Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-01-28 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Minutes January 28, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Chair Scott Rubel called the Monday, January 28, 2002 meeting of the Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force to order at approximately 7:00 PM in the Human Resources Conference Room of City Hall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Task Force members present were Chair Rubel, Michael Buck, David Cory, Terrence P. Flanagan, Lou Jordan, Richard Pross, Laura Rybowiak and May Wiley. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; and Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist. II. REGULAR BUSINESS Initiate Current Code Review The Task Force members discussed the January 9, 2002, staff memorandum, “Tree Code Changes,” which suggested changes to the text of the Code and outlined issues to be addressed by the Task Force. Staff suggested that the Task Force consider what degree of pruning constituted tree removal. Staff believes that pruning becomes “removal” at a point where the extent of the pruning would cross the threshold set forth in the Tree Cutting Ordinance, where a tree-cutting permit was required for removal of a limb that was greater than 3 inches in diameter or removal of 50% of the canopy. They explained that it was difficult for staff to determine what the original size of the canopy would have been and an arborist might conclude that only 48% of the canopy had been removed. They said that they advised inquiring citizens about the requirements of the Tree Code, and that “some selected pruning” was allowed without a permit. Ms. Ingalls presented some of the materials the City provided to the publics that were related to pruning. The Task Force members observed that the species of tree made a difference in how severely a tree could be pruned and still thrive. They suggested that the information Ms. Ingalls presented be published in Hello LO! Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the group that City Code provisions superceded any private agreements that may affect homeowners association through private CC&Rs. Task Force members suggested that the Tree Code should use terms, such as “vista pruning” as they had been defined in the National Standards Institute (NASI) Manual. The Task Force members observed a City brochure reflected community sentiment that “One of the benefits of living in Lake Oswego is the abundance of trees in the City.” City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 1 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 They emphasized that it would be helpful for them to become aware of the reasons for past changes in the Tree Code. Staff agreed to provide them with a background summary describing changes in the Tree Code since the first tree ordinance was adopted in 1971. They related that the Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB) had advised the City Council after the most recent changes in the Tree Code that the criterion that allowed tree removal for “landscaping purposes” was too subjective and not an appropriate justification for removal. They reported that NRAB members had discussed whether the regulations should be species-specific and whether particular species and/or the largest sized trees should be afforded the greatest protection. They recalled that the Council had created the Tree Task Force in response to staff and NRAB concerns. The group reviewed the Purpose and Definitions sections of the draft ordinance. They suggested that under “Purpose” the word “preventative” should be replaced by the word “preventive.” They suggested that the definition of “Caliper Inch” would best refer to Pi as “approximately 3.14” instead of “approximately 3.14159.” Staff explained that an “Alternative Site Plan” was a plan showing an alternative location (within the setbacks) where a building footprint could be repositioned in order to avoid impacting trees. They explained that the City’s current practice was to wait, and issue the tree-cutting permit for development purposes simultaneously with the building permit in order to prevent situations where the development was changed or canceled, but the trees had been cut. A participant asked about how a proposed retirement home project on the corner of Carman and Parkview Drives would impact the trees on the site. Mr. Pishvaie reported that the site contained a RC District and that the Sensitive Lands Ordinance required that 50% of the grove to be protected. He confirmed the site’s trees had been professionally assessed, and the applicant had made significant modifications to the grading and site plans to better protect trees on the north portion of the site from the proposed building and parking, but he acknowledged that a large number of trees, including some large oak trees, would be removed. He clarified for the group that the RC District protection area was calculated in terms of square feet, and not in terms of the number of trees. For example, if the tree grove was 10,000 square feet in area, then 5,000 square feet of the grove was to be protected. Which area of the grove was to be protected depended upon several factors, including slopes, size of trees, and abutting resources. He said that staff and the developer had negotiated which trees outside of the protected tree grove were to also be protected. He confirmed the site was in the R-10 zone. He noted that developers enter the application discussions with staff with plans to build at maximum density, but staff generally suggest a plan that they believed would best maximize protection of a resource. He acknowledged that in zones where land was required to be developed at 80% of maximum density, the existence of protected resources could push a development into a smaller building area that would require smaller lots. A Task Force member related his experience with projects where the trees to be preserved had already been selected before he began his work. He recalled instances where trees were left in parking lots where they were certain not to thrive (e.g., Centerpointes 2 and 3). He stressed that tree professionals should be consulted at City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 2 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 an early stage of the planning process. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the City typically required an applicant to provide an arborist’s report when trees were to be removed for large projects. He acknowledged that the City needed to ensure there was a better assessment of which trees should be removed. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the group that when trees were proposed to be removed for “landscaping purposes” it was typical for a staff member to visit the site, review the applicant’s plan and propose alternatives. He said that it was essentially a matter of educating the public on the importance of protecting trees and encouraging them to consider how modifying their plan would protect trees. A Task Force member advised that it was more difficult for mature trees to adjust to changes in their environment. Staff suggested that the group postpone their discussion of landscape purpose until later on. The participants then discussed the definition “caliper inch,” and one suggested the definition should be eliminated because caliper was measured at different elevations above grade for different sizes of trees. He explained that at less than 6-inch DBH, the measurement was taken at 18-inches; and for less than 4-inch DBH, the measurement was taken at 6 inches. Another participant advised that the term “diameter tape” should replace the word “calipers.” The Task Force distinguished between the “crown” – an individual tree’s foliage - and the “canopy” - the total of all the crowns of trees within the community. They also discussed whether “Conifer Tree” and “Deciduous Tree” were appropriate terms to be used in the Code. One participant explained that not all evergreens were conifers and all deciduous trees were not non-conifers. Staff explained that they used the term “conifer” to denote evergreen, and it was important to describe types of trees in layman’s terms so most people could understand Code provisions. The Task Force agreed that the terms “evergreen cone-bearing tree” and “trees with foliage that falls” would be appropriate to use. One member observed that “Diseased Tree” was not a good term to include, because every tree could be found to have something wrong with it. Ms. Ingalls advised that the City no longer issued a diseased tree permit. She also advised that some terms used in the Code were defined in other sections of the City’s Code, such as in the Zoning Code and Development Code. The Task Force suggested that in the definition, “Diameter at breast height or DBH,” the language “the diameter of the trunk” and the word “maximum” were unnecessary and should be removed. One member observed that the definition “dripline” should be clarified by addition of language to indicate that the vertical line from the tips of branches to the ground would form a shape on the ground. He indicated he was concerned that a lone tree that had grown into a “lollipop” shape, while struggling for light in what was once a densely treed grove would have a very small dripline and heavy equipment operators would think they could drive that equipment within four or five feet of the trunk because that was the extent of the crown and dripline. Staff clarified that the Code provided that the tree protection area was at the dripline or 15- feet, from the truck whichever was greater. Mr. Rubel suggested that it would be helpful to include a diagram with the definition of “dripline.” Staff agreed to consult the Engineering staff about the definitions of “Erosion,” “Soil stability,” “Silt City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 3 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 Migration,” and “Surface water.” They also agreed to research the definition of “Forked Tree Trunk Diameter” in the 1995 NSI A-300 Manual. Mr. Pishvaie asked what was an appropriate threshold for describing “Topping.” He recalled that arborists testifying before the Development Review Commission (DRC) had advised that no tree could take more than 30-35% root pruning. He recalled an instance where utility trenching had damaged enough of a tree’s roots to make it a hazard tree. He suggested there might be a need to set different thresholds for different features of a tree, such as its crown, trunk and roots. He noted that the “removal” threshold of 50% referred to all parts of the tree. A participant advised that it was a challenge to set thresholds, because tree care science allowed a lot of exceptions. He said that 20% cutting of some trees could cause them to die. The Task Force suggested that the first sentence in the definition of “removal” should be changed to read: “Removal means to cut down a tree or to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline and/or die or become hazardous.” The Task Force members then reviewed Hazard Tree Removal Permit language (see page 7 of the draft Code). They observed that paragraph (4)(a) defined a hazard tree as “a tree that is cracked, split, leaning or physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property.” The Task Force members agreed this definition should be moved to the definitions section of the Tree Code. They also agreed that the definitions of RP and RC Districts should be included in the definitions section. A participant indicated his concern that an applicant might have to hire an arborist to confirm that a tree was a hazard. Staff suggested the participants wait to discuss this permit until a later meeting when they would have more time to do so. The members advised that the term “topping” was a layman’s term, and the correct term was defined in the NSI manual as a “heading cut.” Several participants agreed that it was not appropriate to set a threshold of 3 inches on limbs, because the impact of that cut would be different for different locations on a tree and for different species of trees. They confirmed for staff that they desired the Tree Code to refer to NSI Standards. Staff pointed out that the current definition of “tree” and the current threshold for a Type I permit was a tree with a diameter of 5 inches or greater. They reported that the City had experienced some public pressure to change the threshold to 7 inches. Different Task Force members observed that type of change would remove a lot of nice trees, such as weeping maples, from consideration; that there were circumstances where a very old tree could be very small; that the Code had evolved for the purpose of maintaining the City’s tree canopy and not individual trees; and that a change to 7- inches would reduce the number of required tree removal permits, because 5-inch trees would not fit the definition of “tree.” Staff clarified that they did not know how many permits would have been eliminated by a change to 7-inches. They advised that a Type I permit was currently required for removal of trees between 5 and 10 inches in diameter, and allowed removal of up to two trees per year; and a Type II permit was required for removal of trees greater than 10 inches in diameter or more than two trees per year in a residential area or for all tress on commercial or industrial sites. City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 4 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 The Task Force observed that small diameter trees composed a significant percentage of the City’s tree canopy. They wondered how the difference in impact of a loss of trees in the 7 to 10 inch range, and a loss of trees in the 5 to 7 inch range could be calculated. After staff explained the City typically accepted a property owner’s measurement for Type I permits and issued an over-the-counter permit, the Task Force members wondered how accurate those measurements were. Staff reported that when they had visited sites for removal of trees during recent months they had found that almost 80% of owners’ measurements were incorrect, perhaps because the applicants wanted to avoid the Type II permit process. Someone suggested that applicants be required to bring in a string cut to the diameter of a tree when they applied for its removal. Staff also confirmed that they often received inquiries from neighbors when they heard a tree being cut. They advised that no sign was required for Type I permits. Ms. Ingalls recalled receiving a call that a “gorgeous” tree along Quarry Road was being cut. She said staff had reviewed permit records and found a permit to remove dead trees, with a photograph of a tree with no needles on its branches and another tree that only had one branch with needles, but none on the rest of the tree. Staff had concluded the trees were “gorgeous” dead trees. A Task Force participant observed that an owner could apply for a Type I permit on Friday, and cut the tree over the weekend, when the tree might actually be the size that would require a Type II permit. Another advised that the natural process of creating a forest meant that many small seedlings and small trees would never grow to be very large trees because the resource could not carry them. He advised that it was just as important to count the number of trees not being cut, as well as the number that were cut. The Task Force advised that the percentage of a community’s tree canopy could be measured using aerial photographs. Mr. Pishvaie related that during the City’s Sensitive Lands Overlay inventory process, 800 City lots had been reviewed and designated as either RC or RP Districts and most of them had an associated tree grove. However, he advised that there were large areas of canopy that had not yet been inventoried and the City would be required by state regulations to inventory them in the next few years. The Task Force members suggested that the definition “Tree Protection Zone” should read “Tree and Root Protection Zone.” One participant held that the City should prohibit certain species of trees, such as Lombardy poplars, in “windbreaks.” Identify key issues for consideration and discussion Staff agreed to update the Task Force Agenda for the next meeting to include discussion items they still needed to address. They also agreed to provide data collected from year 2000 retroactive permits (those permits issued after a violation/citation) at the next meeting. III. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting dates were to be February 12, February 25 and March 18, 2002. There being no other business, Chair Rubel adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 5 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 6 of 6 Meeting of January 28, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Sandy Ingalls Code Enforcement Specialist L:/treecodereviewtaskforce /minutes/01-28-02.doc