The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 04/10/2000CITY OF TIGARD Community Devefopment ShapingA (Better Community CITY. OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER APRIL 10, 2000 - 7:00 PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 COOK PARK EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 2000-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 2000-00003 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Conditional Use Approval to expand and improve Cook Park in accordance with the approved Cook Park Master Plan. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres and will include 4. Little league baseball fields north of the existing developed portion of the park, on the east side of SW 92"d Avenue. The improvements include several structures accessory to the park, a parking lot and trails. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for alteration and development in the 100-year floodplain and Water Resources Overlay review for alteration and development in areas regulated by the Water Resources Overlay standards. The proposal includes the filling of a man-made drainage ditch and alteration of some wetlands for an emergency access drive/pedestrian pathway. The proposal also involves the creation of wetlands as part of mitigation required by DSUUS Army Corps of Engineers permits approval. LOCATION: Within and north of the existing Cook Park. WCTM 2S1 14A0, Tax Lot 1500; 2S114DO, Tax Lots 101 and 50 I; and 2S 114AC, Tax Lot 700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 and R-12. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.705, 18.145, 18.765, 18.775, 18.190, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING's OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 4110/2000 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • AGENDA ITEM NO. C~ - CITY OF TIGARD X HEARINGS OFFICER CITYOFTIGARD Community Devefopment Shaping q Better Community Ill SIGN-IN SNEET Ill NOTICE: ALL PERSON DESIRING TO SPEAK )N ANY ITEM MUST SIGN TNEIR NAME AND RECORD TNEIR ADDRESS I T.......... ..JPlease PRINT Legibly I PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) --------T OPPONENT _ (Against the proposal) [PrlntName/Addre P&AIIIJadool (Print Name/Address/BpaAf6fladen) 1 f I"Y Name: ~OD l !C. K 1.C Ins Name: ~,1P.Cn e_ P~Y1 Address- Llfi" C-4 Address: sW P ( 0e.~r(2100Ck Cit S#aie: ok a~ Cit State: Zio ~°l~ Name: r 1411 CA ri me: V ~s Address: 1 l Str/ Q'' ~ Address: oOt, -5-u) -R c, ct LP, *V~Tk_j I,.,-C/ State: ) Zio: P22! ~itv State: Zi9: q -7 _2,,~_q Name: eArwe~ Name. Address: e;w 11 flf1+-A\g Address City: State: Zio: City: State: Zio: g1VA- Name: ~G~►~l fs` u'- . Name: M PMNAa4-2 Address: Address: fln O qW 9'5111- f L- 007 Citv: 17A 45t State: Zio: City _VT M State: Zi07 1 ( ! hApattylmasterslsigninpc. /.t ~w ' 30 4 10 5W eu~~~ q q77~~~ • CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER M SIGN-IN SNEET (For the proposal) NOTICE: ALL PERSONS 1i ESIRING TO SPEAK O "NY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND RECORD THEIR ADDRESS 0 SHEET..u......u. (Please PRINT Legiblyl PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT WdotName/Addreuft&UH111 tloal 9q Name: 0 ('jl~'12 . IA~£ -l Address: 1 Q sl)u City: n~ no n 0k State- (cr Name! OPPONENT (Against the proposal) CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Sharing A oetter Community' Not Name/AddressMp a Affdiatlool Name: 'F14Y Address: Zio: Q 1~a~ City. State: Zio: C ®ress. ( L.\ _ State Name: ~5 1 Address: ~ City: T I (S rJ te: o Name: Address Name: Ir. R Address: lk 67 Zie~'T~ z_ zU City: t rrnre/ ate: D v Zio: 7 7Z 1 - ~ Name:l_-~ ov b ~ ti Address: 116 b-7 Z S \J0 l 1 Zip-~ 12- y Citv: T-) rm r-d State: 6 A Zip: 97 z-~ ~ J Name: Address: City: State: Zio. City: (ry-~r~. ~am, (moo ~ ~ 5 Z5/P Vu\Id!4~ V1,o.f State: V4,lr Zb: hapattylmastersls 1gninpc. mst P61, q 7 04G 1_1~ 0 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 LegsO Notice Advertising ® City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. a Tigard , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 ° 0 Duplicate Affidavit • Account:.s Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I Nai_hv Snvder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti c[arH -Tna 1 at i n 'Mmes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti Q in the aforesaid county and state; that the Cook Park Expansion Public Hearjnq./CTjP20-D.n-QnQn a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ()NF. successive and consecutive in the following issues: March 23,2000 iLegat mouce TT 9610 i~ J~~ ~ Subscribed and sworn to afore me this 9 `t -rd day of t_Ta rch, 2 0 0 0 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. si9tt sz Ni5ublic for Oregon NOtARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: ~ FAY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT - i The following will be considered by the City of Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday, April 10, 2000, at 7 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accom- panied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP] 2000-00001/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 2000-00003 > COOK PARK EXPANSION < The applicant has requested Conditional Use Approval to expand and im- prove Cook Park in accordance with the approved Cook Park Master Plan. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres and will include 4 little league baseball fields north of the existing developed portion of the park on the east side of SW 92nd Avenue. The improvements include several structures accessory to the park, a parking lot and trails. Sensitive Lands review is requested for alteration and development in the 100-year floodplain and Water Resources overlay review for alteration and develop- ment in areas regulated by the Water Resources overlay standards. The proposal includes the filling of a man-made drainage ditch and alteration of some wetlands for an emergency access drive/pedestrian pathway. The proposal also involves the creation of wetlands as part of mitigation re- quired by DSL/US Army Corps of Engineers permits approval. LOCA- TION: Within and north of the Existing Cook Park. WCTM 2SI 14A0, Tax Lot 1500; 2S 114DO, Tax Lots 101 and 501; and 2S 114AC, Tax Lot 700. ZONE: R-12. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810. - - W_ J- I f _ j7 p 116AA0 IKK 0001 - I 4 SUDJECT TAX ~tTIO III l.~z LOTS INDICATED HASH HAn KS ICI i~ --,ter------- , ~ ~ _ _....__Y/ - . ~J TT9610 - Publish March 23, 2000. - LL CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER APRIL I O, 2000 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13123 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD9 OR 97223 ,,,,,F,,..,<7Wu,<,,.,,..,<,,.,,.,,<,,<,,<,,.,,:,,nini~rrpinvinininrnia,.., , , ,nininrnioinirnrnnicinrn.,,<,,.,,.,,nininrofnrninrornrmnrnnrnroin..,, r.,,.,, ,aininro; r ` AnYone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-1n on the appropriate sign-in sheets. ~G.:✓.✓G:G:'U.YliU/UiU/U/Or0'^'^'"'J/U/U/UiU""'r,~.~,.~jp,,.,~r.,-.,rr~iLYiO/,O/U/U/L'''"""^'i"''O/1T/G"""'""'^'^'^""!O/!J/O/!!/nln/O/O/U/111n/U/d/U/U/C110/OILY/d/n/Cl/U%'r~..r +~~r,/jjUi(J!O/U/O/O/d/07d PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-1772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ➢ Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE I OF 2 411012000 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In t h e matter o f a n application by t h e City of Tigard f o r a ) F I N A L R D LR conditional use permit and sensitive lands review approval ) CUP 2000-00001 to improve and enlarge recreational facilities in Cook Park ) SLR 2000-00003 north of the Tualatin River in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Cook Park playfields) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, City of Tigard, requests approval of a conditional use permit to enlarge Cook Park by 28 acres and to improve the park with several playing fields, accessory structures, parking and trails. The applicant also requests approval of sensitive lands review for development within the Tualatin River floodplain and a Water Resources Overlay district, affecting 1.2 acres of wetlands for an emergency access drive and pedestrian paths and creating 3.6 acres of wetlands. 2. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held a duly noticed public hearing to review the applications on April 10, 2000. City staff recommended the hearings officer approve the applications subject to conditions in a Staff Report dated April 3, 2000 (the "Staff Report"). The applicant and three other witnesses testified in support of the applications. Five persons testified orally and several testified in writing against the applications or with questions and concerns. The hearings officer held open the public record after the hearing to allow the parties to introduce additional testimony and argument. The hearings officer characterizes the principal contested issues in this case as follows: a. Whether the application is complete and, if not, whether missing information is needed to make necessary findings; b. Whether the proposal will result in significant off-site noise or light impacts; c. Whether the wetlands on the site (particularly in the north part of the park) are part of a perennial stream system and/or are hydrologically and/or physically connected to the Tualatin River or are part of a wetland within 75 feet of the Tualatin River and, if so, whether proposed wetland buffers are wide enough to comply with applicable standards; d. Whether mitigation provided for wetland impacts and protection provided for remaining wetlands complies with applicable standards; e. Whether and what extent signage should be permitted in the park; f. Whether conditions of approval can be relied on to achieve compliance, whether or not compliance with such conditions is feasible; and g. To what extent this applicant (i.e., the City of Tigard) should be subject to certain financial and other guarantees commonly required for other applicants. 3. Based on the findings adopted or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the application is sufficiently complete for the hearings officer to make all necessary findings; that proposed development can be conditioned and monitored to ensure it is consistent with applicable standards, including standards regarding noise, light and signage; that the proposed buffers between the remaining wetlands and development do or will comply with applicable standards; that mitigation for wetland impacts will comply with applicable standards; and that enforcement of conditions of approval is feasible based on substantial evidence in the record. Therefore the hearings officer approves the applications, subject to conditions of approval. 0 • B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer physically received and inspected the casefile in this matter and received testimony at the public hearing about this application on April 10, 2000. All exhibits and records of testimony have been filed with the Planning Division, Tigard Community Development Department. The hearings officer announced at the beginning of the hearing the rights of persons with an interest in the matter, including the right to request that the hearings officer continue the hearing or hold open the public record, the duty of those persons to testify and to raise all issues to preserve appeal rights, the manner in which the hearing will be conducted,.and the applicable approval standards. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest, announced he had visited the site in the past, and invited public testimony and inquiries about such matters. 2. At the hearing, city planner Julia Hajduk summarized the Staff Report and the applicable approval criteria. No one else appeared at the hearing. She testified that the wetlands on the north portion of the site are isolated from the Tualatin River, based on the City's wetland invhntory. The south edge of the wetland is roughly 800 feet north of the north bank of the Tualatin River. Although physically connected to the river by a man-made channel, the channel is not identified by the City or the Oregon Division of State Lands ("ODSL") as a wetland. 