f. 707 s.f. / . V ° ° �' \ ��gv�:� 4;?" �� PER CWS DATA 9 p / [.�"y.13 ° / / - PACIFIC DOGWOOD �� \ \, .�� , .�- 10009 Armstrong Maple 48 c.f. 990 c.f. 1,038 c.f. 15'spread 177 Street Tree 0 177 s.f. / (TYP.) /1100 \ J�I'�I'4 10010 Armstrong Maple 48 c.f. 990 c.f. 1,038 c.f. 15'spread 177 Street Tree 0 177 s.f. / A •/ a / F ` ��•� � ,� SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 6,717 s.f. EXISTING ,Ars 1 , � � 41.%1‘ * \ \ CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT SUBTOTAL 1,620 s.f. / P/ / PAVEMENT ,,��/•, '� �,/ AC USE OF �, �,l��, EXISTING TREE CANOPY *� 1 / / EASEMENT NDTJPER ADJOINING WALL ,, /: ` ' \ \ EXISTING TREE CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT EXISTING SITE CANOPY OVER PARKING TREE# 10114, 10125 EXISTING SITE CANOPY LOT SUBTOTAL 1,876 s.f.498 s.f. s.f. �. BOOK 413, PAGE 436 �•,•r��iv A i�� °y TREE# 10114 10125 ',/ �� , \ i'!� \ TOTAL QUALIFYING TREE CANOPY AREA: 10,469 s.f. '/ / ��,-', TOTAL QUALIFYING TREE CANOPY AREA OVER PARKING LOT: 2,118 s.f. i elf BOLLARD �,�,►�,`��, i4 EDGE OF ` \ 11 P \ BUILDING (TYP.) .4.ir x # ��,�i�. �� WATER A LTJ 51 ,��t��,f 4 EXISTING CANOPY COVER TO REMAIN / OPEN SOIL VOLUME a 10330 [4: � 44 o►% e4 APPROX. LIMIT OF PARKING LOT CANOPY (TYP.) 1 a C *ASV it , 40) I 1 103 \ �,,,�,,I �� OPEN SOIL VOLUME + +++ +++ ++I QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER +++++++++++++i COVERED SOIL VOLUME : "4E- 103\ 41 SA ;�,�. .� 05 _t t f f + + A AC �+��,�n�,A", 0 -r, 0/ I ` INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE TAX LOT 1100 i •� � � � � I ►� �I� �/\\ TAX MAP 2S 1 10 I`IIIIIIIi �"4,�,,,S#,`1'I`' � �% ` •�*.e\ 0335 /� �,��,��,�� / �, , , , , �,,;� O0 �`-s^---.. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE BUILDING �, �,,��,�,�,��\� r /\,. °y a � k # IIIhIr� f�� ,� 10 43 \\\ AC .„ ViA,,,,,*,4\•,i�� TOTAL SITE AREA: 24,864 S.F. PARKING LOT AREA: 6,940 S.F. 10344 , ,jMOW�,�,��,�,��/ 'o / TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 10,469 S.F. TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 2,118 S.F. O, \ \ ��,,,,�,,,,,�,,�� •.414 °� % CANOPY COVER: 42% % CANOPY COVER: 31% \ �i�1:414 !*,, ,,,,,�,,� `� � ♦Ir / \QC�� MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 25% MINIMUM °/0 CANOPY COVER: 30% �r .' ® ♦ � ♦ ♦ v ♦ r r \ ��?��+,�e�I�I��I�I�I��I'��d./� / ��- TAX LOT 200 >`♦ ; , , , , �� ,� O/ / TAX MAP 2S 1 02AC ° \ o Ij � , � , , , Q /� � 42/° IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 25% TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY ° \ y�� ,��,�,�,�,�� ti4 i� '�`�� / REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS 31% CANOPY COVER OVER THE PARKING LOT, EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED �csmisv#444..,04,� � �° I'�=r ° \� � � �/��%' / 30/° COVERAGE. \\ Ac �I-,. " 10342 \°. AC 4444t,/ �� \�.�' , ��1•� / REMOVAL, STORING, AND AMENDED SOILS FOR PLANTER AREAS: �j APPROXIMATE 100-YEAR �� / FLOOD PLAIN EL: 150.00 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVAL ALL DEBRIS FROM PLANTER AREAS AND EXCAVATE TOA DEPTH OF 36 INCHES. SLOPE SIDES OF \ / 10443/ � ��,I/ / EXCAVATIONS AT 1:1 SLOPE OR SHORE EDGES TO PREVENT UNDERMINING OF VEHICLE LOAD AREAS AND TO PROVIDE A SLOPED j � PER CWS DATA V . , PROFILE TRANSITION BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL FILL. DISPOSE OF DEBRIS AND SUBSOIL. STOCKPILE EXCAVATED TAX LOT 201 ° \ � \ 4 TOPSOIL IN APPROVED AREA OFF SITE. TAX MAP 2S 1 02AC O�OO` o / °�� J' / If If e APPROXIMATE LOCATION EXISTING AND IMPORTED TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY THE I °z / I CITY ARBORIST. SOIL MIXING SHALL BE DONE IN DESIGNATED AREAS OR IN THE SUPPLIERS YARD. MIX AMENDMENTS WITH TOPSOIL O06 X,„ I �°G�� / o�� \ '�qo �j " OF EXISTING PATHWAY WHEN SOIL IS IN A FRIABLE CONDITION ONLY (DAMP AND NOT MUDDY WITH ADEQUATE MOISTURE TO BREAK INTO CLODS WHEN r��F O,L N \ Ialk / / C',Sq �`r, �0 TURNED AND WILL NOT LEAVE A MUD STAIN ON THE HAND WHEN SQUEEZED) . CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CERTIFICATE OF CONTENT GG �`„ 10442 / / 4, 02 Q AND PERCENT OF SOIL MIXES WITH ALL AMENDED SOIL TO THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. `\• \ o o� Ye /� Z BLENDED SOIL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION: z / ycF x'00\ I ° / SOIL SHALL BE FRIABLE WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED. PLACE SOIL IN LAYERS OF NOT MORE THAN 12" IN DEPTH. PROVIDE 3 O'\ I / PASSES WITH A 2" COMPACT PLATE VIBRATING COMPACTOR. COMPACT TO 80-85% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS MEASURED BY THE s'"4., \ / PROCTOR TEST OR AS APPROVED FOR SPECIFIC BLENDED SOIL MIXES. SCALE 1" = 20 FEET �" \ I °xs� 4,4 I . . *0 co ° �y 4 OPEN SOIL VOLUME q�� I AS SHOWN �� CURB STREET 11 L 0 Fac 'iii .i� iii ii i ... .. . . . : . . F ��- - •�- a� - . AS SHOWN 0 00-°-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 7— �— ,—Z,—fI— �—IE— O O O O OJ O O O O •- O O / / /� YI��rI��YI��YI��YI��YI��YI��YI _ O O O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O O OJ O '' O • O O • ♦•� -III O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \\ \ ��.—III III III III III—III— 0 0 0 0 0 0� o c3'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . o o . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 ' .....0 I I 0000000D 0000 00 ° . / III III—III—III—III—III - 0 0 c, 0 0 0n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° °nn I I I_ l i —I n��n I I I A,�(' � I �'�A l l— I I— 11�; III III I 1-I1I,.\III �I\IIIIII1I;,III- III III, IIIII� II 111111 rIiII�I-1 SIDEWALK ROOT BARRIER PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS DRAINAGE COVERED SOIL VOLUME COMPACTED SUBGRADE COVERED SOIL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 0 DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING • PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX SITE TREE LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK 4p` DRAWN BY: KAH SCALE: AS NOTED 1\,1 AX'S BREW ED U B F' /\R K I N G JOB NUMBER -' CHECKED BY: KJ XX CANOPY PLAN 13910 SW GALBREATH DR., SUITE 100 Offices Located In: SHERWOOD, OREGON PREPARED FOR:SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON SHEET PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www.aks-eng.com 12562 SW MAIN STREET TIGARD, OREGON 1 OF 1 TREE CANOPY TABLE / TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY %OF CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT AREA OVER PARKING LOT QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY /::::/ 001 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Or 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Or 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 77% 964 s.f. 1,256 s.f. � 002 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 26% 324 s.f. 1,256 s.f. `t 003 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton 004 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 66% 64% 1,864 s.f. 1,799 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 4 2,826 s.f. d 005 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 96% 1,203 s.f. 1,256 s.f. c'''' 006 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 67% 1,943 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 0 As,10000 O 007 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 81% 1,015 s.f. 1,256 s.f. °� � ;►� 008 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) 507 c.f. 537 c.f. 1,044 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 43% 537 s.f. 1,256 s.f. • /\__-/---- _ Ai �� , 009 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 57% 1,605 s.f. 2,826 s.f. 1011 010 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) 33% 936 s.f. 2,826 s.f. _ /11 011 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 75% 938 s.f. 1,256 s.f. _ � 012 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 74% 932 s.f. 1,256 s.f. QOd� �I 11000'' 013 Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread (1,256 s.f.) 28% 351 s.f. 1,256 s.f. Q------‘ ‘N. i V /4111 014 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 2,826 s.f. / ' '�� ' �� 015 Accolade Elm Ulmus Morton Over 1 000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1000 c.f. 60 s read 2 826 s.f. Not Parkin Lot Tree NA 2 826 s.f. / � 11..��I I II ( P ( ) 9I I1� I�� II **Ns � 016 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) Not ParkingLot Tree NA 2,826 s.f. I 11111IrAl, III�M,, 017 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 2,826 s.f. p: • e� � ° / '013 - 018 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 2,826 s.f. �p ' , .nfo 019 Accolade Elm (Ulmus Morton Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 60' spread (2,826 s.f.) Not Parking Lot Tree NA 2,826 s.f. . 10001 tor �!1N '012 ,� I �, SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL: 41,134 s.f. --/ \ ,,-Ati.gra ., .:77 EXISTING SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 5,936 s.f. x 2 =11,872 s.f. / 10025 �d i� 1005 TOTAL QUALIFYING TREE CANOPY AREA: 53,006 s.f. S.`�!" TOTAL QUALIFYING CANOPY OVER PARKING LOT: 14,411 s.f. �� / 0006 �� r �' TREE LEGEND +: ,>/-/ /* . � 010 . % /► / �4 SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING j OPEN SOIL VOLUME I. # 011 ` ,+ o �� " - - �i1 10 , 0007 EXISTING ♦ 1 ( I BUILDING i+� 411 ►�N,� �� 41 I 101'8 8 ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN�� '�� 1� �� 1011' COVERED SOIL VOLUME _ • : *: �� , ��D� -I, � . .� �. ��I� 10011 Ilia& .............,,,,..,,,, 4.0 400$ �� i�°��0,� EXISTING ��;�j�04� - - ' °° . 100112 �.. ._.,.. _.,.., RED MAPLE (TYP.) -J ' ��.�►� .�� Q�� I , 11 ULMUS 'MORTON' ACCOLADE ELM B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 4sk �II a BUILDING �� i� �, _ _009 • MI QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER /" \ 1 - - 10022 •� �I:- ," o Ili o01 0 , +s, ♦4r �� r. ��t 1 (1111.„0 1, I - INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE A:// 1� yi- . i©� it ► S�• �►♦ , 1,� �� o w 002 v�� / � 100 3 .. / ° ' ' 003 �♦�� ♦� '� 10 ,� ��"^-. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE 1111 - iiIl 1 - '�� .