3. Planner Kirsten Van Loo, engineer Tony Weller and City property manager John Roy testified for the applicant. a. Ms. Van Loo testified that the applicant concurs with the Staff Report with a few exceptions. She described the proposal using a site plan and a recent aerial photograph on which the proposed development was superimposed. She reviewed a wetlands delineation and mitigation plan approved by ODSL and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USCOE"). She testified that the proposed development is based on more accurate topographic and wetland information than was available to the City Council when the Council adopted the master plan for Cook Park. b. Ms. Van Loo argued conditions of approval.44 and 16 aie not necessary, because the City owns the site and will construct the project.' c. She requested clarification of the discussion of phasing pursuant to Community Development Code ("CDC") sections 18.330 and' 18.360 on page 5 of the Staff Report.2 I Proposed condition of approval 14 provides in relevant part as follows: As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be respon- sible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements... Proposed condition of approval 16 provides in relevant part as follows: Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 120 of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 2 CDC 18.360.020.A. requires site development review for a conditional use. Site development review standards are addressed in the Staff Report (section V1.C). A site development plan has an initial term of 18 months and can be extended once for up to one year. CDC 18.330.020.D and 18.360.030.E allow phased development, but 'in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without reapplying" for review. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 2 • d. She argued condition of approval 6 can be deleted, because page 5 of the plans submitted with the application identify the only trees to be removed as part of the proposal 3 e. She requested that the hearings officer hold open the record for at least one week to allow the applicant to respond to public testimony. f. Mr. Weller confirmed that the site plan is based on a 1998 aerial photograph and topographic survey that included ground-located features shown on the plan. It is highly accurate. g. He testified the mitigation area shown on the preliminary site plan included with the application to the City is smaller than the area subsequently required by ODSL pursuant to its jurisdiction over wetlands. The final site development plan submitted to the City will reflect the larger mitigation area required by ODSL. He testified that development generally will be separated from delineated wetlands by a minimum 50-foot buffer except at one point adjoining the parking lot and where the access drive/path will cross the wetland. The applicant is mitigating for those impacts to the satisfaction of the agency responsible for regulating such impacts. h. He noted that additional details about mitigation are contained in the ODSL and USCOE permits for the proposed development, copies of which he introduced into the record. He noted the landscape plan included with the application materials shows only the landscaping proposed around the parking areas; the vegetation required in and around the wetlands is described in the ODSL/USCOE permits, including 159 trees the applicant will replant to replace trees that failed to thrive in a former wetland enhancement area in the southeast quadrant of the park. He also noted that the ODSL permit application included alternative layouts for the play fields adjoining the wetland buffers, and final layouts will reflect one of those allowed by the permit. i. He acknowledged that the wetlands along the north edge of the park are hydraulically connected across 92nd Avenue and are part of an interconnected stream and pond system that continues through the wetlands on the site and onto wetlands east of the site. The upland basin that drains into the river through these wetlands and other routes exceeds 100 acres. But he argued the wetlands on the site are not physically connected to the river. j. He noted Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.1 provides for regulation of noise in the City, and section 4 of the park rules address issues of nuisances. He noted use of the park by groups containing more than 24 persons requires a permit from the City. Ms. Van Loo noted the noise regulations impose more stringent standards after 10 PM and before 6 AM (40 dBA rather than the 50 dBA limit allowed at other hours). Noise levels at the park will not exceed permitted levels, because park use ends at dusk, before the stricter standards apply. k. He testified the floodplain and floodway location are shown on the full size drawings of the proposal. The entire site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Tualatin River. 1. Mr. Roy testified about the proposed development. He testified there is a need for additional playing fields. He testified a four-foot high fence forms the far edge of the outfield of the existing little league fields, and the City has allowed team sponsors to display an advertising banner on the fence during the playing season. He testified that sponsorship reduces the cost of team sports to participants, and that allowing sponsors to post a banner makes sponsorship more attractive to them. He testified the City has not identified where or whether it will provide similar fences at the outfield of the proposed ball fields. If such fences are provided, they would be likely 3 Proposed condition of approval 6 required the applicant to: Submit a revised tree plan that clearly shows the location and size of trees proposed to be removed. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 3 i i to be temporary, so they could be removed to allow use of the same area differently configured for soccer. He testified the play fields are intended primarily for youth activities, rather than for adults, to reduce the chance that balls will be hit into the wetland where participants may be tempted to retrieve them. But the fields can be used by anyone if not reserved for another purpose. 4. John Anderson, Gary Stevens and Valerie Westlund testified in suppoit of the proposal. a. Mr. Anderson argued the proposal is an appropriate and effective use existing facilities and land; consistent with past use; acknowledges and responds to the natural resources on the site; reflects considerable public input; and is needed. b. Mr. Stevens argued the proposal provides for recreation and environmental education, and that the issue of wetland buffers was addressed by the City Council when it approved the master plan. c. Ms. Westlund-argued that protection of the wetlands on the site is not as important as it might be, because they are man-made. 5. Chris Counts, Mark Lennartz, Rob Forest, Malcolm Pennington and Karen Harger testified orally against the application or with questions and concerns. Mr. Counts and Mr. Pennington also submitted written testimony. a. Mr. Counts requested that the hearing be continued or that the record be held open to enable him to respond to new evidence by the applicant and to offer new evidence of his own. He argued the application is not complete, because it does not contain certain information required by CDC 18.797.060. He argued there is a perennial stream that flows from the wetlands and uplands west of 92nd Avenue into the wetlands east of 92nd Avenue and beyond, eventually draining into the Tualatin River. He argued that the perennial nature of the stream and the hydraulic and physical link between the wetlands on the north portion of the site and the Tualatin River means that a minimum 75-foot wide buffer is required between the wetlands and any development, based on CDC Table 18.797.1. The applications should be denied, because the proposal will not provide a 75-foot wide buffer. He argued that the site is not suitable for the conditional use permit, as required by CDC 18.330.030, because it includes a sensitive natural habitat area that will be adversely affected by development, at least without adequate buffers and mitigation. He argued the applicant has not shown with enough detail how it will prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on the wetlands. He submitted three pages of photographs and an aerial photograph to illustrate his arguments. b. Mr. Lennartz expressed concern about the impact of additional play fields on the noise generated from the park. He opposed lighting of the play fields, because of the adverse visual impacts of lights and the likelihood that lighting the play fields would increase the duration of their use and the significance of noise generated from the park. He expressed concern about the potential for amplified sound systems for the play fields and about the likelihood people will bring portable amplified sound machines (e.g., boom boxes) to the park, creating nuisance affects for nearby residents. c. Mr. Forest described his daily observations of wildlife in the park. He argued that the plans for the proposal do not sufficiently clearly describe mitigation and do not provide enough mitigation. He disputed the adequacy of a 25-foot wetland buffer. d. Mr. Pennington expressed concern about the adequacy of plans to protect the wetlands. People and their pets will be able to enter into the wetlands and wetland buffers if not fenced securely. He also expressed concern about potential lighting, signage, operational changes at the park (e.g., operating hours) that could increase noise, lights and activities in the park. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001ISLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 4 • i e. Ms. Harger expressed concern that the park rules and City noise regulations are not always promptly enforced when violated now. Increasing activity at the park will not improve the enforcement of rules and regulations without more. 6. City planning manager Dick Bewersdorff testified signs are not permitted'in the underlying R4.5 or R12 zones, based on CDC 18.780.130.A and B.4 He also testified that, whether or not the stream in the north portion of the park is perennial or seasonal, the minimum buffer width required by CDC Table 18.797.1 is 25 feet, because the stream is a "minor'stream" as defined in CDC 18.797.020.A.7. The wetlands in the north park of the park are isolated wetlands, because they are not in the riparian setback for the Tualatin River or a major stream identified in the City Wetland and Riparian Corridor Map. 7. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open for one week for the public to introduce new evidence and/or testimony regarding the applications. The hearings officer held the record open for two additional weeks to allow the applicant to respond to new evidence and testimony offered by the public in the prior week and to file a final argument. During the time that the record remained open, the City received the following exhibits: a. A letter dated April 17 from Mr. Pennington in which he argued the applicant should be required to cross the wetland for the emergency access/pathway at the northeast corner of the site using an elevated bridge rather than a culvert as proposed. He argues this is necessary to minimize impacts to the wetland and to conform the project to its description in the Staff Report. b. A letter dated April 17 and attachments from Mr. Counts in which he argues that the preliminary plans are inadequate, because they do not show the stream in the north part of the park is perennial; that other locations for the play fields should be considered; that the park is prone to abuse; and that perimeter fencing is needed to protect the wetlands. He attached a report from an engineering geologist regarding the existence of the man-made channel near the southeast edge of the park, a copy of a city natural resource inventory map, an editorial, an 1992 letter regarding development of Cook Park generally, a 1996 memo to a former City mayor, and a March, 2000 letter from Unified Sewerage Agency ("USA") to the City regarding the proposal. c. A letter dated April 16 from Mr. and Mrs. Forest in which they argue for a 75- foot wide wetland buffer and more detailed requirements for vegetation to mitigate wetland impacts. They attached a list of birds that can be viewed in the area. d. A letter dated April 24 from Mr. Weller in which he responds to the arguments made by Mr. Pennington, Mr. Counts and Mr. and Mrs. Forest in their post-hearing letters. 8. The public record in this matter closed at 5:00 PM on May 1, 2000. C. D1,W ISSION 1. City staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and sensitive lands review based on the approval criteria identified in section V and on the findings in section VI through VIII of the Staff Report and subject to the conditions in section II of the Staff Report. Although some of those findings were disputed, the hearings officer generally agrees with and adopts and incorporates those findings as his own except as otherwise provided herein. A The hearir)gs. officer notes that temporary signs are permitted in the underlying zones, based on CDC 18.780.130.A.7 and B.7. Based on CDC 18.780.100, one temporary sign per use containing not more than 12 square feet per side could be approved for up to 90 days in any calendar year. Given that the park is a single use, only one, 12-square foot banner is permitted in the park pursuant to this section. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-OOf103 (Cook Park play fields) Page 5 0 • 2. The conditional use permit is subject to the standards in CDC 18.330.030.5 City staff conclude the application complies with those standards. Opponents argue the site is unsuitable for the proposed use considering its size and natural features (e.g., wetlands, a perennial stream, 100- year floodplain and proximity to the Tualatin River) and proximity to homes to the north. a. The hearings officer concludes the site size and dimensions are adequate, and the characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use, not withstanding the presence of natural resources on and abutting the site, because the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use of the land and all required access, parking, landscaping, wetland mitigation area, setbacks and buffers, and proposed activities,6 based on the relevant findings in the Staff Report and the following findings. (1) The principal dispute involving CDC 18.330.030.A.1 and 2 is whether the development area for the playfields and for the parking and vehicle maneuvering area on the east side of 92nd Avenue are setback from the wetlands in the north portion of the site enough to comply with the standard riparian setback and USA water quality buffer standards in CDC 18.797.030.C.2.'7 If the development area complies with CDC 18.797.030.0.2, then the applicant has sustained the burden of proof that the site is large enough to accommodate all of the characteristics in the list above, including wetland buffers, assuming ODSL and USCOE permits do not require more buffer width, which they do not. 5 CDC 18.330.030.A provides a decision regarding a conditional use permit shall be based on the following: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography and natural features; 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. 6 The ODSL permit includes alternative layouts for the play fields abutting the wetland in the north portion of the park; any of these configurations can be accommodated. 7 CDC 18.797.030.C.2 provides that standard riparian setbacks and water quality buffers are in Table 18.797.1: TABLE 18.797.1 RIPARIAN SETBACKS AND WATER QUALITY BUFFERS SIGNIFICANT WATER WR STANDARD USA STANDARD WATER RESOURCE TYPE RIPARIAN SETBACK QUALITY BUFFER Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet Maior streams & associated wetlands 50 feet 25 feet Develoved Subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet Minor streams & adjacent/isolated Not applicable 25 feet wetlands Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-0W011SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 6 (2) Whether the buffer is 25 feet or 75 feet depends on whether the wetlands on the north portion of the site are part of the "Tualatin River or associated wetlands" or an "isolated wetland" for purposes of Table 18.797.1. (A) Mr. Counts attributes significance to whether the stream through the wetland is perennial or seasonal and whether it is mapped as such. He did not explain why this characterization is related to an applicable standard or relevant definition, or why the failure to map the stream as such prevents the hearings officer from making a necessary finding .8 (B) The perennial or seasonal nature of a stream is not relevant to the definitions in CDC 18.797.020. Even if a perennial stream flows east from points north and west of 92nd Avenue through the wetlands on the site and onto the wetlands east of the site before entering the Tualatin River at some point further east, it does not lead logically to a conclusion that the wetlands on this site, or the stream that passes through them, is part of the "Tualatin River or associated wetlands" for purposes of Table 18.797.1. (C) The hearings officer finds the wetland and stream on the site are not part of the Tualatin River, because they are separated from the river by roughly 800 feet and are not within the top-of-bank of the river as shown on relevant City maps and as defined in CDC 18.797.02.A.9. They are part of the 100-year floodplain of the river; not part of the river itself. (D) The hearings officer finds the wetland on the north part of site is not an "associated wetland" of the Tualatin River based on CDC 18.797.020.A.119 The wetland in question is more than 75 feet from the top-of-bank of the river. Whether the stream is perennial and whether it eventually discharges to other wetlands or the river is not relevant. (E) The wetlands in the north portion of the site are "isolated wetlands" for purposes of Table 18.797.1, based on the plain meaning of the words in CDC 18.797.020A.11.c.10 Therefore a water quality buffer of 25 feet is required. The hearings officer finds the applicant provides the requisite 25-foot wide buffer at all points, based on the preliminary site plan and plans in the ODSL permit application. s The hearings officer notes that CDC 18.797.060.B lists the required contents of an application for development in the WR Overlay district. CDC 18.775.094 lists application requirements for sensitive lands review. The preliminary plan and ODSL permit application include all of the information listed in those sections. The application does not include all of the information required in CDC 18.797.060.D. But the hearings officer concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support all necessary findings without such information. 9 CDC 18.797.020.A. I I provides the following relevant definitions: a. A "Significant Wetland" is a wetland, or a significant but non fish-bearing stream, which appears on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map; b. An "Associated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all or part of which is (a) within 75 feet of the Tualatin River top-of-bank, or (b) within 50 feet of any major stream top-of-banic c. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located outside of the riparian setback [i.e., more than 75 feet from the top-of-bank of the river]. to The hearings officer appreciates the testimony advocating greater protection for wetlands on the site, which was sincere and reasoned. But policy is not set on a case-by-case basis. The City is obligated by state law to inventory and assess natural resources as part of a comprehensive planning process and to adopt a program reflecting decisions made in that process about what uses to prohibit or to allow in whole or in part, after considering relevant public and agency input. The Sensitive Lands Review and Water Resources Overlay District chapters of the CDC contain the City's program, and is binding on the hearings officer. The purpose statements in these chapters are not standards. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-OOOOIISLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play, fields) Page 7 • • b. The other principal dispute regarding the conditional use standards involves site size and location as it relates to visual impacts (from signage and lighting) and noise impacts. (1) The hearings officer finds the size of the site, the higher elevation of homes to the north, and the location of the wetlands between the homes to the north and the proposed activity areas in the park help reduce the potential for significant adverse noise impacts. Provided activities in the park occur only between dawn and dusk, the sound of unamplified human voices in the park will not be a significant source of noise to people in homes to the north. (2) Not withstanding the benefits of the site noted above, noise from amplified music or human voices could be significantly adverse to residents of homes to the north. Significant off site noise levels, e.g., noise levels in excess of permissible levels under the applicable regulations of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODW') and corresponding City regulations, should be prohibited. To avoid the potential for such impacts, amplified sound systems generally should not be used at the play fields. For instance, such systems generally should not be used to announce team members or play-by-play coverage or to play music loudly). Individual portable sound systems (e.g., boom boxes and megaphones) can be a nuisance if operated at high volume or for long duration regardless of ODEQ standards. These systems can be regulated under existing park rules against nuisances. (3) Lights capable of illuminating the play fields would significantly change the visual character of the park. The site is not large enough to contain or mitigate those impacts within the site boundaries. Lighting also would increase the hours of operation of the park, increasing the likelihood that lower levels of noise and activity would be significantly adverse to residents of surrounding properties. The applicant did not propose lighting of play fields; in fact, the applicant disclaimed any intention or interest in doing so. To memorialize that disclaimer, the hearings officer finds that a condition of approval should prohibit lighting of the play fields. (4) The temporary sign that City sign regulations allow is so small in contrast to the site size and so distant from off-site viewers that it is not reasonably likely to have a significant adverse impact. The park needs to be operated consistent with City sign regulations." 3. Regulated development in the WR Overlay district is subject to development standards in CDC 18.797.080. In addition to the findings at pages 20-24 in the Staff Report, the hearings officer finds the proposed development complies with those standards based on the following: a. CDC 18.979.080.A requires consideration of alternatives.12 The hearings officer finds that the only means of access to the site from the northeast must cross the wetland, and there is no upland location where the proposed crossing of the wetland can be situated.13 11 Although the hearings officer appreciates that sponsors maybe encouraged to support teams by signage acknowledging that support, they will have to use devices other than a banner on the outfield fence, because more than one 12-square foot banner on the site at any one time would violate City sign regulations. t2 CDC 18.979.080.A provides as follows: Except for stream corridor enhancement, most Type 11 and III uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian setback areas. Therefore, Type 11 and III development applications must carefully examine upland alternatives for the proposed use, and explain the reasons why the proposed development cannot reasonably occur outside of the water resource or riparian setback area. 13 The issue under this section is not whether alternative (upland) locations exist elsewhere for the playing fields; the playing fields are not subject to WR review. The development subject to WR review is development affecting the wetlands (i.e., the wetland crossing). Therefore the editorial advocating consideration of alternative locations for play fields and their distribution throughout the City is not relevant to the matter before the hearings officer. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 8 • i b. CDC 18.979.080.B requires an applicant to minimize impacts of development on water resources.14 The hearings officer finds the applicant complies with CDC 18.797.080.B, because the potential impacts to the water resource for the wetland crossing are insignificant. That is, the water resource will continue to function as it did before the project, passing water through it without substantial obstruction or diversion. The short length of the culvert in relation to the length of the water resource, in combination with use of best management practices and revegetation of the affected area, makes such an alteration insignificant. An elevated bridge would allow water to pass through, too, but it would not function as intended, because vehicles and disabled persons would have a harder time traversing its grade up and down. Therefore an elevated bridge is not as effective operationally. On balance, the hearings officer finds the proposed crossing, (i.e., using a culvert rather than an elevated bridge), adequately achieves this development standard and is unavoidable. 15 This conclusion is consistent with the determinations by ODSL and USCOE that the proposed alteration is consistent with state and federal regulations intended, in part, to protect wetlands. c. Condition of approval 9 requires the applicant to use construction techniques that minimize impacts to the wetlands, consistent with CDC 18.797.080.C and F. Such techniques (e.g., best management practices) are feasible given the small area of the crossing, the limited time during which the wetland area will be disturbed for the crossing, and the required revegetation of the affected area. There will not be any long term adverse impacts to the wetland or water resource as a result of the proposed crossing. d. The applicant will comply with CDC 18.797.080.G regarding the minimum area required to mitigate for impacts to the wetland. CDC 18.797.080.G requires replacement of water resources or setback buffer at a ratio of 1:1.5. Assuming 1.2 acres of wetland will be affected by the proposed emergency crossing/pedestrian pathway, the applicant is required to create at least 1.8 acres of wetlands. As conditioned by the ODSL permit, the applicant will create 3.6 acres of wetlands on the site a replacement ratio of 1:3, significantly in excess of City standards. e. Based on the findings contained and incorporated by reference herein, the proposed development in the WR Overlay district will not result in a net loss in the values of the resource area, consistent with CDC 18.797.080.L.1. f. The City and ODSL permit applications include preliminary landscape plans for the site in general and the wetland mitigation area in particular. Although modification and enhancement of the preliminary landscape plans are needed to provide implementation-quality 14 CDC 18.797.080.B provides as follows: The proposed use shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and adverse hydrological impacts on water resources. 1. For Type II and III uses, the civil engineer with experience in water quality must certify that any adverse water quality impacts of the development proposal will be minimized consistent with best management practices; 2. For all uses, the development shall be located as far from the water resource, and use as little if the water resource or riparian setback area, as possible, recognizing the operational needs of the proposed development. 15 The hearings officer disagrees with the argument by Mr. Pennington that the applicant committed to build an elevated bridge over the wetland. The applicant did not make such a statement. There is no such statement in the record. The statement in the notice and statements in the Staff Report are not binding on the applicant. Any reference in the Staff Report to "bridging" the wetland are figurative only. Hearings Officer Finch Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 9 0 • exhibits suitable for monitoring and verifying compliance with the plan at construction and over time, it is feasible for the applicant to prepare such plans, based on the preliminary plans, the available site area, the relevant City and ODSL conditions, common knowledge and professional resources commonly relied on to select native species plants in appropriate sizes and to space them and provide for them appropriately, and final plan and monitoring requirements of the City and ODSL permits. Therefore the proposed development in the WR Overlay district will comply with CDC 18.797.080.L.2. g. Members of the public expressed concern that the wetland buffers north of the play fields should be fenced to prevent access by people and pets.16 (1) The hearings officer finds that no City regulation requires such fencing. Neither do the ODSL or USCOE permits. If the applicant proposed to reduce the setback between the development area and the wetlands on the north portion of the site to less than 25 feet, such a measure could be required pursuant to CDC 18.797.080.B. But the applicant does not propose such a reduction; therefore, CDC 18.797.080 does not apply to that portion of the development. (2) People and their pets can enter the wetland buffers adjoining the play fields if those buffers are not fenced. If such access occurs frequently, it could damage the resource. On the other hand, if the buffer is fenced, it would deter not only humans and their pets, but the wildlife as well. Restricting the access of wildlife would detract from the natural resource value of the site. (3) The hearings officer finds that, on balance, the natural resource value of the overall site is better preserved by not fencing the wetland buffer unless monitoring shows that unrestricted access by humans is significantly detracting from the health of the buffer or the success of buffer vegetation. (a) Monitoring of the buffer north of the play fields should be required to identify and assess the effects of unrestricted access, if any. Similar monitoring of the mitigation area is required by the ODSL permit, so it is feasible for the buffer, too. (b) The planning manager should be delegated authority to require the wetland buffer north of the play fields to be fenced in whole or in part if he determines that unrestricted access by humans is significantly detracting from the health of the buffer or the success of buffer plantings. (c) The applicant should be required to post small signs or other permanent markers along the edge of the wetland buffer at least every 100 feet alerting people to the presence of the wetland and buffer and restricting access to them by people and their pets. (d) Park rules should be amended to restrict public access to wetlands and wetland buffers except for educational, maintenance or other appropriate purposes. 4. Mrs. Harger observed correctly that an unenforced rule is worthless. Unless the City enforces the conditions of approval and the park rules, the proposed development could cause or contribute to significant adverse impacts that are not adequately mitigated. Although enforcement can be problematic and can require the active involvement of the public, the hearings officer cannot assume that enforcement will not occur or that public burdens in the enforcement process are disproportionate to their benefits and obligations as members of the public. The City is empowered and funded to enforce this decision; therefore, it is feasible for the City to do so. 16 Condition of approval t l requires the WR Overlay district boundary (i.e., the edge of the wetland buffer setback) to be fenced during construction. The applicant accepts that requirement. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 10 • • 5. The applicant requested deletion or clarification of conditions of approval 14 and 16. The hearings officer understands the applicant objects to having to post certain information and security for public improvements, because the applicant is the City. a. The hearings officer notes that the provisions of conditions of approval 14 and 16 do not appear to be required to comply with an objective standard of the CDC. They largely embody the practice of the City and certain discretionary authority in the CDC and Road Standards. b. The hearings officer agrees that some requirements commonly imposed on applicants are not sensible when the City is the applicant. For instance, is it illogical for the City to provide financial assurance that the City will undertake the public improvements proposed in this project; everything proposed is a public improvement because of the City's ownership of the park and sponsorship of the proposed development. c. However the hearings officer is not intimate with the City's budget or finance structure or with the exact manner in which the City reviews and administers plans and permits after the hearings officer's decision. It may be that internal shifts of funds are required to compensate the Engineering Department or Water Department for work they perform in the course of reviewing or administering plans and permits for parts of the proposal. It may be desirable for purposes of enforcing conditions of approving or applicable permits that the City designate a person who is primarily responsible for the project. Rather than dictate how the City must address these issues, the hearings officer concludes that authority should be delegated to the Community Development Director to waive or alter conditions of approval 14 and 16 as deemed consistent with City practice and needs given the City's ownership of the site and sponsorship of the project. 6. The applicant requested deletion of condition of approval 6, because the trees in question are identified on plans (in particular, on sheet 5 of 5 of the plans accompanying the City application). The hearings officer agrees that sheet 5 of 5 clearly identifies the seven trees to be removed. Therefore condition of approval 6 can be deleted. 7. The applicant requested clarification of the effective life of the permit, (i.e., phasing). Pursuant to CDC 18.330.020.D and 18.360.030.E, the hearings officer authorizes the proposed park improvements to be phased over three years, rather than the initial 18-month term provided for in the Staff Report. However the hearings officer does not have authority to extend the phasing of the park improvements beyond three years. The City will have to submit a new application for any development authorized herein for which a building permit has not been issued within three years after the effective date of this decision. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the application is sufficiently complete for the hearings officer to make all necessary findings; that proposed development can be conditioned and monitored to ensure it is consistent with applicable standards, including standards regarding noise, light and signage; that the proposed buffers between the remaining wetlands and development do or will comply with applicable standards; that mitigation for wetland impacts will comply with applicable standards; and that enforcement of conditions of approval is feasible based on substantial evidence in the record. The applicant has sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit and proposed sensitive lands and site plan reviews comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and the conditions of approval of this decision. Therefore the hearings officer approves the applications, subject to conditions of approval recommended by City staff with modifications warranted by the discussion herein. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-00001 /SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 11 0 0 E. DMISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, including the Staff Report and other reports of affected public agencies and testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 2000-00001 and SLR 2000-0003 (Cook Park playfields), subject to the conditions of approval in Section 11 of the Staff Report, with the following modifications: 1. Condition of approval 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. Submit calculations verifying that the proposed landform alterations will not result in a decrease in the floodplain storage capacity. 2. Condition 6 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Lighting of the playfields is prohibited. 3. Condition of approval 14 and 16 are hereby amended to add the following statement: The Director of the Community Development Department may waive or modify this condition in whole or in part as he or she deems appropriate given City practices and needs and the City's ownership of the site and sponsorship of the project. [remainder of the condition is unchanged] 4. Condition of approval 23 is hereby added to read as follows: 23. All signage in the park shall comply with the applicable standards of the Community Development Code. 5. Condition of approval 24 is hereby added to read as follows: 24. Before the playfields are available for public use, the applicant shall: a. Post small signs or other permanent markers along the edge of the wetland buffer at least every 100 feet alerting people to the presence of the wetland and buffer and restricting access to them by people and their pets. b. Amend park rules to restrict public access to wetlands and wetland buffers except for educational, maintenance or other purposes deemed appropriate by the City. 6. Condition of approval 25 is hereby added to read as follows: 25. The applicant shall monitor the buffer north of the play fields to identify and assess the effects of unrestricted access, if any. The applicant shall provide the results of such monitoring to the planning manager at least annually for at least five years following the date the playfields are available for public use. Pursuant to a Type I process, the planning manager may require the applicant to install a fence or other barrier along the south edge of the wetland buffer north of the parking lot and play fields in whole or in part if he or she determines that unrestricted access by humans is significantly detracting from the health of the buffer or the success of buffer plantings. Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-000011MR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play, fields) Page 12 0 9 7. Condition of approval 26 is hereby added to read as follows: 26. Noise levels in excess of permissible levels under the applicable regulations of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ") and corresponding City regulations are prohibited. The applicant shall make a continuing, diligent, good faith effort to monitor noise and to prevent excessive noise. Amplified sound systems generally should not be used at the play fields (e.g., to announce team members or play-by-play coverage or to play music loudly). Park rules against nuisances shall be enforced against individual portable sound systems (e.g., boom boxes and megaphones) if operated at high volume or for long duration regardless of ODEQ standards. This permit shall be valid for 3 years from the effective date of this decision. Development authorized herein is permitted, consistent with the conditions provided or incorporated herein, provided the City has issued a building or development permit within that 3 years. TED this 22nd day3&Mfy, 2400. Larry Epstein AI P City of Tigar ari s Officer Hearings Officer Final Order CUP 2000-000011SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park play fields) Page 13 0 0 "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner DATE: April 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Cook Park Condition Use Permit Enclosed are copies of letters submitted during the first week the record was held open for the submittal off new information. The only rebuttal information (also enclosed) submitted the second week was by the applicant. Because there is no additional information the applicant needs to respond to, they have indicated that they wish to waive the final week that the record was held open for them to submit additional information. RECEIVED PUNNING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL MY OF TIGARD Date Received REC01VEE) APR 17 2000 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Comments TO: City.Of Tigard ATTN: DEPT: or, t V-%, mmsminalform 0 Date: April 17, 2000 To: City of Tigard / Hearing Officer From: Chris Counts Subject: Proposed Cook Park Expansion Please enter the following material into the written record of the proceedings on this matter. The application to expand Cook Park does not fully comply with certain criteria of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. Sensitive Area Maps do not include a minor perennial stream. ( See perennial stream map with yellow streams marked) United Sewerage Agency comments on page 2 for sensitive area are: The river, wetland /sensitive area shall be identified on plans. Master Plan for Tigard The need to build ballfields on upland sites if available and decentralize sports fields is not considered. Impact on birds listed as sensitive by the State of Oregon is not discussed in sufficient detail. The Oregonian June 26, 1997 by Sue Marshall Noise and criminal code violations by park users. In a meeting September 11, 1996 City of Tigard code enforcement issues related to Cook Park were presented to Mayor Jim Nicoli.(He received a copy at this time.) The full impact of more development within the Cook Park should be given greater consideration. Wetland Resource Protection and Enhancement On page 7 of the final report of the Cook Park Master Plan adopted by City Council dated June 10, 1997 on page 7 it states:, ~erimeter fencing will also help control access and allow buffer lantings to mature and become more effective buffer and wildlife habitaWerimeter fencing is not included in the Cook Park Expansion in sensitive areas as a protection to plantings and wildlife. I submit that for the reasons set forth here and in testimony and evidence presented April 10 the application be denied. AIR, ,t i SST THE OREGONIAN, THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997 Create m a ste r arks a 1 1 for p p , Sue Marshall, a Tigard resident, has three children, all of whom play soccer. She has a degree in , ~ environmental health. She's past _ of i ga president and current treasurer of The Tualatin Riverkeepers, a non- profit group working to restore and protect the Tualatin River. By SUE MARSHALL The city and citizens of Tigard are consid- ering plans to expand Cook Park by 27 acres. The planning process has at- tempted to balance conflicting visions for the park. However, there is some controversy about how to best use these additional acres. If you haven't visited Cook Park, it is a beautiful 52-acre park located at Rivermile 9.8 on the Tualatin River in Tigard. It is a park of many uses. One of the few public- access points on the river, it also hosts baseball and soccer fields, a large play structure, covered and open picnic areas. It also has trails that lead from neighborhoods through forests, wetlands and along the river. Cook Park is the largest and most-frequented park in Tigard. Its capacity is stretched annually to ac- commodate the Tigard Festival of Balloons with an estimated 80,000 participants. Cook Park is also the flood plain of the Tualatin River. And therein lies the controversy. How do we best use the flood plain of a river? The river overflowed its banks twice in 1996, cov- ering the entire park, including the proposed expan- sion area. Even without a flood, this is a very wet place in the late fall and winter. Many parents who have watched their kids play soccer at Cook Park can attest to this. Original concepts for park expansion suggested six soccer and baseball fields, expanded paved park- ing, and building a road through the park to connect Southwest 85th Avenue with 92nd Avenue. This would have required significant destruction of existing wetlands. Compromises have been reached by the task force to reduce the number of sports fields and abandon the idea of building a road on this site. But there remain some points of concern. A grow- ing constituency would like to see nature and wild- life preserved, limited paved parking and expanded buffer zones to protect the wetland habitat. Twenty- five feet, as the Cook Park Master Plan prescribes, is not enough; 354 paved parking spots are too many. The flood plain has historically been viewed sim- ply as cheap, marginally developable land. Today, we know much more about the value of flood plain. It functions as a sponge to mitigate the severity of flooding, it provides valuable wildlife habitat, it cleanses and cools surface water before it enters the river, it provides much needed open space and sanc- tuary for both wildlife and humans. But it is still ' cheap to buy flood plain. Unfortunately, the environmental value of wet- lands and flood plain is not easily assigned a dollar value. If we could assign a dollar value, developing wetlands would be prohibitively expensive. Cook Park, for example, is a year-round home for the pile- ated woodpecker and a winter home for the buffle- head duck. ' Both birds are listed as sensitive by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. When they are gone, there is no bringing them back. The wetland habitat and the educational potential = ' of Cook Park is great and cannot be over em- phasized. Wetlands cannot simply be recreated someplace else. Loss of wildlife correlates directly with loss of wetland habitat. Nearby Tigard High School and Durham Elemen- tary School have used the Cook Park wetlands for a hands-on outdoor classroom. Expanding these edu- cational opportunities is part of the master plan. The issue cannot simply be categorized as the tree-huggers vs. organized sports leagues. The com- munity wants both. Development of the Cook Park Master Plan has made many realize the need to develop a compre- hensive master parks plan for the city of Tigard rather than try to accommodate all needs in one park. To increase the number of sports fields will mean looking for upland alternatives, even though they are more expensive, and decentralizing the location of playing fields. Neighborhood parks - now there's ' a good idea. Consideration needs to be given to those who live next to the park. Already they must grit their teeth and endure the noise, congestion and inconvenience of having 80,000 people in their back yards for three days during the annual balloon festival. They are wary of plans to expand Cook Park - their usual ' quiet neighborhood park which attracts people from , the region. The Cook Park Master Plan has been adopted by the Tigard City Council. Residents of Tigard in- serted themselves into the process and remain vocal in their support to protect wildlife habitat. There will continue to be points of input for the public in development of the park design and at the land use public hearings. Inclusion of diverse view- , points is not an easy task. It is, however, a neces- sary task as the outcome involves the use of the public resources. ASSON RR%. ' m , - - I U Law Firm RICHARD A. KASSON WILLIAM H. MURR* 'Also Admitted in Washington and Colorado OF COUNSEL: JOHN L. HENDERSON, P.C. July 13, 1992 Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: The Friends of Cook Park Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: I represent "The Friends of Cook Park" ("FCP") , a newly formed group which has been organized to maintain, and when necessary, enhance the viability of Cook Park as a community