�� 0_0_7 1� � ' // 015 � �4•\� �� " Al _ OPEN SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SITE AREA: 206,039 S.F. �� \ �`` .14, 11,,,\\ COVERED SOIL (TYP.) AS SHOWN AS SHOWN-► TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 53,006 S.F. 014 b, ( `C'€ ,�V' ♦.� ,';'' PARKING LOT SURFACING % CANOPY COVER: 26% Nlq A 'A - - - I I �J ♦•�A I ,�!''�� MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 25% I ' I �' MATURE CANOPY COVER TYP. °�ill )h41J0014 O II1 ( ) � PARKING LOT AREA: 33,568 S.F. �1 _ 006 r / / / � o ®� �f t� I =IO O ��• �'� r • COVERED SOIL TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA*: 14,648 S.F.Ilk., II • '� •� O • , - - VOLUME °/ CANOPY COVER: 42°l , " - _ , `\ ' ',' • 1// I I004 _ _1\ �II�I��I' ,'/ / / \ \PrOl ' =III=III=IIII O O O O �/� OOOO I -IIIIIIIIIIIIIII- o ° o 0I -I -I - - n �/ n 0 I-I I-I I-I I-I I-I COMPACTED MINIMUM /° CANOPY COVER: 30/°�i • `' r -III=III=) I -i =1 1= = 1=1 1=1 =III=III=) hI III SUBGRADE 'II I 4114 EXISTING TREE CANOPY TYP. 1III=IIII III=III=III=I I III=III=III=III=III=III=I I I- /� �t 14110►' OU5 (TYP.) i �-III-III-III-I III III III 11= 26% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 25% TOTAL QUALIFYING I i ; ` CUR: MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY liII�III/ � \RI INO DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS 42% CANOPY ACCOLADE ELM (TYP.) / , � '�' Q °4 � COVEROVERTHEPARKINGLOT, EXCEEDINGTHEREQUIRED30/oI I ° PARKING TREE WITH COVERED SOIL DETAILIi016110016 COVERAGE. APPROX. LIMIT OF PARKING NOT TO SCALE - - - " LOT CANOPY (TYP.) 11 ` `S. / \ OPEN SOIL (TYP.) ' ' ° 1001' 1I 1 100 d I`\\ 'll'O I 017 • REMOVAL, STORING, AND AMENDED SOILS FOR PLANTER AREAS: ll,4 I ,' BASEBALL/SPORTS OP( 1:121 • _ - - _ CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVAL ALL DEBRIS FROM PLANTER AREAS AND EXCAVATE TO A DEPTH OF 36 INCHES. SLOPE SIDES 018 - - - FIELD I OF EXCAVATIONS AT 1:1 SLOPE OR SHORE EDGES TO PREVENT UNDERMINING OF VEHICLE LOAD AREAS AND TO PROVIDE A SLOPED PROFILE TRANSITION BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL FILL. DISPOSE OF DEBRIS AND SUBSOIL. STOCKPILE 1 i EXCAVATED TOPSOIL IN APPROVED AREA OFF SITE. 1 1 / `\ ' ' IIAO! I� EXISTING AND IMPORTED TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY ,ii \ ‘ � �' THE CITY ARBORIST. SOIL MIXING SHALL BE DONE IN DESIGNATED AREAS OR IN THE SUPPLIERS YARD. MIX AMENDMENTS �I 1111010, _ II' WITH TOPSOIL WHEN SOIL IS IN A FRIABLE CONDITION ONLY (DAMP AND NOT MUDDY WITH ADEQUATE MOISTURE TO BREAK ' INTO CLODS WHEN TURNED AND WILL NOT LEAVE A MUD STAIN ON THE HAND WHEN SQUEEZED) . CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE - - " CERTIFICATE OF CONTENT AND PERCENT OF SOIL MIXES WITH ALL AMENDED SOIL TO THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE 019 BLENDED SOIL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION: SOIL SHALL BE FRIABLE WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED. PLACE SOIL IN LAYERS OF NOT MORE THAN 12" IN DEPTH. PROVIDE 3 PASSES WITH A 2" COMPACT PLATE VIBRATING COMPACTOR. COMPACT TO 80-85% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS MEASURED 'k BY THE PROCTOR TEST OR AS APPROVED FOR SPECIFIC BLENDED SOIL MIXES. N. SCALE 1" = 40 FEET \N • o FENCE + BACKSTOP DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING ° PLANNING SURVEYING ° FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ .DRAWING NO.: XX SITE TREE LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK 4� DRAWN BY: KAH .SCALE: AS NOTED 1 BROADWAY ROSE INSTITUTIONAL JOB NUMBER CANOPY PLAN Offices Located In: CHECKED BY: KJ XX 13910 SW GAR 971 H DR., SUITE 100 SHERWOOD,Lo OREGON PREPARED FOR: SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON SHEET PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OREGON 1 OF 1 FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www.aks-eng.com I 11 \ , N. III • e a'a • o 1 \ 1 ►�k`�' TREE LEGEND 1 . 1\ 1 1 ! SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING 13 1 O '� i • TAX LOT 4100 TAX LOT 4200 N '' 1 TAX OT 5000 ® �Z �� • 16 ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN TAXMAP 2S 1 10BD TAXMAP 2S 1 10BD TAXMAP 2S 1 10BD4.,44:I TAX LOT 1800 Ali I �. 9 ZELKOVA SERRATA ZELKOVA B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN ?,,, TAXMAP 2S 1 10BC = I .�� OraEXIST. TREE (TYP.) ��iIr 0 a ?op 4 / 1000 •„ NOTES: �1 ,de ,?` 1. TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS: REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT. i� �_�r 2. IMPROVE AREAS WITH TREE GROWTH LIMITING SOILS; REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL ARBORIST REPORT FOR SPECIFICATIONS. Ilk./ I / 1i•'•,3 `` pl 3. PLANTER STRIPS AND RIGHT OF WAYS ARE AREAS OF POTENTIAL SOIL COMPACTION, LIMITING TREE GROWTH. IF SOIL COMPACTION OCCURS, BACKHOE TURNING I I 1 / \s,I, 10017. _ r�air �a igip \ SHOULD BE USED TO LOOSEN SOIL.1 1 / \ i� ��, \10018I 4. BACKHOE TURNING: REMOVE ANY LAYERS OF GOOD TOPSOIL. SPREAD 3"-4" OF ORGANICS (HIGH LIGNIN COMPOST) OR ESCS (EXPANDED SHALE/CALCINE CLAY) Iv' L / ,'10006�� 6 i 1 c� i AMENDMENT OVER THE AREA, PRIOR TO TURNING THE SOIL. MAINTAINING A SAFE DISTANCE FROM PAVING, SIDEWALKS, AND STRUCTURES, USE BACKHOE TO TURN N 1 ` i �� -t,\ 1 al ,� 10 SOIL TO 36" DEPTH. BREAK SOIL INTO LARGE PEDS AND LOOSELY INCORPORATE THE SOIL AMENDMENT. MAINTAIN A SLOPE OF COMPACTED SOIL AT THE EDGE OF I , "17 1Mit `-� �� 1 PAVING SO AS NOT TO UNDERMINE THE PAVING SUB-BASE. HAND TURNING MAY BE NECESSARY ALONG THE EDGES OF PAVING AND AT WALLS, DO NOT TILL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING. AFTER TURNING, RE SPREAD TOPSOIL AND ADD 3" 5" OF YARD WASTE ORGANIC AMENDMENT OVER THE SURFACE II � - -G':1 �i -GAS NIP I _�� -- 10019 AND LIGHTLY TILL TO BREAK THE SOIL INTO TEXTURE SUITABLE TO FINE GRADE. 4, I I �1 1 i I0- 1007 -_ ; �; =r�X. 1 .s.„/ ► \ t / 3 1001's , rib 10020 1 ��_ ' TREE CANOPY TABLE 1 0 r'/ go RED MAPLE (TYP.) -0_ ;</ 1 I 10008 _ _ �\ 9 QUALIFYING SITE ® _ -� -11,77"--,1:00-1-41.11 TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY(FT/SF) CANOPY o OS: ► I 110021 oti,� ', i ---4-- t° i 10000 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. z I�� \ _ __ �� / TAX LOT 1700 10001 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. Q 17 d" 1000 J ,./ \��0015��/ • 10002 Zelkova Oar 1,000 cf. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 111,',999666333 ,963 1963 s.f. 0 `, 10003 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. = Z - i1 1pD05.�� l \;10022 TAXMAP 2S 1 10BC 10004 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. D *I( i 1 ►1�1 O ° \ /� �\ ' �.� �\ 1 10005 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. N / f1 10006 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. i , � - Q 1 o\ / `\ i 1000,4 -___ 7,- ;\ �+ 10007 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. I I / - _1 \j- i� /� 5 ' • �, 10008 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. / y j ii 'T , 10009 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. 1 I / 10003 1 �� I iv, / \10004 \ - ' i )10023 10010 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. !\� 44 - 7� 1 \ _ 1.3111 / 10011 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. o I W � L !_ „ - / y `N,j_ :. -- 10012 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. ►�, '�,� ;:10-10 10011 1" �p� �� "� / / 10012 SCALE = 40 FEET 10013 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. I I I I � r�,ne ; ��`,`�`,-ei`�\ \� \ \ +4----4.1„ r ' jiT\\ . _ �� 1 _/� ___L_--/ � 10014 Red Maple Over 1 000 c f 0 c f Over 1 000 c f 35'spread 962 962 s f 416°k _� �� 10015 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. I I � :��_�_ .�, o - 10016 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. iiilSW 120TH PLACE _ WAT ni_16- WAT !l�■ T ��:.*-. .�-� 'nil- ' -:�- � 7p- _ �- 10017 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. PRNATESTfIEETIP�- _ _ _ _ � �ismi , �`/ 0024 10018 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. . .!1• 10019 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. o ` �_ �. / 10020 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. \ / I 10021 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. 1 10022 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. I o \-ZELKOVA (TYP.) 10023 Red Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 35'spread 962 962 s.f. 10024 Zelkova Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 50'spread 1,963 1963 s.f. 11 I 1 11 I SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 33,059 s.f. I oo o EXISTING TREE CANOPY 1 1 TAX LOT 1 300 TREE# 10158, 10159, 10160, 10164 EXISTING SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 2,573 s.f. X2 = 5,146 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING SITE TREE CANOPY 38,205 s.f. TAX LOT 200 I 1 TAXMAP 2S 1 10BC TAXMAP 2S 1 IOBC I 1I II 1 1 QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER LEGEND 1 1 I 1 . z j�/ ... . QUALIFYING EXISTING CANOPY COVER EXISTING SANITARY SAN ------- PROPOSED SANITARY woo INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE I I EXISTING WATER WAT I I I ---^-•.. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE - I I I PROPOSED WATERT TOTAL SITE AREA: 85,072 S.F. PROPOSED WATER VALVE TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 38,205 S.F. % CANOPY COVER: 44% MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 40% EXISTING STORM -STM 44% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 40% TOTAL QUALIFYING PROPOSED STORM MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. EXISTING TELEPHONE - - - -TEL EXISTING OVER HEAD WIRE - - OHW EXISTING GAS - - -GAS DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING • PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX SITE TREE LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK 4p` DRAWN BY: KAH SCALE: AS NOTED JOB NUMBER Offices Located In: CHECKED BY: KJ BULL MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES xx c /\ J , D'y' FDL..../\N 13910 SW GALBREATH DR., SUITE 100 SHERWOOD, OREGON PREPARED FOR: SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON SHEET PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON TIGARD OREGON FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www.aks-eng.com 1 OF 1 TAX LOT 1400 WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER 2S-1-10BC ° u ° 4 V `° a I kik ip I ./". TANNERY STREET CALLERY PEAR (TYP.) COVERED SOIL (TYP.) KOUSA DOGWOOD (TYP.) a. r I - N - - SAN - - `- S-" - - - SAN - - SAN - SAN- SAN LPF SAN SAN SAN - I d;'p �- STM Sit _ - STM STH _ _ _ \ ST STM - _ _ - STM SIM - ` _ - - SIN - _ - _ - - _ - - ii I - \ 111,8 - \ ` ` 10002 10004 10006 10010 Plilli ' \ 001 INIWA j �� WAT 77.1„ of, iror AlAir _ W _ WAT ��_ WAT �� WAr `_ WT /� i `_ WAT �� I I , ,T -� 1OO' T _ or dor ir 7., ,,-r 0 r f fr cf i r ir , er , f o' ffr ' r f ao"rf f, I -efrP-, 0_ if ,‘,./y MEMA - , ad d d \ ,, a ,1b 4 d 1 pipi p\ \, -, /,' /, ° d dal\ °" `\\ / /L P1pI y I IV/ . , , � � ' - ' ►' I -�� WA' .',, !b1' A� P,�� i �_ - 1� °.�;. I��4 �1 . �//� I �i��4�L�� i1G/e�� N ' ..." -- '.. li - ' II 114 / r //�/// ///erfr, - /// ' / 4 ,, wi W I'I f \ r a 1 1 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 5251 50 49 Z \1 ci_ \I48 47 46 45 w \\4g00, 'ir, il � r / il 1 a1 [ I , �� 1 Z / ; 1 OPEN SOIL (TYP.) � I \ < • \10000\�i� I ,'' - - - - - � - - - - - - - - -1 -I L I- - - - - I 3 I GREEN ASH (TYP.) ALLEY A 1 I�j a I SCALE 1" = 20 FEET I a s - T - - ---- o o . . CO CV� � CV TREE LEGEND ND SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER PLANTED TREE MATURE DRIPLINE TA 2 FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA GREEN ASH B&B 2" CAL. 30' O.C. - - INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE ( it CANOPY AREA , j OPEN SOIL VOLUME 7 CORNUS KOUSA KOUSA DOGWOOD B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN EXISTING SANITARY 7. - - PROPOSED SANITARY INN 8 PYRUS CALLERYANA CALLERY PEAR B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN COVERED SOIL VOLUME EXISTING WATER TOTAL SITE AREA: 29,511 S.F. PROPOSED WATER WAT TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 10,368 S.F. % CANOPY COVER: 35% NOTE: MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 33% PROPOSED WATER METER 1. PLANTER STRIP AREAS ALONG QUAKING ASPEN AVENUE AND TANNERY STREET ARE AREAS OF POTENTIAL SOIL COMPACTION, LIMITING TREE GROWTH. IF SOIL COMPACTION OCCURS, BACKHOE TURNING SHOULD BE USED TO LOOSEN SOIL. 2. BACKHOE TURNING: REMOVE ANY LAYERS OF GOOD TOPSOIL SPREAD 3"-4" OF ORGANICS (HIGH-LIGNIN COMPOST) OR ESCS (EXPANDED SHALE/CALCINE 35% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 33% TOTAL QUALIFYING EXISTING STORM CLAY) AMENDMENT OVER THE AREA, PRIOR TO TURNING THE SOIL. MAINTAINING A SAFE DISTANCE FROM PAVING, SIDEWALKS, AND STRUCTURES, USE BACKHOE MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY TO TURN SOIL TO 36" DEPTH. BREAK SOIL INTO LARGE PEDS AND LOOSELY INCORPORATE THE SOIL AMENDMENT. MAINTAIN A SLOPE OF COMPACTED SOIL AT REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. PROPOSED STORM STM THE EDGE OF PAVING SO AS NOT TO UNDERMINE THE PAVING SUB-BASE. HAND TURNING MAY BE NECESSARY ALONG THE EDGES OF PAVING AND AT WALLS, DO NOT TILL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING. AFTER TURNING, RE-SPREAD TOPSOIL AND ADD 3"-5" OF YARD WASTE ORGANIC PROPOSED IRRIGATION MAINLINE - - AMENDMENT OVER THE SURFACE AND LIGHTLY TILL TO BREAK THE SOIL INTO TEXTURE SUITABLE TO FINE GRADE. TREE CANOPY TABLE TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY(FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY 10000 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40'spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. 10001 Green Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 40'spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. 10002 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10003 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 45 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10004 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10005 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10006 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10007 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 45 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10008 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10009 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10010 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10011 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 45 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10012 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 10013 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. I, JOHN ARBORIST, ATTEST THAT 10014 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. THIS TREE CANOPY SITE PLAN 10015 Kousa Dogwood Over 1,000 c.f. 45 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. MEETS ALL OF THE 10016 Callery Pear Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 25'spread 491 491 s.f. 1,620 s.f. REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 10, TOTAL QUALIFYING SITE TREE CANOPY AREA 10,368 s.f. PART 2, OF THE CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL. JOHN ARBORIST, CERTIFIED ARBORIST PNN-0000 DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ .DRAWING NO.: XX TREE CANOPY PLAN LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK ..r.... ‘,.. DRAWN BY: KAH .SCALE: AS NOTED _j JOB NUMBER CHECKED BY: KJ SEQUOIA L.../.\i\iDINxx Offices Located In: 1 13910 SW GALBREATH DR., SUITE 100 SHERWOOD, OREGON PREPARED FOR: ,_I-_ SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON CERTFED PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON SHEET FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www.aks-eng.com OREGON JOHN Q. ARBORIST 1 OF 1 CERTIFICATE NUMBER. PN 0000 EOPIRATION DATE. 01/31/00 I� TREE CANOPY TABLE EXISTING TREE CANOPYt -------- I 1 I TREE # SPECIES SPREAD (DIAMETER IN FEET) AREA (SF) Z 10061 Douglas Fir 34 908 LEGEND I I I I I 10098 Douglas Fir 40 1257 10099 Douglas Fir 34 908 Io +- — WAT I 10100 Douglas Fir 36 1018 EXISTING SANITARY —SAN 10101 Douglas Fir 36 1018 10102 Douglas Fir 34 908 !NI 10103 Douglas Fir 34 908 PROPOSED SANITARY 1 I L 10104 Douglas Fir 34 908 W 10105 Douglas Fir 35 755 EXISTING WATER —wnr I I I D II I I 10107 Cherry 35 755 EXISTING RETAINING WALL 10108 Cherry 21 346 , T Z 1 I / PROPOSED WATER i I 10111 Redwood 14 154 W II I 119,/, / // / / / / 10121 Cherry 21 346 Q / 9� a i 10122 Douglas Fir 25 491 PROPOSED WATER VALVE m �_' / _ _�+�' _ � _/ 10123 Douglas Fir 36 1018 Ili' L _ - - �- _ - - - - - *� � -/ -� } �, r / / 10124 Douglas Fir 36 1018 :if ICT) I / 7/ �� / / / 10125 Douglas Fir 31 755 EXISTING STORM sT"'11 ' • I (PRIVATE STREET) 104\‘ ' ., / �� / :1 /:' , 10127 las Fir DouDouglas Fir 25 29 491 661 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 / PROPOSED STORMsAY sal sal sal �`. / Al 10129 Douglas Fir 25 491 11;13777// / / // / / /� 10130 Douglas Fir 25 491 �� 10000 1 \ / / / 10131 Douglas Fir 40 1257 EXISTING TELEPHONE — — —TEL I rr^^ ill 1 I I v,/ �� _�_ `� 1 10132 Douglas Fir 32 804 N � i�mo � __ � ' P — _..,..moi -moria ikaa.�.\ _,\ \ 10133 Douglas Fir 32 804 EXISTING POWER =� I / / IIII — — — — ,- k .M� \ 10134 Douglas Fir 40 1257 • 10135 Douglas Fir 40 1257 I \ \ // ��, • I 4 � SERVICEBERRY \ ` \`� \`� 10136 Douglas Fir 40 1257 TISTM / STM �i III, STREET TREE `� \� \ 10137 Douglas Fir 32 804 '.-....'%••••....----- .0-J - �I j \\ � \ 10138 Douglas Fir 40 1257 — — �� ° II �\ \ �` 10139 Douglas Fir 32 804 I I°I \ \`� \\_, EXISTING SITE CANOPY TOTAL 25,106 X2 = 50,212 s.f. I I � \ 1 EXISTING HOME \ \`� ,`` __. ._] STREET TREE CANOPY I I 15000 SW 141ST \ li1 ` TREE# SPECIES OPEN SOIL VOLUME COVERED SOIL VOLUME TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY(FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY I - WAT I TAX LOT 101 \ i 10000 Serviceberry Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 15'spread 177 177 s.f. 3 i 10001 Serviceberry Over 1,000 c.f. 0 c.f. Over 1,000 c.f. 15'spread 177 177 s.f. 1 I I 1A \ \ I -1 TOTAL STREET TREE QUALIFYING CANOPY 354 s.f. I N TOTAL SITE TREE QUALIFYING CANOPY 50,566 s.f. I I I DECK —BUILDING ENVELOPE I 1 I 3 2A QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER STREET TREES --] 1 I I I I DECK / SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING DWI 1 I 0 , ///A/ � i / QUALIFYING EXISTING MATURE CANOPY COVER I Iir/ �- f� / / 2 AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA SERVICEBERRY B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN - 1.1%m /1 / ;�/- / / ► � / / // - - INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE 1 1 1 h — J- — 1 r � I _ / / it 1 of .! . /s),23 A — — — '' >�Ir �� / / / � ^--.. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE 1111-1 .----- III --- 0' I WAT 1 / .1 7 / 1 1 1 / .1' / /1" / I . Al 24/ IAoje TOTAL SITE AREA: 23,336 S.F. Q Iao I / /. /4•4 / / • / / / / / °TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 50,566 S.F. I DWI 1 1 i I • / / / • / id / / /o CANOPY COVER: 217% / i MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 40% z 0 I I N 4 I I I r I I 217% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 40% TOTAL QUALIFYING o W MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY I— AT I REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. 