resource. Of immediate concern to FCP is the land west of 92nd and just north of the Cook Park soccer field which contains wetlands, a large pond, a Class II perennial stream, and is also, in part, in the 100-year flood plan. P This natural setting, while privately held, is often assumed to be part of Cook Park because of its synergism with the park. An offer to purchase this land has been made for the purpose of residential construction, and FCP is very concerned about the potential loss of this unique environment parcel. In 1986, a proposal to develop this land was approved with many restrictions. Lincoln Savings & Loan then sold the land for a low price because of the difficulty and expense of meeting those restrictions. Since that time, many additional wetlands, greenspace, wildlife, and environmental protection ordinances and standards have been implemented by various agencies. FCP is committed to the prospect that no development occur until it has been satisfactorily determined that all environmental issues relevant to this parcel are examined and the proper procedural steps taken to appropriately deal with those issues. An objective evaluation will reveal that this land is not suitable for development, and that it should be preserved. That assessment is based upon the following: (1) Sensitive Lands. Chapter 18.84 of the City of Tigard's Community Development Code sets out provisions for protection of certain areas deemed "sensitive lands." According to the requirements stated in this code, the subject parcel most certainly falls within this definition. As a sensitive land area, development of this parcel should be prohibited. Telephone: 503-297-8380 • Teletax: 503-297-0332 9400 S.W. Beaverton. Hillsdale Hiehwav • West G)urnv:lyd • 'Sucre 170 • Beaverton, Oregon 97005 • • Mr. Dick Bewersdorff July 13, 1992 Page 2 (2) Wetland Area. Much of the land proposed for development falls under the classification of a wetland area. Because of the dramatic reduction in wetland areas in the past decade, many restrictions have been placed upon the development of this type of land. The Wetlands' Conservancy has determined that the parcel in question is indeed a wetland area. For your reference, the Wetlands' Conservancy June 9, 1992 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1. (3) Class II Stream. A Class II perennial stream flows through the middle of the subject parcel. Class 11 streams are protected under the Oregon Department. of Forestry Forest Protections Act ("FPA"). In addition, FPA rules provide for additional protection should a Class II stream flow into a Class I stream. Since the stream in question might flow into the Tualatin River (a Class I stream), it should qualify for this additional protection. FPA rules state specific requirements and prohibitions regarding development of Class II streams. A descriptive copy of the Department of Forestry's stream protection rules is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In addition, an application for review and a permit must also be submitted to the State of Oregon if plans would require moving more than 50 cubic yards of material. (4) Unified Sewer Aaencv. The Unified Sewer Agency ("USA") has been directed to clean up the Tualatin River. The plant life along the pond and stream bed flowing through the subject parcel help to remove debris and sediment from the water prior to ultimately entering into the Tualatin River. The channel of the stream carries all of the street runoffs from a large portion of Millen Street and 93rd Avenue. During storms, a large volume of this water overflows the banks and feeds the wetland areas adjacent to the soccer field at Cook Park. The greenspace area is a significant asset to the USA and is an excellent example of the intended protection of the Tualatin River from runoff contamination. Any disruption of this natural purification process is of the utmost concern to FCP and would no doubt require permits and studies. (5) Goal 5. The purpose of Goal 5 is to promote the preservation of open space. A letter from the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (attached hereto as Exhibit No. 3) indicates that an objection has been filed with respect to the City of Mr. Dick Bewersdorff July 13, 1992 Page 3 Tigard's periodic review of wetlands. The City is still using a wetlands inventory developed in 1983. Many of these sites could now be considered "significant" wetlands rendering them unbuildable, including the subject property. It is FCP's intent to ensure that development does not occur without a thorough examination of Goal 5's impact upon the parcel. (6) Wildlife. The land area in question provides a habitat for many plants and animals. The stream and pond support frogs, crawdads, and other organisms which in turn support other wildlife in the area. There are at least 35 species of birds (including the great blue heron which is listed on Oregon's Sensitive Species List) which either live in or use this habitat. Other wildlife include raccoons, chipmunks, coyotes, and bats. Any development of this area must take into consideration local ordinances and state statutes protecting species, and the residual effect it would have upon the wildlife. (7) Limited Siqht Distance. FCP is concerned that any road or entrance built into the proposed area of development will not provide the required 300 feet of sight distance onto 92nd Avenue. This is because the pond and wetland area requires any roadway to be located toward the steep hill and curve on 92nd Avenue. Plans for such a roadway must take this into consideration before being approved. This is a critical safety issue. (8) Park Generated Noise. Cook Park is used extensively for soccer and other noise-generating activity. This noise carries a significant volume to the residential area on 93rd Avenue. During the busier summer months, the vegetation in the subject greenspace help to damper this noise. Any defoliation in this area would have a severe and detrimental effect upon the neighborhood. In effect, the City of Tigard would be abetting the creation of a public nuisance where to date, none exist. As you can see, at this time I have identified only a partial list of issues for the City's consideration in conjunction with the proposed development of the subject land. Of course, FCP expects the City to consider all relevant issues. I read with interest recently the statement attributed to Mayor Jerry Edwards where he expressed his view that the wetlands issue was often raised by citizens simply as a way to keep development from taking place. For the City to take such a narrow , ! Mr. Dick Bewersdorff July 13, 1992 Page 4 0 position with respect to this land would be irresponsible. The development or preservation of the land adjoining Cook Park is not a question which is presented by the parochial interest of the developer or the affected neighbors who border this site. Rather, Cook Park serves the entire community and the City must act accordingly. Finally, please keep me informed with regard to any activity on this property. Very truly yours, RAK:dj Enclosures cc: John Ackers Ken Bierly Jack Broome Judy Fessler Dr. Daniel Graham John Jackson Paul Ketcham Carol Landsman Peggy Mason Ed Murphy Richard Olsen, DEQ Doug Smithey KASSON & MURR C RIc ar Kasson ufra~ UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 2, 2000 COP TO: Julia Hajduk, City of Tigard FROM: Julia Huffman, USA SUBJECT: Cook. Park Expansion, CUP 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00003 On February 22, 2000 the Unified Sewerage Agency ("USA") Board of Directors adopted USA Resolution and Order 00-7 (R&O 00-7). R&O 00-7 applies immediately to all development, unless the development is authorized by approval of a land use application that was received by a land use authority on or before February 4, 2000 and was approved or deemed complete by the land use jurisdiction on or before March 15, 2000. SANITARY SEWER The development should be provided with-a means of disposal for sanitary-sewm The means of disposal should be in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency's Design and Construction Standards. Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&0. STORM SEWER The development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by the R&O. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25- year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone: 5031648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX: 5031640-3525 March 2, 2000 Julia Hajduk, City of Tigard Cook Park Expansion Page 2 SENSITIVE AREA A' r' Sensi,five Area,' exists. Developer must preserve a corridor as described in the R&O .`separating th~sensitive area from the impact of development. The river, wetland/sensitive area shall be identified on plans. FLOODPLAIN Site contains flood plain/flood way designations. Grading within the flood plain/flood way shall be done in such a manner as to preserve the flood storage and flood conveying area without effecting any upstream or downstream properties in accordance with R&O. DIVISION OF STATE LANDS/CORPS OF ENGINEERS A DSL/Corps of Engineers permit is required for any work in the river or wetlands. ' N EROSION CONTROL A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. 144 0 To. Jim Nleoll From : Chris Counts bate ; September 11; 1996 Subject : Current Neighborhood Issues `fhe Friends of Cook Park would like to bring to your attention the importance of these current issues in the neighborhood surrounding Tigard High Sdhooi and Cook Park. ( Copper Creek Neighborhood Asssoc. and Waverly Estates) 1 ) The peak traffic loads on 92nd, Durham, and Hall have created serious problems for residents of the area. These must be resolved before Cook Park includes a new sports complex. The negative impacts of traffic: congestion, overflow parking in Waverly Estates, and speeding on Riverwood Ln. have already been expressed at the CIT meetings and with the school police. Neighbors are also impacted with additional concessions to the special events in Cook Park and at the High School. The traffic delays, vehicles that cut- through to escape the traffic, children hanging out in the street. and cars parked in front of mail boxes during delivery hours are commonplace during special events. At this current level of traffic and its associated impacts the neighborhood is firm no more increases in traffic. We need solutions to the current problems. 2 ) Crime has also increased in the neighborhood. I have had my car stereo stolen twice in two years from my driveway. Tom Long has organized the block watch program and has a list of crime issues. Tom is also working with Tigard HS in reporting problems with students. Tom's phone is 620-7065 day and 684- 5183 evening. 3) Noise levels are increasing each season from baseball to fall soccer to the boom boxes. A consistent effort is not being made by user groups to keep the noise at reasonable levels within the park. The neighborhood is requesting that the City of Tigard adopt a Noise Ordinance. A level of noise decibels measured outside the park must be set to conform with a community standard'such as 1 block. Any violation of'these conditions would constitute grounds for revocation of a permit, and or issuance of a citation by a police officer. We can further recommend that amplification of sound by boom boxes or a PA system needed for user groups would be a violation of the ordinanance. A permit issued to exceed the 1 block standard would require a full review of its impact on the neighborhood. 4 ) Maintenance of Cook Park is inadequate. It can be assumed that the Parks employees are performing to the best of their abilities given the time allocated to Cook Park and the bike trail. The maintenance reqiurements for a neighborhood park are long ; turf, irrigation, pruning trees, play equipment, restrooms, parking areas, drinking fountains, and trail maintenance. However, does the City of Tigard have a professional staff in Parks? Apparently they dont. Friends of Cook Park recognize that routine maintenance such as basic litter patrofis neglected. f have personally picked up three garbage bags of flood debri left six weeks after the flood. I called twice to speak to the Parks Foreman on clean up and never got a callback. After special events, litter is distributed throughout the neighborhood but it is most evident in the parks heavily used areas days after an event. Does the play equipment get daily safety inspections ? Parents have noted the broken swings the take up to a week to fix. Repair of these swings and or signage is a liability issue. Can we expect any improvement in Cook Park maintenance ? 5) Public Involvement- As Donna Delino, a Waverly Resident commented after reading the RFP planning proposal " it would have been nice, if they would have asked us what we thought about the development of the wetlands. " The neighborhood is strongly recommending that in the future they be involved from the beginning in publicly funded plans that impact the neighborhood. They are also asking for all the dates the Cook Park steering committee met and the notes of those meetings for the public record. 6) Summary - Does the Mayor and the steering committee plan to destroy the neighborhood to save it ? The combined impact from traffic, crime,noise, neglected park maintenance, and lack of public involvement in the steering committee's proposal calls for community problem solving not the filling of wetlands for more parking in the floodplain. • • RECEIVED IF. P..NNINC APR 17 2000 April 16, 2000 Re: Cook Park Expansion CITY OF, ik:aAR® Re: CUP 2000-00001 SLR 2000-00003 We wish to express our concern about the abundant wildlife that is now present in the area included in the Cook Park expansion. This week we have had the opportunity to view hawks, herons, geese, ducks and a variety of smaller birds. Our concern is that the proximity of the playing fields will all but eliminate a number of the species now present. We would encourage you to set sensible set back limits, with a buffer of 75 feet between wetland delineation and the area where spectators might stand as well as the playing fields themselves. Without allowing a space for spectators, they will encroach into the wetland buffer area. Boisterous spectators will be present at these events and would definitely impact the habitat of the wildfowl. We hope also that you will define clearly the amount and species of trees and vegetation between the playing fields and wetlands, which is now very inadequate. Attached, I have highlighted in red the specific area of concern on the map. I have also enclosed a listing of the many species of birds that can be viewed in this area. Barbara and Rob Forrest 16672 SW 89 Place Tigard, OR 97224 503 620-7661 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, rr SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Sl+apingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON APRIL 10. 2000 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [CUP] 2000-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLRI 2000-00003 FILE TITLE: COOK PARK EKPANSION APPLICANT: John Roy OWNERS: City of Tigard City of Tigard 125 SW Hail Boulevard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S REP.: Tony Wellner Consulting Engineerinc_Services 15256 NW Greenbrier Parkway Beaverton, OR 97006 REQUEST: The applicant has requested Conditional Use Approval to expand and improve Cook Park in accordance with the approved Cook Park Master Plan. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres and will include 4 little league baseball filds north of the existing developed portion of the park on the east side of SW 92n" Avenue. The improvements include several structures accessory to the park, a parking lot and trails. Sensitive Lands review is requested for alteration and development ' in the 100-year floodplain and Water Resources overlay review for alteration and development in areas regulated by the Water Resources overlay standards. The proposal includes the filling of a man-made drainage ditch and alteration of some wetlands for an emergency access drive/pedestrian pathway. The proposal also involves the creation of wetlands as part of mitigation required by DSLiUS Army Corps of Engineers permits approval. LOCATION: Within and north of the Existing Cook Park. WCTM 2S114AO, Tax Lot 1500; 2S114DO, Tax Lots 101 and 501; and 2S114AC, Tax Lot 700. ZONE: R-12. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.705, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND/OR CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 6394171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684- 2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. CUP2000-0000115LR2000-00003 COOK PARK EXPANSION NOTICE OF 411 012 0 0 0 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO PRESEN~I/RITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE P BLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MA BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND-TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.' APPROVAL. OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~-) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JULIA POWELL HAJDUK AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ,~~~T~QTTTC ~ , VICINITY MAP CUP2000-00001 S!R2000-0000? O PART( EXPANSION CUP2000-000011SLR2000-00003 COOK PARK EXPANSION NOTICE OF 411012000 HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING E~ 2 ~L11lli11.11J - Creepers (Family Certhiidae) ❑ Brown Creeper Y Nuthatches (Family sinidae) ❑ Red-breasted Nuthatch Y ❑ White-breasted Nuthatch Y Wrens (Family Troglodytidae) ❑ Bewick's Wren Y ❑ Winter Wren Y ❑ House Wren Su ❑ Marsh Wren Y Trushes (Family Muscicapidae) ❑ American Robin Y ❑ Varied Thrush W ❑ Hermit Thrush F, Sp ❑ Swainson's Thrush Su ❑ Ruby-crowned Kinglet W ❑ Golden-crowned Kinglet Y PipitS (Family Motaeillidae) ❑ American Pipit F, Sp WaxwingS (Family Ptilogonatidae) ❑ Cedar Waxwing Su Starlings (Family Sturnidae) ❑ European Starling Y Vireos (Family Viteonidae) ❑ Solitary Vireo Su ❑ Hutton's Vireo Y ❑ Warbling Vireo Su ❑ Red-eyed Vireo Su Warblers, Sparrows & Relatives (Family Emberizidae) ❑ Orange-crowned Warbler Su ❑ Yellow Warbler Su ❑ Black-throated Gray Warbler Su ❑ Townsend's Warbler Sp, F ❑ Hermit Warbler Su ❑ Mac Gillivray's Warbler Su ❑ Wilson's Warbler Su ❑ Yellow-rumped Warbler W ❑ Common Yellowthroat Su ❑ Chipping Sparrow Su ❑ Savannah Sparrow Su ❑ Lincoln's Sparrow Sp, F ❑ Swamp Sparrow W ❑ Song Sparrow Su ❑ Fox Sparrow W ❑ Golden-crowned Sparrow W ❑ White-Crowned Sparrow Y ❑ Black-headed Grosbeak Su ❑ Dark-eyed Junco Y ❑ Spotted Towhee Y ❑ Red-winged Blackbird Y ❑ Brewer's Blackbird Y ❑ Brown-headed Cowbird Su ❑ Bullock's Oriole Su ❑ Western Tanager Su Weavers (Family Passeddae) ❑ House Sparrow Y Finches (Family Ftingillidae) ❑ House Finch Y ❑ Cassin's Finch W ❑ Purple Finch Y ❑ American Goldfinch Y ❑ Pine Siskin W ❑ Evening Grosbeak Sp Birding by Boat - River Access Some of the best viewing of birds on the Tualatin is available by canoe or kayak. The Tualatin Riverkeepers have guided canoe trips from March through October. we are OuLUmg a IleeL Or Canoes so you can join us even if you don't have a boat of your own. Developed public access sites are available at Cook Park, Tualatin Park and Brown's Ferry Park. Additional informal access points in this area are under the Shamberg Bridge on Elsner Road (Sherwood), under the 99W bridge on Hazelbrook Road (Tualatin) and near the Stafford Road Bridge on Shadow Wood Drive. Please respect private property. This List is Growing This list was compiled from the observations of Tom Love, Dan & Candi Mitchell, Paul Adamus, Steve Engel, Carole Hallet, Rob Forrest and Brian Wegener. Birds of Oregon, 1994, Jeff Gilligan et.al. editors was used as a reference. As habitats are restored and public access is granted at Brown's Ferry Park, Thomas Dairy, The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge and METRO Greenspaces along the river, we expect this list to be growing. In particular we expect to see shorebirds that are commonly found at Jackson Bottom and Fernhill Wetlands: Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary, Western, and Least Sandpipers, Dunlin, and Long-billed Dowitchers. If you see any of these birds in this area or have any other additions to this list, please contact the Tualatin Riverkeepers at (503)624-0855 or by e-mail at triverk(&teleport.com. TUALATIN RIVERKEEPERS The Tualatin Riverkeepers are a citizen based organization working to restore and protect Oregon's Tualatin River system. The Tualatin Riverkeepers promotes watershed stewardship through public education, public access, citizen uavulvernent and advocacy. The Tualatin Riverkeepers are looking for people who are interested in the Tualatin River. If you would like to join us or team more about the Tualatin River and the Tualatin Riverkeepers, please give us a call at (503)624-0855 or check out our website at www.teleport.com/-triverk Birds of the Lower Tualatin River A checklist of birds found at Cook Park, Durham Park, Thomas Dairy, Tualatin Park, Apache Bluff Wetlands, Tualatin Country Club, and surrounding areas. The Tualatin Riverkeepers March 1997 W r. e V y ~ a U b p OOe Q, t u o ~ 3 u o 3 A ~ E n d x F U ea m 3 a z 0 ua ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 G 0 0 C U ~ c E e C 9 0 3 a; ~ LU a t7 in N G] w v, u u v u 9 U N 31 b w x z d E E m o Q a b F b ~ ~ ~ e a ^ g ~ C M W 69 3El ❑El 0 0 G N C E o o E Z, U a at 3 .o 3 a° h at 0 N a `y 0~4 ~.u E~ ~ i 00 3> vi ~E S3 o e P~ .E 'oo m o O0 ~3 When Most Likely to be Seen Su=Summer, F=Fall, W=Winter, Sp=Spring, Y=Year-Round Grebes (Family Pwicipedidae) ❑ Pie billed Grebe Y Cormorants (Family Phalacrocoracidae) ❑ Double-Crested Cormorant W Herons (Family Ameidae) ❑ Great Blue Heron Y ❑ Great Egret F ❑ Green Heron Su Cranes (Family Gruidae) ❑ Sandhill Crane (overhead) F,Sp Swans, Ducks, and Geese (Family Anatidae) ❑ Tundra Swan W ❑ Canada Goose Y ❑ Common Merganser W ❑ Hooded Merganser W 0 Ring-necked Duck W ❑ Lesser Scaup W ❑ Northern Shoveler W ❑ Common Goldeneye. W ❑ Bufflehead W ❑ Northern Pintail W 0 American Wigeon W ❑ Eurasian Wigeon W ❑ Green-winged Teal W ❑ Blue-winged Teal Sp, F 0 Cinnamon Teal Su ❑ Gadwall W ❑ Wood Duck Y ❑ Mallard Y Rails and Coots (Family Rallidae) ❑ Virginia Rail Su 0 Sora Su 0 American Coot Y Plovers (Family Charadriidae) ❑ Killdeer Y Sandpipers (Family scolopacidae) ❑ Spotted Sandpiper Su ❑ Common Snipe W Gulls (Family Laridw) ❑ Mew Gull W ❑ California Gull Sp, F ❑ Ring-billed Gull W 0 Glaucous-winged Gull W Vultures (Family Carthidae) ❑ Turkey Vulture Su Hawks & Eagles (Family Accipiuidae) ❑ Bald Eagle W ❑ Northern Harrier Y ❑ Cooper's Hawk Y ❑ Sharp-shinned Hawk Y ❑ Red-tailed Hawk Y ❑ Osprey Su Falcon (Family Falconidae) ❑ American Kestrel Y Quail & Pheasants (Family Pasiamdae) ❑ California Quail Y ❑ Ring-necked Pheasant Y Pigeons & Doves (Family Columbidae) ❑ Mourning Dove Y ❑ Band-tailed Pigeon Su ❑ Rock Dove Y OWLS (Families Tytonidae & Strigidae) ❑ Barn Owl Y ❑ Northern Saw-whet Owl Y ❑ Great Homed Owl Y Nightjars (Family Caprimulgidae) ❑ Common Nighthawk (Occurred historically, locally extirpated) Swifts (Family Apodidae) ❑ Vaux's Swift Su Hummingbirds (family TroetdGdae) ❑ Rufous Hummingbird Sp, Su ❑ Anna's Hummingbird Y Kingfishers (Family Alcedinidae) ❑ Belted-Kingfisher Y Woodpeckers (Family Picidae) ❑ Pileated Woodpecker Y ❑ Downy Woodpecker Y 0 Red-breasted Sapsucker Y ❑ Northern Flicker Y Flycatchers (Family Tyrannidae) ❑ Olive-sided Flycatcher Su ❑ Western Wood Pewee Su ❑ Willow Flycatcher Su ❑ Hammond's Flycatcher Su ❑ Pacific Slope Flycatcher Su Larks (Family Alaudidae) ❑ Homed Lark Y Swallows (Family Hitundinidae) ❑ Violet-Green Swallow Sp, Su ❑ Barn Swallow Su ❑ Cliff Swallow Su ❑ Northern Rough-winged Swallow Su ❑ Tree Swallow Su Crows & Jays (Family Corvidae) ❑ American Crow Y ❑ Scrub Jay Y ❑ Steller's lay Y Chickadees (Family Paridae) ❑ Black-capped Chickadee Y ❑ Chestnut-backed Chickadee Y Bushtits (Family Aegithah'dae) ❑ Bushtit Y +kPu • i U UU : :3 : I4J 2 kUkA , To: City of Tigard Hearings Officer Froze: Chris Daryl Counts Re: Proposed Cook Park Expansion CUP 2000-00001 SLR 2000-00003 Date: April 10, 2000 1 U PAGE 1/4 0 Please enter this material into the written record of the proceedings on this matter. The application to expand Cook Park does not fully comply with certain criteria of the City of Tigard Community Development Code (CDC), even with the imposition of conditions recommended by the planning staff. First, CDC section 18.797.060 'requires, in part, that "All development applications on lots within, or partially within, the WR overlay district shall submit the following information, in addition to other information required.by this code. 11U. Tvpe II and III Uses: site specific survey required. If any type II or III use or activity is proposed wi,thin`a water resource, riparian setback or water`quality buffer area, the applicant shall be responsible for:preparing a survey of the entire site that precisely maps and delineates the following: 111. The name, location and dimensions of significant minor streams (including adjacent wetlands), major streams or rivers (including associated wetlands), and the tops of their respective streambanks or wetland edges; 02. Isolated wetlands; "3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback; "4- The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer..." The maps included with the Staff Report and the Type III application do not include all the information required by this Tigard Hearings officer opposition to Cook Park Expansion April 10, 2000 Page 2 F Lr .r G aC c.