1� AT I I I I I I N I I I I ' ' II I SCALE 1" = 20 FEET C DATE: REVISIONS: ENGINEERING • PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX SITE TREE LICENSED IN OR, WA & AK 4p` DRAWN BY: KAH SCALE: AS NOTED JOB NUMBER ` Offices Located In: CHECKED BY: KJ MASTER'S PARTITION x x CANOPYPLAN 13910 SW GALBREATH DR., SUITE 100 SHERWOOD, OREGON PREPARED FOR: SHERWOOD, OR 97140 REDMOND, OREGON SHEET PHONE: (503) 925-8799 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON FAX: (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING & FORESTRY www.aks-eng.com TIGARD OREGON 1 OF 1 SHERWOOD • YANC. AK WWW.AKS-ENG.COM 13910 SW GALBREwrta DR..SUITE 100 • SHERWOOD,OR 97140 f I,(503)925-8799 F:(503)925-8969 ENGINEERING&FORESTRY February 17, 2012 Todd Prager, AICP, Certified Arborist Associate Planner/Arborist City of Tigard, Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Memorandum-Peer Review of the Implementation of the Proposed Urban Forestry Code Revisions to Tree Canopy Requirements for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1 and Gertz Homes at Edgewood 2 Dear Mr. Prager: At the February 6, 2012 Planning Commission Hearing, a member of the public brought forward two examples of Tree Canopy Site Plans showing the application of the draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions on two sites. These were for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1 and Gertz Homes at Edgewood 2. AKS has reviewed these project sites and created alternative Tree Canopy Site Plans using the draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions (see attached). Below we will go into detail regarding the contrasts between the example Tree Canopy Site Plans provided at the hearing and the Tree Canopy Site Plans developed by AKS Engineering &Forestry. For both project sites the draft code requires a minimum of 40% effective canopy coverage on the entire project site as well as a minimum of 20% effective canopy coverage on each lot. Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1: The example Tree Canopy Site Plan for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1 presented at the hearing showed 27 trees being planted on the site. Each of these 27 trees had a mature canopy area of 706.5 square feet. We noted that the number of street trees proposed in this plan did not meet the minimum requirements of the draft code. Also, it appeared that the trees were placed to provide a minimum of 40% effective canopy coverage on each lot, instead of the required 20% effective canopy minimum in the draft code. None of the preserved existing trees were shown consistent with the original submittal. The draft code allows the "bonus" of doubling the canopy area when preserving existing trees. Using the draft code criteria, AKS was able to meet the effective canopy coverage requirements on this site by utilizing 12 street trees in addition to preserving the 3 existing trees shown in the original submittal. The selection of street trees that have large mature canopy areas (1,590 square feet) allowed us to meet the canopy Page 1 Proposed Urban Forestry Code Revisions Applied to the Gertz Homes at Edgewood Projects standards without the use of any additional trees in the front or back yards of the lots. See attached AKS Tree Canopy Site Plan for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1. Gertz Homes at Edgewood 2: The example Tree Canopy Site Plan for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 2 (directly east of Gertz Homes at Edgewood 1)presented at the hearing showed 41 trees being planted on the site. Each of these 41 trees had a mature canopy area of 706.5 square feet. It appeared that the trees were placed to provide a minimum of 40% effective canopy coverage on each lot, instead of the required 20% effective canopy minimum in the draft code. Again, none of the preserved existing trees on site were shown, consistent with the original submittal. In fact, the vegetated corridor tract behind lots 10-12 with several preserved existing trees,were not shown on the plan presented at the hearing. The draft code allows the "bonus" of doubling the canopy area when preserving existing trees. Using the draft code criteria, AKS was able to meet the canopy coverage requirements on this site by utilizing 22 street trees,preserving the 17 existing trees shown in the original submittal, and planting 5 additional appropriately placed trees that will not conflict with the use or enjoyment of the lots. See the attached AKS Tree Canopy Site Plan for Gertz Homes at Edgewood 2. Note that our calculations for effective tree canopy coverage did not include trees that may have been required in the Vegetated Corridor Tracts 'A' and `B' to meet Clean Water Services standards. In conclusion, we feel that with careful attention to the application of the draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions, planting plans can be created that result in a reasonable balance between trees, development and open space. The two sites peer reviewed in this letter clearly demonstrate this to be the case. Very Truly Yours, AKS Engineering& Forestry, LLC CERTIFIED //, aspa Ul - MI AMERICAN SOCIETY of `—�Iva�'�� IN CONSUITING ARBORISTS ARBORIST KEITH JEHNKE CERTIFICATE NUMBER PN-1908 EXPIRATION DATE: 6/30/2013 Keith Jehnke,PE,PLS, Principal; Certified Arborist#PN-1908, Certified Tree Risk Assessor#192 Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists Page 2 STREET TREES SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER All 3 FRAXINUS OXYCARPA 'RAYWOOD' RAYWOOD ASH B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN O - /O 9 QUERCUS RUBRA RED OAK B&B 3" CAL. AS SHOWN QUALIFYING EXISTING MATURE CANOPY COVER - OHW� - - - -PwR- - - - - oHw� - INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE _ _ - oHw - OHW - -GAS�---- GAS -PNR - SAN - - - _ RAYWOOD ASH (TYP.) SAN A PWR - SAN - =SW_ GEWOOD STREET _ - - PwR SA, ----.. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE - -1vM - STM S1M - - - -1VM / STM -- -IN/AA - - , _ eM_\- �'��`+-- \ `\ STM, * TOTAL SITE AREA: 47,384 S.F. LEGEND ,- 'A - _ /_Aibb� TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 23,499 S.F. e--- --- ----......-- - , , 1001- 1001 ♦ i __ ____ - % CANOPY COVER: 50% 7 . Irpit a - - �-�111 MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 40% e-_ - _�,�t� j �.� �/ EXISTING SANITARY ' I • I _ o 40% _ 1_ . , '0003 \ - �' 50/o IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF TOTAL QUALIFYING PROPOSED SANITARY S"" MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY I \ - I�j v REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. �p - EXISTING WATER I 110004 ' I 1PROPOSED WATER MTI ' 111. I I \. - - ' . ,- - REQUIRED CANOPY ACTUAL CANOPY EXISTING STORM "' LOT# LOT AREA (S.F.) COVERAGE (S.F.) (20%) COVERAGE (S.F./%) 1 E A/ \, 1 PROPOSED STORM STM W I 10005 LOT 1 7,578 1,516 5,301 (70%) IF I -.- - , I LOT 2 8,286 1,657 3,180 (38%) EXISTING TELEPHONE -co i I LOT 3 7,607 1,521 3,180 (42/o) ` ' 2 I LOT 4 6,990 1,398 1,590 (23%) II FW- �>� '� I LOT 5 7,392 1,478 3,180 (43%) EXISTING OVERHEAD WIRE ' 4- oo 6' / \� I LOT 6 9,531 1,906 7,068 (74%) I• I EXISTING POWER I V \\O/ i - - 1' _ - _ _ I EXISTING GAS .......} GAS w X0007 1 O TREE CANOPY TABLE II-- NI 1 - I , 1 O PLANTED TREE CANOPY I i‘z 010 „� 3 I O TREE# SPECIES TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY(FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY (� O 10000 Raywood Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. Q 6Q$ 'Ij 10001 Raywood Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. = Ai, 10002 Raywood Ash Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. I \�� i ,5 --- _ ,I I O 10003 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. CO "' -I - - - - - - _ _ - _ 10004 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. 1 ' • ` 10005 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. ' I - - I 10006 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. 70009 \,, 110007 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. i ' I10008RedOakOver1,000cf45spread1,5901,590sf, 4 1 i‘ 10009 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. \1 ,, 10010 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. _ - j 10011 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. j SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 16,431 s.f. - - I • ,' - - - -' - - - - _ _ _ _ I EXISTING TREE CANOPY 1 --1 TREE# SPECIES TOTAL SOIL VOLUME CANOPY(FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY I II 10100 Douglas Fir Over 1,000 c.f. 50' spread 1,964 1,964 s.f. 10010 '1 I 10101 Douglas Fir Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,246 s.f. ' ' I 10102 Big Leaf Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 20' spread 314 314 s.f. 1 1 1ItiL_ /1 5IEXISTING SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 3,534 s.f. x 2 = 7,068 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING SITE TREE CANOPY AREA 23,499 s.f. RED OAK (TYP.) i'N I ° ,,�; I 10011 'i I U. EXISTING TREE CANOPY (TYP.) - �' _ _ _ _ _ - 1 1 le1// /:/> V6 /2/7 Ai° 00/e 4,, ----- - 1• ,11 1 --____I \ .dr . 99 V CDO \ A WOODS 'D9 ,1 ,,,, \ V \Z 8 m SCALE 1" = 30 FEET Oo DATE: REVISIONS: DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX DRAWN BY: KAH SCALE: AS NOTED JOB NUMBER CHECKED BY: KJ EDGEVVOOD NO. 1 XX SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN PREPARED FOR: SHEET TIGARD OREGON 1 OF 1 1 .1 , I , . 1 1 . , , ,sor SUNSET MAPLE (TYP.) y' #:''''T---------- ----- � / T / I r / ; 1111: 09 I 1 1., 10009 [1(010 1 I / / / 1 1 �\ I' It 1; , I 1 %, 1 AO/ C :I"< \1) I Iii % 1 8 � 17 I I 1 ' 1 16 15 1 � ; (1111 1 1 41 z., ,I, 1 13 1 I_ ,_ 1 ��. I II�4 , 1/ I I I 1 1 I 1 1 ‘, ' I I 1 RED OAK (TYP.) 111\11142 1 ' I I I 1 �� YELLOWOOD (TYP.)- I I I I- }'\ \ , 1 I - -ot TRACT B I N - ' - = - - - 10010, zkiiii;, 103 \ \ - - - ' - - - -- _ 01041 - - 1 1 _ I - _ ----, _ ..1�' A.... E'-mAiE"-----r- �\wan ®i►®1► 0005 ,' 10006 �� ,007 - II 10011 \� - - ----- -- ----- - 1 8 1 =- -��1 1 ® � ? 2 / w tfr � 0� _ _ SCALE 1 = 30FEET• SNl �� _�► 'S�1®�.a� �� 10012 > �'� \. � � _ - A . Y///,TRACT 100 r-� SAI - 12 \ 13 'W � S Sew , �� , '�■� . �, 1 3, \ . . _ ��-� _ � � � � '' • PRIVATE SIRE-E'--T) s'-'' - '_s _ �\ n n r o MI I Alak,. 1 W I 12101111111111.11111116rallatlialaWitaWFWIt " ‘ 1 \1Mk Sim 4 ,r, ____ ...._m_Ni_m_r_44_. • . _.....„ T„ _ _ _n7 _ _ _ \\ 10024 - •\ 10023 ,, 1 p - � 70-0-20 /l�l�.. .S 'd a ivM r�� - �O _ - - / CASCARA (TYP.) ' d W_ ' ' _ \ 1I I -= - , _ - T- `\ 10021 ,� � r014/ CCI \\ - - - _ _ - 10019 \ Z ' ' _ - ,' 1 I. VEGETATEDI I ' - I I I,, �, 1 - -., \\ CORRIDOR111 I ,, �' � 11 077( 1 �� TRACT \ - 0I. 1 / Q v 10015 , _ _ 7 / ❑ ( \;e: SO =', 11101) • 10018 \ 1 / U®�V . \ _, It---- LEGEND_ _ _\ EXISTING TREE CANOPY (TYP.) �� /' \ , ,, ,' ,� ' \� � 11 � � EXISTING SANITARYSA" 7 ` . I 10017 )/,' I I1/11016°-,: y 10 �� ‘� \ PROPOSED SANITARY S"" KATS U RA (TYPi) / �� 10016 fe,,6, , I EXISTING WATER "AT - i�//� .... ... .... LOT 1 �1 .. .�i� ----- - T-- _ Tom --- _ PROPOSED WATER WAT,... .... LOT 2 LOT 3 - \ 1 LOT4 LOT5 LOT �' /�/" lik LOT 4 LOT 3 EXISTING STORM w. STM LOT TRACT D II I 9 9 \ I z I - 0 OV - S PROPOSED STORM STM'A - 99 9 9 - EXISTING GAS - GAS VCDO \ AD WOODS \__ _ _ _ a 1 1 D II 1 I N 1 2 3 - / I . ', ---..-.- ---.....1 QUALIFYING MATURE CANOPY COVER STREET TREES SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING TREE CANOPY TABLE 5 CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM KATSURA B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN PLANTED TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREE CANOPY / j QUALIFYING EXISTING MATURE CANOPY COVER TREE # SPECIES TOTAL SOIL VOLUME CANOPY (FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY TREE # SPECIES TOTAL SOIL VOLUME AVE. MATURE CANOPY (FT/SF) QUALIFYING SITE CANOPY 017 CLADRASTIS KENTUKEA YELLOWOOD B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 10000 Katsura Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. 10100 Costal Redwood Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. 10101 Western Red Cedar Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread 491 491 s.f. INDIVIDUAL TREE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE SITE TREES 10001 Katsura Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. 10102 Douglas Fir Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. - SYMBOL QTIES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONDITION SIZE SPACING 10002 Katsura Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. 10103 Sequoia Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. EXISTING TREE CANOPY OUTLINE 10003 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10104 Sequoia Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. 1 ACER TRUNCATUM X A. PLATANOIDES SUNSET MAPLE B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN 10004 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10105 Western Red Cedar Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. TOTAL SITE AREA: 108,390 S.F. ��`` 10005 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. p TOTAL QUALIFYING MATURE TREE CANOPY AREA: 56,819 S.F. 10006 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10106 Bigleaf Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,257 1,257 s.f. CANOPY COVER: 52% �,. 2 RHAMNUS PURSHIANA CASCARA B&B 2 CAL. AS SHOWN 10107 Western Red Cedar Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. 10007 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35 spread 962 962 s.f. 10108 Western Red Cedar Over 1,000 c.f. 24' spread 452 452 s.f. MINIMUM % CANOPY COVER: 40% 10008 Sunset Maple Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread 491 491 s.f. 10009 Sunset Maple Over 1 000 c.f. 25' spread 491 491 s.f. 10109 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 2 QUERCUS RUBRA RED OAK B&B 2" CAL. AS SHOWN p p 35' 52% IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM OF 40% TOTAL QUALIFYING 10110 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. spread 962 962 s.f. 10010 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. MATURE CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE, THEREFORE CITY 10111 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. 10011 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10112 Unknown Conifer Over 1,000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. 10012 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1590 s.f. 10113 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10013 Cascara Over 1,000 c.f. 25' spread 491 491 s.f. 10114 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. 10014 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. REQUIRED CANOPY ACTUAL CANOPY 10115 Unknown Deciduous Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. ° COVERAGE (S.F./%) 10015 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT# LOT AREA (S.F.) COVERAGE (S.F.) (20/°) 10116 Unknown Conifer Over 1 000 c.f. 30' spread 707 707 s.f. 10016 Red Oak Over 1,000 c.f. 45' spread 1,590 1,590 s.f. EXISTING SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 14,766 s.f. x 2 = 29,532 s.f. LOT 7 7,544 1,508 4,436 (59%) 10017 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. TOTAL QUALIFYING SITE TREE CANOPY AREA 56,819 s.f. LOT 8 7,486 1,497 2,886 (39%) 10018 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 9 9,210 1,842 5,204 (57%) 10019 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 10 10,308 2,061 2,553 (25%) LOT 11 8,355 1,671 4,890 (59%) 10020 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 12 7,356 1,471 1,590 (22%) 10021 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 13 6,005 1,201 1,453 (24%) 10022 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 14 6,026 1,205 1,453 (24%) 10023 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 15 6,066 1,213 6,696 ( 110%) LOT 16 6,158 1,232 4,142 (67%) 10024 Yellowood Over 1,000 c.f. 35' spread 962 962 s.f. LOT 17 9,382 1,876 1,924 (21%) 10025 Katsura Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. LOT 18 6,307 1,261 4,730 (75%) 10026 Katsura Over 1,000 c.f. 40' spread 1,256 1,256 s.f. TRACT "A" 17,199 3,410 14,371 (84�%) SITE CANOPY SUBTOTAL 27,287 s.f. TRACT B 988 198 491 (50/°) NOTE: TREES REQUIRED TO MEET CLEAN WATER SERVICES REQUIREMENTS IN THE VEGETATED CORRIDOR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THESE CALCULATIONS. DATE: REVISIONS. DESIGNED BY: KJ DRAWING NO.: XX DRAWN BY: KAH SCALE: AS NOTED JOB NUMBER SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN CHECKED BY: KJ PREPARED FOR: EDGEWOOD NO. �� SHEET TIGARD OREGON 1 OF 1 Project Sites Submitted (Edgewood 1 & 2) During Testimony at the February 6, 2012 Hearing Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was included in calculations Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows TREE CANOPY AT 40% COVERAGE R-4.5 La: ,.1111% 7133.513F Treee 1 76.08 3D34 4,'2V 2 9298 3314 4.919 Missing Items: 3 mos .3O4/. 4.31 Street Lights 4 6952 27131 3.94 s 7355 2942 416 Fire Hydrants a 61121 38011 5.91 Lawn Areas t 7s443als 4 REQUIRED STREET TREES Play Arens 8 7499 29E1 424 LEFT IN PLACE Play Structures a 2210 3564 521 Swimming Pools 14 a 2415 sai Sport Courts i a 2463 5 KRA 2405 4 Carden Plot 17 23ez 9753 5.31 14746E. a 694753 9 57 vflt�°re 43 Tr& ''S I ..._ _ ,, . ? l_'_:r ! seaop . 15: j b i.I•44 4,3 TREES `. 2I :: Ai 'fir, � + = m„ Lti 1 Over PIQnt•d � : I r. -- ,� _ ¢ ,: . 2,,.„1 ��J .rid ,�A}..4., :L * ..•:'i , 5.3 TREES — ji ▪L, Over Ploqikec 17$ 3 7�RC:S y� • y � E' y Oyer Plant d ' P - _ pp — ^-' r. ' .��—_..._• ` s pcs�s•. irr .aa s tt — 1 ti r 4. — r�i 3.5 TREES 4 � ;%i 1'a - 1 r ▪ Over Planted 4,3 TREES rt a I ':'. • ! 1 Over Pliant �..j * , — 1 .41_,r,!:--5,,..„, _ v'a_ '=s O'ver ''hinted 4.3 TREES 1 K,A, �• I ' V \ V F �� , 1 4 it Over Plus .dmpidli . ,..�.- 1 1i# 1i 3.4 TREES • S r- `• Over Pldrlted I 5.4 TREE Doesn't 1'r.r#••' J t 1 ' f :.ear • L . '' fps __ ... f 3 J ' II Edgewood 1 Edgewood 2 iliPq City of Tigard TIGrARD Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Canopy Measurement for Planning Commissioner Properties Date: February 22, 2012 At the January 9, 2012 planning commission workshop on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions, the commission requested staff provide a measurement of the percent canopy for each of the planning commissioners' properties. The purpose of the request was to allow the commissioners to better visualize varying percentages of canopy using their own properties as a frame of reference. Staff mistakenly omitted this memo from the February 6, 2012 meeting packet, but it may prove useful as hearings continue. The city's GIS system allows staff to estimate existing canopy area using aerial photography and a measuring tool. Consistent with the draft code standards, staff granted canopy credit when the trunk of a particular tree was estimated to be on a planning commissioner's lot. However, it is important to note that staff did not grant credit for young trees based on their full canopy sizes at maturity as required by the draft code. Also, staff did not grant double canopy credit for preserved trees as required by the draft code. The percent canopies in the table on the following page are based solely on existing canopy area divided by lot area with no other credits granted. At the bottom of the table is the total percent canopy across all lots which was calculated by dividing the total canopy area for all lots by the total area for all lots. Name Lot Size % Canopy Notes (Acres) Tom Anderson .26 42% Two young street trees would be credited based on their full canopy sizes at maturity Dianne Armstrong .12 50% Margaret Doherty .13 66% Calista Fitzgerald .17 44% Andrew Miller .12 9% Matthew Muldoon .24 15% Jason Rogers .20 47%> Karen Ryan - - Property not available within City of Tigard GIS system Donald Schmidt .11 41% Richard Shavey .04 0% R-25 Zone David Walsh .22 34% Total% Canopy Across All Lots 37% (Total Lot Acres ± Total Canopy for All Lots) CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done T1GARD Urban Forestry Code Revisions Planning Commission Discussion Community Development I March 2012 CITY O F TIGARD sues l ai • free Canopy► vs. Tr• e•e Corn , • . • • • ::::•""'.::::.f."3'42;:-:: :-' rt • 3• •• • r CITY OF TIGARD Issues Raised .anor y vs, "Free or,TA 2. Balancing Tree Canopy and Open Space 3. Species Selection 4. Canopy Averaging C I T Y O F T I G A R D s Raised . 2 Sp • species Selection . . • Mi Minimum Preservation C I T Y O F T I G A R D . . lii .:::: d, . Issues Raise •{ Balancing Tree C:: : r.. J Open �� ace . . Canopy Av:-.. r il • '' ,' )�aiir Preser; ,.t.§ • Tree/Ut�t t� Conf cts • . C I T Y O F T I G A R D Issues used • Tree Canoe. , Balancing Tree "rl � . 1k'„ .pace • 04 Species S lacus T i , • Canopy �F'Jra lr • a v ` .�tillt Conflicts 7. Hazard Trees CITY OF TIGARD Issues Raised .�t. ,✓�.� � � -. • 4 w J aic . Canopyv: rag r 5. -,urn Preser, 6. Tre /Utility Conflicts a p 7. �r.•••^4 Tr e ikk8. Effec . o Tree Groves on Property Values C I T Y O F T I G A R D Issues Rai e+ s P•4 1`..'i 5.5 x'• - p s. . �c " ..i - :. , Tit -. .,"': � '..%1: , • w �, � x Canopy : rag n . iPn 7-1u1 Preser ..1 , : F +�onfis . m`�S z.,.....',. .. .r. -. . 9. Updating the Tree''Canopy Fee C I T Y O F T I G A R D i �"i► d ssues aIse . fi :_ � 1 . ' T. Ayr L iyYr 3 4 .. I 2 "� f A .• u F '-`+a e, .is a � c � �a A e t s Canopy _ `y .!r g of ►: ,' 3 �tfl' ujro Pres�er� . k?e �`i R 5, r 6. T. Utility Conflicts ti -aa it - they Tkil� . .- ng Deed Restrictions for Protected CITY OF TIGARD Issues Raised �. ::,Tree Canopy vs. Tree Count Balancing Tree Canopy and Open Space 3. . Species Selection 4. Canopy Averaging 5 Minimum Preservation .Treef Utility Conflicts 7. Hazard Trees :8. Effect :of Tree Groves on Property Values: . p ati'ng the Tree Canopy Fee 10. Filing Deed Restrictions for Protected Trees CITY O F TIGARD •. •••'' '''....:- '• . Issue 1• Tre . . • e • . . . . Canopy vs . . .. . Tree C . . . ount .... . . .. . . ..•...:.•• ‘.. . . ... " . • . . ... . ... . . .. . . .. . .... . .. l • _ :. .„. . . . : .. .. . . .. • . CITY OF TIGARD 84 4gx i i i i i i i i 1 wroa �9 i i 1 i 1 ; i i a�Ca. 1 1 1 1 1 1 j ; E [ !� 1 ., 1Y 1 1 1 [ 1 1 . , 5 1 .. , i. 1 , , '-'6 kka. I 1 1 1 F i I i 1 1 94k11 -� lYISIGI 0.1•54443 1 , 1 1 1 SRLM6" I1 �' U I ; I 1 I —. J - I-'-- R ■ 0 ..le.'[) a i_.. _ 1 r I 1 f tt[6gR4Rro. S.W •343 AtealUE f, Z Z G __— __.�_ _ �J O i ,� -- RIE ' I1 4 �� Ill • r . yiwcl 6 • y'! =7,„ • 0- 7 m H H H&I • �.•Gt_IJ,y 1vsRIME MSS fisWW1 Y fC II ll 0 r' ilk 21 rwo mai knc.xa * ! 1 6 _ 00 0 • 0-0 0-0-0•'dii°. Q 4 30 2 IC1t r j .o. �]0 "Z MI •q • .--- ��•,s ; .,.i,....>a� maukt�m.,wo {yl, Al_ .Torre _ — --� I / i Pro.,x��., K I [mM., pRIVATE DRIVE a Mae �M, ; I / 7 a at;o 1 E l E f .44 s 1 �n3 1"[54V 4!741[6' ALK 111 A. PAMIR R i Prt[[MM arta x[1c415 1 1 PAMt1710M141.44 NO 1M26_195 1 & . 1 , f j I I �! ///g m 9 F 10 CITY OF TIGARD 1 I mw......m..r TANNERY STEM - r 21.222 � .4 l s. s' .. ''' ' z � :" la. F 111 es - � ` _� t1 ' _ tea. �� 'I psi Es1 '"� r; - iz yea -1 i a I it 57 � 54 53 e' 52 51 53 48 45 47 45 45 i.ted/ .11; �— . J ALLEY "--- 1.591IN3 --A TREE LEGEND em.:rtw EE ..m..€ MOM as rn. I J w.,r,.ra..m.....o.. mow m. ..e.m Ems - W..MIME I..1111.2 MUM Et 24M 19612222 SOL 0.o ...�n �.OTO....r rmEc:� - 0.221.011311 MD "nMARXMin nu wn mwnen 11.116 rw m.=ea wAa w.mm.......m _----_ // 0.310032 avxu.0.eicm.0"Tan 212 91.0 OLE MUM.MDTr-0..m.m.rx \ TREE CANOPY TABLE ME NEE 22.1.UTE PM .e.. 1,N010Mt1115.RC.10, im�eAN FORE mr.1F VAN winaysererrnirrmaresr P.MOD ATE RLMSOUS: 0 ruwp &x w eo�snrc e TREE CANOPY PLAN s�•.-.- 1. a SEQUOIA LANDING -„,. =,-,,,---A1C; PREPAFED FOR, '"I �. molar a> o OREGON _= 1 OF 1 CITY OF TIGARD 4 ,„......1‘,14...........„ ,..,..... + ,-iii, .. .7j K-0 --- • . • • -e,, x94. . - F •f ,44 a • • `•*` rr+ 1� J Jam: ,.- .L' d em_ ��- s'Imull0111•101m.__ �i C I T Y O F TIGARD • • .ti t "';),;',..7.--....-------,,,!-..77].:'-1:i • •• J+r,•:, ., .,_,... . . ..:- . -• • - • e•••• ; ..,-..,-;_'--,,::::ij'll':,':•,-,*. . . . . . ,..., _ . . . . , .. . • • • • :- - - i.••'.--•;-:---•••'-,:::'-*.::::;.:;:',--- _-..;---;*:':!-',";'..;:-'-' , ' -. S'-''' ee 4,-- . .-----T.:.:---...---:';-.,'---- -..-... --et -e - -S .. .., .... ..._ . .. .. ...._ . . . . ._... • . - • , ,.._.• ..•• . .. .. . . ..• • • ••••• . . .. . . .... . . . . . ,.. . ••••!•.-':,i,•:.,,.._,1„,..:.„..,.•:,.:•:.,..•....•,..,.:1„,Species Sel - 4 CITY OF TIGARD issue 4 Canopy Averaging CITY OF T I G A RD 1 , i f' All n I / 16 1 1 1 1: 15 14 13 ,I 1 I 1 ....1.0 / l''... T•/,'„._ / / I .....---.... TRACT"Er / -@,410 ,---- i/ Atr gr-4: .ittr....:-.:....,:- - - i...,-,, , -,4- .,-,--,,,,----)-------------7'aborgeo----, ,1 „.,,..„...„,,u.--_,„---m., ..-----...---• - "".:1107 IL 11110.P.0\ ,TRACT Yril. 4. ......11MEE EN I:1 •isni...:110". IT-....,. _..c . rft. MI .... • • Tr 1 .Ai w... a a PAx-- . _ .1 i r I, 4r--7Le't:....,,....t-Til;4'i'.....,:S....rimtg,%z.m-Aimn-"'I:za 1 1 I ir li 2. I 1 -..-2,40' 10 ' , \ i ! - ,,,,,,,—, 1 1 .ory \ 1 r , — NM 961111, IPME6 SIIM BIM UM . ..• ..._ mg... 1.6.47 • ,, r. LC4 t T ,r. , . gm... .3 ppy...• 1 lir GERTZ HOMES AT EDGEWOOD" , 'MCDONALD OOD ” ___ I ......, - 1 I I 1 0 1 I p i I I 1 031161.O. MI.ME r's•'•rr. '‘.. . ..' TREE CANOPY TABLE 0101.2.2.260 EA oumma.m..26000,60.2200 , 0,60606 ammi WM r 2, 0 22. g1.010110..., : r,,,,,„,s., MEM.. SlagEg..110. 18126.501,0..01‘ prE MAE M..1,206,.01,21.SIM mg, 6,MM, ToramOMMM COM.Mr, 6061,M02.4,.2 2.40, roloo 0,61.600 .0,00.11 re ron. 1 sao am I ,666. 6.66,, 2.1.ci 4706,61 1M 4 2..T 010 Nu,0 2..er 1 0.01 Mgr. SC 111116..221EMM 2.91.1 MIME en MEM. Mr MO.1 gnu,. . 200 1 r .......X.r........ .. r.r•' ... 1Q. ZII* '..1:?:: ,..',.:r.'d 5:2 01. Mg.04 CM 066 I WOO V pa . ..t 1;1i Fie.i: I MI Wet 22 sonad Os „,66666„6-6-6.6.0,666660,6,606,660.60, LI..1, 0112 1.1.6.Conter Mr OM 11 01,6m, . 16,1.2.24.400VMORTIMEE.,...E. .11 Trelimel 26er MO et 25 ei.rea d 252 1.6.e ems .....a....... 0..0 v.,.1, ,s..a ika 6,1„ Siii,pt ,0119 ...0006....• Mr16,0 c 1 .0.61 UV .01 roll, Urgrom120M6, Cre0 030 e 1 2,6,60 . .6 0666, 60.10611602 1.5 .Mareace 2.MO c 1. .1.66.e Ee2 01. Man Cersk, Peri ON cl 92 sena 20 20 6.I 22.021.612E.1.0210 611.12.1066.1..2.66..1 Mg 2121..1E, •MI.E.' 11,,,,[..% ...,-...,,,,, 10,18 F6.1. m„ gmm, m.m„ 6,66.e E0 PM 1 0101.01.101119 61...21612..6. Se 111,__,M LZ: rtae" 461 446 WY 17:. tt:I1 ,am un ....,... a...mt. MD 1,1mo0 Mr1.q 1 Ow. 1,2 MO 2.1.0.1 Mr..=c 1 Mmil . 174,' T1.6 2. 1.1 yome MT igal T1 .6,00 .2 .2.1 WM ,A0 1.6 Telimr. mr.00 o 1 ar sp.. .2 ffi 1 VA 1201 1.2M 1.1571"''a ma 2016Torl Mr 1..0 e 1 W.. . 6,2.1 15.1 10.2 leme .26116•66.1 266-1620 1 2,6., 661 6..1 LIT." kr/ •.,:i 61120...65.02.6_ 2.j .1 ....=61.0.61121.1260.11.:..ale61.60.8.1.62. 7T,IL 6.1.1. . RE MR0 iNDONS, SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN ,16226 114 EDGEWOOD NO.2 PFEPAFED FoN sal TIGARD OREGON I OF I C I T Y O F TIGARD • • � SSU2 2 • Balancing Tree Canopy and Open' Space CITY OF TIGARD 1';', 11 //r _- Sb" p }§ \ TREE LEGEND � \ \ ra o me way V wr.r 1 // �I TAx LOT 4100 TAX 4®00 TAX LOT 5000 •4 Q II raw 1111 NW ms rc. ss.6.. i „P,p� I® a.ws ,ems TAX LOT 1800 0' ,1 , , ,, . ..,,e, I1 P ) 2 r ir _3_ I TREE CANOPY TABLE •� 1_ 5rr� •-• 9 T yLOT1700 �iL sly, �IN Iii I , a r .4 !i`,-ii ii' _ . 4110_1!)- --4....p. _Lt 1 '11'4' I I TAXLOTI AO, �,o,��o�,.m..,,. wwa7a m ry �•.,�„ ` 1 11 r LEWD AENSON& BITE TREE maiw'::.mama ""`is'"° " . .. .��,-� ae w CANOPY PLAN -�N BULL MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES zz �[ �FM ��aK TIGARD OREGON Sig! CITY OF TIGARD ar, — _ TANNERY STREET STM -*4-401:7'14' P .O „g— _1 _1�MO ` MOuii MI < Iilri"C• ..0%.”,I1P:'�9C�Y/dIP'�@47�IiR :itis1.40. �7/E v/i0, ®'k,7oL5!"iri`�vE •II i1o0",IM FSP?' �I IN IM AVs IMI: !gxr _ `Fi m"11 _ ' Ill' 111;10 op„..mapp voi , obiri;111 1- g{ 0011 i, �� $ ��jois �j ---�� imm ' i� , - ----. TREE LEGEND cxwu wx @WI It@ warm @ @KM I awrr.e wnA,cvwrvem '///1 PIA w.WISE MAR `� /' a, 'C.... ms�m-i� rui ww., 4 a wu,Ewrw.uxoc,am.c 111191.111 sI --- r TREE CANOPY TABLE EI 11•11 :: een.w of f.. «a: 4v,,ae, Ir;; ;r1 u w WE, fr• arnv� a[ .o...a....�.�...,m�..sa ey.. RAF 2r @11,11VAC1.101 lABW ba iABOX 5.1 uvi,aL A0®a@f .NH-0ft0 hcYsONs, TREE CANOPY PLAN 0.Y y_.:..� .. R,.,,,,,,,.isimpu w ""'� SEQUOIA LANDING ox �'�a eE 11 r�naeoa vsc, OREGON 6,. 1 OF 1 CITY OF TIGARD TREE CANOPY TABLE -- - .1 ii ... .. ......... ,,............. . eli~"eirWi0..439.. 1. ..... r5u 'al= t --••-1, i 11, 11iNatzrecie-f-r, —.- 1 3A I 1 i I _ i i ......_ i -TT-, . i I ! 1 1A \ . i I 1 \,,[ r —1 1.1.1111EMESS2.31.12111. SLIII41 I I I I 1 1 1 I -''"''''''''--1 I r 1 i . S . g I , r 1 .- H '; il i _ 1 _ - j„..0.4„,1 v/A == ' EgetWOkne.;;-#40,4WrZflef,,Lda Ai4:, ^---, ................... I..! r' # 4rdrie Or#0,74,4010,401,40' an ro muuxaemciwomx NZ r 0, P 1 j 1 lekl I REM,* RuorRay.a gurena amegva . 1,11,1111,1!NW. u P.,5. . CANOPY PLAN - .,.. ,, MASTERS PARTITION TIGARD OREGON .., I OF I CITY OF TIGARD TREE CANOPY AT 40%COVERAGE R-4.5 Um 4244 TX,53£'Treee 2 1034 42.2 2 8296 3314 499 Missing Items: 7685 4 3 Street Lights , eesz xrer `& 16 Fire Hydrants a 7355 38D2 E39 Lawn Areas r :7644 wig 427 REQLIIREO.STfiEI:7TREES Play Areas a r4na x233 424 LEFT IN PLACE Play Structures s aria sea. 521 Project Sites Submitted Swop MIPoolss � r1 345 Sport Courts is ers2 LAM a4a Garden Plot I] 9332 3753 sat Ip MT 3623 IN During Testimony at thew ^ - ►. 4-3 TREE.. 1 4.3 TREES f February 6th, 2012 Hearing ' 4 3.6 REFS _� '� ' Oar 48, ,is ' 4.3 TREES =. F �� Over Plant.d 2 A I 1 e 4 T dr _ 1 5.3 TREES Edgewood 1 N Over Planter_ 43 TREES yI •;; a , :. Over Planta 1 "a '`- ,.. -,) +- US F `,•`, .rr 'a - J" 4.2 EES n0 3.5 TREES L d e V V o o d 2 P ' ! h l@ u, LL �'�1111:i; ,,- Over Planted. g 43f555 ', `\; '''I-- - A. I. 1 Durr Planta •• -$� ...1, IL 3.4 TREES •— '' '_ 15 h 4,-4,., Over Planted 4.3 THLES .. ,7 . .l' Over Plcr,_d nK- -- 144 34 TREES `.-..-,,� ,"P,_r p, ,�+ .fix- Over Planted ,il , 1 5.4 TREE t U y 3' ' f Doesn't W i OMBrt?y9' v 1 > — Edgewood 1— Edgewood 2 CITY OF T I G A RD Ergan..... ...... ..,... w, s.... 1 ..„......_....„N. ,. RIMS OIMPTIR IIMItt .10.11119+ LW 2 t2t 12 20111 . 1 52016 OM .11,2 MS r m. m me • — — _ .2220112/12221212212222.22arr122 — --waRatacklt5k, -..-------.• . f 7.-_,-77. '''&-1.it,'' '''--, 7''''' Taa=kkanuri.A.FraucrirAmk.jaZN: (7----- . _ -----\-\, .. ........ ...,,, .....,... . 1 ,....„..........,......,..., I •4 ,` REW12212212120412 MET SOW WAR 2122,22 IMP . ———- —..- - .0411.11 2 ; iri i IL" 1088 UM me mm tem me ma me 1129 3.120 OW EMINEIIIIRM EMU.PIA.inif . —---..- -. 1 o i, i \• _—:„..,„ __ _—____),itio • • 1.• :.• i n L_LJ L.D TREE CANOPY TABLE _ P.n.I-12.[V1022 liVa fle,C.,.'a'es 221 "'"'Ill7'tZ"'"'17T'''''''9V•T''' la, 2,...2252. d2 1 OM ci 32.2.4 , 1.2 2222121221 Ow 1 02 c l 2:1.2:1 22 '..' 1 ......---- 1 LIB 2. 1,2 WM Wer1.2, •,.P., ,.., I ,. ',:::; • .,6 4-0,, me., 1 .i--.—.7 --I RASP EAPPARAY 4 3 TREES MEV REM OP1114ASRIARP D P,K_ EAR AAAFRAP...et laite ...Fr 0421., ,212222 1-2., 122.1 2242 Fr C.1,52 61 4,0 ,:2s ,,,,n, 2,,,,,,, ,,,,,,., y.,,,„„.„, „., 122:r Over Pte.-t•, 2 I.' 1 '' •' 1 3 I :_ - -7:Li .-..!.,. r: vale 'TY. ( rdp,:e; :440.4 , 4 3 TREES Over etent a , 1 ..— 'k 6r1,I.or 142WP' _ rM CD O '.—- -----....- N A wocdir-" I - Over Flom d • 6 iLYorhitil:: '-' ' 1 i' • - , f , MAE P-VD MT ,1 •= rs4 1771-.9-,' i 4.4 ,..., . me.. . XP AMA 3DISICNS ....8 . ,ng A.... XX Nou yr. 4 _ SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN PREPARED FOR EDGEWOOD NO.1 T1GARID OREGON 1 7 I CITY OF TIGARD 1 fi 1 ------ ---------L„.. riop 7 76-7'-- •— 77 j ; ',ZOO , ,,,,-0,,•,, — i 17 , 16 I 15 !t 14 i 13 j t t i I I ll''''' -- I _1 :._. . - .----. -A,., TRACT"B" II . ...allitrall:MCSX'="'"" tit-Ve.".•=. •I'.-• janwl*.1444/t ' ertegfr4 '' \ '''' ,,,tall; 1 it: II . 1 4,1 .4.00-.Trze....,,a•raftmew......smamase.,....w.-..4111\ .MM •ito,.., --------- ---• •••'rjr," - 00, ;3••.`'''''''''' ' i 1 7-ir-:-'—' '''''''''' '''''.-'' ''''• .•'2---•- ' • ''''' 1, ,,A, ,.,,,,,v,,,,,- I:',.',111101; 7 ! • • Rof, r mei) i 4°9#., \ ! (1/1)1] —„,— - , 1 - , —___ • 1 . 1 a 1 I "GERTZ HOMES AT EDGEWOOD" "MCDONALD WOODS" 1, r , 1 , Fdi t C Ci ,t g E I El 10 V C . ......... ....,V ... f.. .... . ...a.00 uktum coax.Lamm el,4‘.'e''.-'6.4.,t.N'' 744°Co•.r''Pr4 .04.1A%-tf'wpo 1 10.10.1011VII,1.11113 11.411.41S YR 9-CIL OS 511PM ........' ... .. reil- ,5 NMI •-oo : L,,...-„,..w.----•4.,:t-••• ."4 W/.4 mm ,... ma w Lpr WO 1--— LOT 1 IM. NW. ar: ri iii,1 IA t _.- -E7 •-mg ---E1+' 'l, 11 -s — 192,d11.11 — 1,.. AV WINER XX RENSIOle EDGEWOOD NO.2 SITE TREE CANOPY PLAN PREPAFED FOR svEr TIGARD OREGON 1 OF 1 CITY O F TIGARD � SSU2 � Minimum Preservation CITY OF TIGARD Issue 6 Tree/Utility Conflicts CITY OF TIGARD i , STFEET tib ' . EVEHGHE N LANE C•00:60 Ilininllanr WM 910130 OM,40110110. moon 4,i II _ IGOD - (---- ----,,,, • •• A •. • • •.. • LIMO As . 1 :00.t' + LOT antra' r 1 '....•NI O r X10' y Al t o� > \.,...T1 V ,, f , e' 1\ --0.0.°400.0,00. - __ omc aw / % e '. ,V ., / . ‘„,,k •r.,::,::':•:i:•-.•:•:•:•\:\:::. , W.I.63 • ny friar....,. f , ._ R v `f ... .� J t! 6 j li 66.6,,..,6 nar / ; 13,171 SFaria...�.-o,.., pi-w•ta-.mit #"•Ciet EXAMPLE TREE `^�.� r • r f� rr aa °'" EVERGREEN HEIGHTS PARTITION El ioo, CANOPY SITE PLAN AI3 L FM 190 SW 14/1H ST. FOR SINGE LOT m.E ,u � dao OREGON la CITY O F TIGARD • - - . • ' .-. . . . . . .. . _ . . . . .. .. • _ . Issue. . . . . 7 - --- . , .• . . .. ... : . ... .. ., , .. -.. . • . . _. .. . .... • • Hazard Trees CITY O F TIGARD • •;•.: • . • . . •:• .•:•:.*:••••••••T • • • u. • ,• :•• •. ..• T '•• : : . • • Effect„.-of.- Tree roves roe y..Va u ,..„•••••••„,i...•_:•• ••:•:-•-•: • • , ••. ..• : • • . • •::. •... • : • . .... ... . • • •• . • • . . . . . . . ..„ • . . ..... • •• • • . . •. • C I T Y O F TIGARD • Issue 9 Updating the Tree. Canopy_ Fee •• CITY O F TIGARD . • rt4 . t i . Issue • i : •: i..Fn Deed: RestrictionsorPro ected .Tr s • • . • • • . C I T Y O F TIGARD • Summary 10/ '' City of Tigard e _ TIGARD Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director Re: Annual Report to Council and Planning Commission Goals for 2012 Date: February 24, 2012 At the March 20, 2012 City Council meeting, the Planning Commission will present its Annual Report in the form of an update on its 2011 Goals, and the Planning Commission 2012 Goals. In addition, the Planning Commission will also report on its first year as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) for land use matters, a responsibility delegated to the Planning Commission by the City Council late in November 2010. In order to complete the Council Agenda Item Summary on March 6, when it is due, the Planning Commission needs to complete its review and revision of the Annual Report and 2012 Goals at the March 5 meeting. Attached are: • Drafts of the Commission's Annual Report, including the CCI update, in strikethrough and clean copy; and • Revised drafts of the 2012 Planning Commission Goals, reflecting input received via email, in strikethrough and clean copy. A draft outline for the presentation of the annual report and 2012 goals is provided below. During the discussion on March 5, the commissioners should confirm or revise the outline, may want to flesh out some details for each section, and decide on presenters as well. Draft Outline for Presentation at Joint Meeting with City Council: 1. Introduce commissioners and alternates 2. Review of progress on Planning Commission 2011 Goals 3. Discuss revision to bylaws and related TMC amendments 4. Discuss CCI activities 5. Present and discuss 2012 Planning Commission Goals 6. Other topics council may wish to raise TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 2012 GOALS 1) Support achievement of City Council 2012 Goals by: Excerpt from 2012 Tigard City Council Goals a) completing needed action in a timely manner and 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects providing thoughtful recommendations on planning a. Implement the Comprehensive Plan matters,including: through code revisions,including: Urban Forestry Code Revisions (2°d Quarter i. Tree code. 2012); ii. Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan use policies and designations Implementation actions; and identifying priorities for Regulatory Improvement Initiative and other high-capacity transit(HCT) station location alternatives by code amendment efforts; mid-2012. Downtown Circulation Plan; 1. Determine the economic River Terrace Community Plan; development Periodic Review Housing/Population deopmen , t development plan,city Projections; and policies and regulations Periodic Review Public Facilities Plan. needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an b) continuing to focus on the Tigard Triangle HCT station location. including: Help define/refine the project scope for a Tigard Triangle Master Plan (3rd Quarter 2012) that builds on the Triangle's HCT Land Use Plan station area locations and includes work elements to improve and protect Tigard's natural and built environment as assets that attract economic development opportunities_and support the city's interests in the SW Corridor Plan. Provide input on a funding mechanism for transportation infrastructure improvements such as an area specific System Development Charge. 2) Provide timely and legally defensible decisions on assigned land use reviews and appeals (ongoing). 3) Continue to pursue outreach to Planning Commissions in adjoining cities,particularly those with shared interests in High Capacity Transit, economic development and urbanization issues. 4) As resources permit, enhance the commission's technical knowledge on topics such as legal issues,infill/redevelopment challenges, demographic trends, sustainability/LEED, builder/developer needs through: a. One major presentation/event each year. b. Three minor presentations/events each year. 2011 ANNUAL REPORT ON TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS AND COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Progress Report on 2011 Planning Commission Goals 1) Support achievement of City Council Goal 1- Implement the Comprehensive Plan: a) Complete needed action in a timely manner and providing thoughtful recommendations on planning matters,including: Economic Opportunities Analysis (Commission action 2' Quarter 2011) Planning Commission completed its recommendation to council on April 4, 2011. Urban Forestry Code Revisions (Commission action 1St Quarter 2012); Planning Commission held a first hearing on Feb 6, 2012 and expects to complete their review process on April 16, 2012. High Capacity Transit (HCT) Land Use Plan (Commission action 1St Quarter 2012); Planning Commission will participate in ajoint meeting with City Council on May 15, 2012 to hear the consultant's presentation of the final report. Regulatory Improvement Initiative (Commission action on second package 3rd Quarter 2011); Work on this project has been delayed due to resource limitations. Downtown Circulation Plan (Commission action 4`'' Quarter 2011); Work on this project has been delayed due to resource limitations. Greenway Trails Master Plan (Commission action 2' Quarter 2011); and Planning Commission completed its recommendation to council on June 20, 2011. Periodic Review Housing/Population Projections (Commission action 4th Quarter 2011). Work on this project was delayed due to resource limitations and is just getting underway. b) Focus on the Tigard Triangle: Undertake a visioning workshop that builds on the Triangle's HCT Land Use Plan station area locations and typologies (3rd Quarter 2011); On June 6, 2011 Planning Commission held a special workshop to discuss the outcomes of the HCI Land Use Plan Design Workshop as they related to the Tigard Triangle and provided additional input and feedback to the project staff and consultant team. On Sept 19, 2011 the Planning Commission made an extensive site visit of the Tigard Triangle, making numerous stops to discuss issues and provide feedback to staff and the project consultants. Provide input on a funding mechanism for transportation infrastructure improvements such as an area specific System Development Charge (4`h Quarter 2011); and Work on this project has been delayed due to resource limitations. Help define/refine the project scope for a Tigard Triangle Master Plan (2nd Quarter 2012). This work is still underpay and will likely be completed in the 3'd quarter 2012. 2) Provide timely and legally defensible decisions on assigned land use reviews and appeals (ongoing). In addition to the items noted above, the Planning Commission took action on the following land use matters: Approved Planned Development Review(PDR 2010-00002)and Minor Land Partition (MT P 2010- 00002)for Red Rock Center on Jan 3, 2011. Approved Minor Modification of Planned Development Review for White Oak Village Subdivision (PDR 2011-00001) on March 7, 2011. Recommended City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPS 2011-00001)and Zoning Map Amendment(ZON 2011-00001) on May 16, 2011. Approved Planned Development Review(PDR 2011-00002)for Black Rock Coffee Shop on June 20, 2011. 3) Initiate outreach to Planning Commissions in adjoining cities, particularly those with shared interests in High Capacity Transit, economic development and urbanization issues. a) By July 1, each commissioner will begin receiving meeting notices for at least one other city's Planning Commission and will attend at least one meeting per year. Work on this goal is still underpay. 4) Enhance the Commission's technical knowledge on topics such as legal issues, infill/redevelopment challenges, demographic trends, sustainability/LEED, builder/developer needs through: a) One major presentation/event each year b) Three minor presentations/events each year On Feb 28, 2011, the Planning Commission hosted a presentation on Successful Economic Development. Due to resources limitations, other events have not been scheduled. In addition to the activities and actions described above, the Planning Commission completed a comprehensive revision of its bylaws on February 6, 2012 to conform them to the Model Bylaws and has forwarded those to the City Council with a recommendation to adopt them. The commission also reviewed Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) chapter 2.08 to assure consistency between the TMC and the commission's recommended bylaws and has forwarded suggested revisions to that chapter as well. Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) Activities In November 2010, City Council passed Resolution 10-62 which appointed the Planning Commission as the state required Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) for land use planning related matters. During the 16 month period November 2010 through February 2012 the Planning Commission has performed the following tasks related to these new responsibilities: On November 15, 2010 received training on the purpose of the CCI and responsibilities associated with the assignment. On February 7,2011 received a presentation on the Public Involvement for the High Capacity Land Use Plan and provided feedback and suggestion for its implementation. During the remainder of 2012 the Planning Commissioner expects to perform the following functions related to its role as the CCI for land use matters: Receive post-project reports on the public involvement plans for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions and High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan. Receive presentations of the public involvement plans for new long range planning projects that are anticipated to begin in the next several months. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 5,2012 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh 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 Vice President Anderson Commissioner Fitzgerald Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Alt. Commissioner Armstrong Alt. Commissioner Miller Absent: Commissioner Ryan; Commissioner Doherty Staff Present: Susan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Tom McGuire,Principal Planner;Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Also Present: Keith Jehnke, Principal at AKS Engineering; Kirsti Hauswald, Landscape Designer and accredited professional at AKS Engineering; Councilor Woodard, Council Liaison to the Planning Commission; Councilor Buehner, President of the Tigard City Council COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSIDER MINUTES February 6 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 6 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. • PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 6 REOPENED URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT: CPA2011-00004/ DCA2011-00002 1:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\030512-PH-UFCR Continued\tpc 030512 znInutes.docx Page 1 of 4 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 reopened the public hearing. He noted that the public testimony portion of the meeting was closed; no public testimony would be taken at this time. This would be more of a workshop meeting - more for the benefit of the Planning Commission. The intent is for the commission to have good interactive discussion with staff over the material that had been sent to them. They would end the evening by giving staff any further information they might want to receive and will come back to a regular continuation of this hearing on April 16. At that meeting they will reopen public testimony; deliberate; and make a recommendation to the City Council. Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, gave an overview of the evening. This would be a fairly informal meeting. She informed them that there will be an amendments document presented at the April 16 hearing that will include all the amendment requests that they'd received in testimony so far. Susan explained what would be done tonight. Todd Prager, Associate Planner and City Arborist, will go over the 10 issues that had been raised for discussion at the last meeting. They would stop and talk about each one. The conversations would be captured on the chart pack so that by the end of the evening staff will have a pretty good idea of what the commissioners thoughts are on all of the issues and how they are wanting staff to move forward on each of the ten issues. When that's done, they will open it up to any other possible issues that were concerning them. Susan introduced staff and their area of expertise. She also introduced the visitors present. STAFF REPORT Todd Prager gave a presentation. He spoke about the issues that had been raised and would be addressed tonight: 1. Tree Canopy vs. Tree Count 2. Balancing Tree Canopy and Open Space 3. Species Selection 4. Canopy Averaging 5. Minimum Preservation 6. Tree/Utility Conflicts 7. Hazard Trees (how they will be addressed by the draft code) 8. Effect of Tree Groves on Property Values 9. Updating the Tree Canopy fee 10. Filing Deed Restrictions for Protected Trees I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\030512-PH-UPC Continued\tpc 030512 minutcs.docz Page 2 of 4 He noted that the first 5 issues are the main issues and went over the memorandum that contained the different issues and staff's discussion and responses. After considerable discussion, the consensus is below: 1. Tree Canopy vs. Tree Count— They are good with the canopy approach. 2. Balancing Tree Canopy and Open Space— They are good with the proposed canopy required tiers. 3. Species Selection— They would like a natives incentive amendment 4. Canopy Averaging— They would like an amendment with alternative minimum lot standard canopy. 5. Minimum Preservation—No changes 6. Tree/Utility Conflicts—No changes 7. Hazard Trees (how they will be addressed by the draft code) —No changes 8. Effect of Tree Groves on Property Values—No changes 9. Updating the Tree Canopy fee—No changes 10. Filing Deed Restrictions for Protected Trees—No changes Other questions/comments/concerns for staff? There were no other questions or concerns—just a comment that staff had done a great job and the commissioners felt more enlightened after this meeting. Susan summarized what would take place next: Staff has been preparing an amendments document that contains all of the requested amendments that have come in. The commissioners will be getting that document on April 16. They will have it two weekends in advance because it will most likely be a sizeable amount of material. The meeting on April 16 will be a public hearing for testimony. Staff's recommendation is that the commission constrains the public testimony to the amendment items. MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, and seconded by Commissioner Shavey: "I move to continue the hearing until the time certain, April 16." The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED — 7 minute break BRIEFING —ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL & 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS Susan Hartnett referred to a memo the commissioners had received in their packets on Planning Commission goals and presentation of goals for 2012. She reminded them that the Planning Commission has a dual role as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\030512-PH-UFCR Continued\tpc 030512 minutex.docs Page 3 of 4 pertaining to land-use matters. As part of that charge from council, they're asked to report back to council on those activities; so that was added to the list of possible things to talk with council about. There was discussion about the 2011 Annual Report on the Planning Commission goals and Committee for Citizen Involvement Activities. Susan noted that, from the email dialog, it appeared the commissioners were pretty much satisfied with it as it was presented in their packets. She said there was some discussion about the draft of the 2012 goals. She would like to have a final decision on both the annual report and the goals because they need to be attached to the Agenda Item Summary due the following day. After some conversation, it was decided that the commissioners were good with the annual report on goals and CCI activities. There was discussion about separating the topic of economic development from the Tigard Triangle. They prefer to elevate it to include the entire city rather than just with respect to the Tigard Triangle. It was decided to add a standalone sentence regarding economic development which would read "Seeking economic development opportunities that continue to improve and protect Tigard's natural and built environment as sustainable assets." They had a short discussion as to who would take on some of the different aspects of the upcoming joint Planning Commission / City Council meeting on March 20. There was some conversation about the preference of the commission to meet with the City Council on substantive issues — structured around a topic —rather than a formal bi-annual meeting; they prefer workshop formats. OTHER BUSINESS —None ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Cinmission Secretary 4 /10 ATT � fsident Day- alsh` lir I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\030512-PH-UFCR Continued\tpc 030512 minute,-docx Page 4 of 4