~ - 1 J < ~1 7 r-~ V t J / "k • section of the coder Construction of the emergency access driveway and path is concededly to occur within the significant wetlands on the area. Thus the mapping requirement is fully applicable here. First, the maps do not show the existence of a year-round stream that flows into the wetlands at the northern boundary of the park property near SW 92"a Ave. Cryptic reference is made to this stream at page.32 of the staff report. The stream is real, as indicated by photographic evidence. After it enters 'Park property, its flow is split, some flowing west of Sw 92", and some flowing to the east. All enters the wetland system at the northern part of the park. This wetland system flows into the- Tualatin River. Second, the map shows an inappropriate and inadequate buffer between the proposed development and the significant wetlands on the northern portion of the park. These wetlands, both east and west, are part of a complex wetland system, which flows into the Tualatin River at the southeastern and southwestern boundary of the park. A part of this wetland system, which is all one, and the remains of a larger wetland that undoubtedly existed on the property decades ago, is within 75 feet of the top-of.-bank of the Tualatin River. This is apparent from the site map included with the staff report. Consequently, a riparian setback of greater than 25 feet between the proposed development and the significant wetlands to the north is required. The City cannot avoid this requirement by mapping only a portion of the one wetland area comprised of the park wetlands system as "significant" on its Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map. To do so, defeats the purpose of the riparian setback requirements as set forth in CDC 18.797.010. If "any part of" a significant wetland is within 75 feet of the Tualatin River top- of-bank, it is "associated wetland" with the Tualatin River. The setback requirement of Table 18.797.1 is therefore 75 feet. Much development within the proposed park extension, in addition to the emergency access way, is to occur within this 75- foot setback. For example, portions of proposed new parking lots and little league fields occurs within this area. Because the site plan does not show a 75 foot buffer, it is impossible to tell precisely what other development occurs within the setback. The applicant has not met its burden of proof to show on its map the areas required- Nor has it demonstrated that development will not cause a reduction of the setback; that development is permitted within the setback pursuant to Table 18.797.2; that w Tigard Hearings Officer Opposition to Cook Park Expansion April 10, 2000 Page 3 mitigation is adequate for the significant amount of land subject to development within the setback (neither the applicant nor staff has considered mitigation for this amount of encroachment); and that there is no reasonable alternative to development of this nature and extent within the setback area, Until the applicant has provided the information required to demonstrate that its-burden of proof has been met with regard to the above requirements, its application should not be considered complete. Without that information, the application must not be approved. In addition, the application does not comply with CAC 18.330.030, which requires that the characteristics of the site be suitable for the proposed use considering the size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. The park is located on the Tualatin River, which is one focus of efforts to preserve and restore fish habitat and populations. The wetlands on the park also provide habitat and nesting grounds for many waterfowl and other bird species. Like the proposed park to the south of the river, this proposal offers significant risk of harming fish and wildlife by trapping fish on site after flooding, rather than allowing their return to the river. Bird habitat and nesting sites will also be disturbed by activity on athletic fields and elsewhere close to the wetlands. The addition of paved surface is further inappropriate for the natural features of the park; it is within the floodplain. Finally, the trees to be removed from the park area have not been adequately identified as to species so that adequate mitigation of their removal can be planned. Certain tree communities, such as Oregon White Oak are increasingly rare and significant in the area. The application has not shown what trees are to be removed and it is therefore impossible to conclude whether its.mitigation proposals are adequate. For the reasons set forth in this testimony, and in other testimony and evidence presented to the Hearings Officer, I respectfully request that this application be denied. • i 16653 SW 88th Place Tigard, OR. 97224,5443 April 10, 2000 Hearings Officer City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 Dear Sir or Madam: My name is Malcolm Pennington, and I live at 16653 SW Be Place, Tigard. I am oonoerned about the proposed Conditional Use Permit Application submitted by the City of Tigard. When the city first floated the proposed expansion we were told there would be soccer fields in the area adjoining our properties, now it is baseball fields. At the last neighborhood meeting, the maps did not reflect the redesigned plan, nor did Mr. John Roy or the consultants have any materials describing what the new plans were to be. It was a "good of boy we think it will be..." It was apparent to me that the intent was to minimally satisfy the meeting requirements so the city could get their application in before the new 50' wetlands buffer requirement went into effect. Yet they were trying to assure us they were going to protect the wetlands. The city has failed to give me cause to trust that they have my interest or the interest of this area at heart. Please keep in mind that this is my back yarn we are talking about. Strangely enough, I am not opposed to improving the parkdespite that there will be ball fields and not soccer fields. I would like to see a couple of changes in the conditional use permit The city states that lighting is of no consequence as the park is dosed at dusk in the summer and at 4:40 PM in the winter. My worry is that next week, next month or next year; the park hours could be changes. If this were the case, all that would be required to add lights would be an administrative review (according to the city planning office), and therefore we could have lights glaring in our windows before we knew it I would like to have light prohibited in the Conditional Use Permit The application also addresses signage. tt states that the only signage will be to direct people to the ball fields. I asked if this prohibited sponsor signs from being places on the fences, and no one at the city could tell me if it did or not I do not wish to look at unsightly advertising that certainly would affect my property value, as well as believe it would not meet the conditions for Sensitive Lands protection. I would ask that this prohibition be included in the Conditional Use Permit Finally, and most importantly as a resident and neighs of the park, I am concerned about the steps the city is going to take to protect the wetlands area where we have duck, geese, heron, osprey, nutria, hawk, owls and so on. We have dog owners running their animals in this sensitive area now (encouraging their pets into the water). I have yet to get anyone from the city to address the problem of their disturbing the wildlife, their nests and destroying their habitat. The parts master plan called for a fence to protect the wetlands. I see no such fence in the application and wish it to be added. We are about to redesign the park to encourage more people to enter this area, yet we are not protecting what we have. I am not nearly as confident as the city planners that there will be neither "minimum site disturbance" nor that adequate precaution will be taken to see that these sensitive wetlands will continue to be protected. Please help us and make sure the do. In conclusion, I remind you that this is my backyard we are addressing, not some far off vacant lot. Thank you, M. B. Pennington 0 0 April 17, 2000 Hearings Officer City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 RECEIVED APR 18 2'000 COMMUNITY DEVELUPMEN) Dear Sir: My name is Malcolm Pennington, and I live at 16653 SW 88th Place, Tigard. 1 would like to respond to a concern raised in the testimony by the representatives for the City of Tigard. The representatives proposed change (or correction in the proposal) to add a paved culvert to the wetlands rather than build a bridge is a concern. The applicant lists a bridge in the application summary and in the site plan schematic. The application summary also states that the project "shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, loss of vegetation, erosion and adverse hydrological impacts on water resources." Further, the city's response states "the applicant's narrative states that every attempt has been made to ensure minimum impact on the water resources." Installing a culvert with a minimum width of 10', and laying paving over it has a great deal more of an impact on these sensitive wetlands than a bridge would. A bridge, in addition to fitting the above criteria better than a paved culvert, would also be an opportunity to provide increased separation between the wetlands and visitors to the park. I request a condition for this project is to build a bridge, as originally stated, over the existing wetland area. Thank you. Respectfully M. B. Penn , gton 16653 SW 881h Place Tigard, OR. 97224-5443 (503) 624-1106 RECEIVED y -13 APR 2 4 2000 *P CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERWI51,14IWV 15256 N.W. Greenbrier Parkway • Beaverton, Oregon 97006 • (503) 690-6600 • FAX (503) 690-2595 April 24, 2000 Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 HAND DELIVERED SUBJECT: Applicant's post-hearing memorandum for CUP 2000-44441/SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park Expansion) Dear Mr. Hearings Officer: This letter contains and incorporates by reference rebuttal testimony on behalf of the applicant, City of Tigard in response to new evidence and testimony submitted by other parties between the April 10 hearing and April 17, 2000. No new evidence is contained in this letter. EXHIBIT - MB Pennington letter This exhibit does not contain new evidence. It contains argument only. In it, Mr. Pennington argued that because the staff report referred to the emergency vehicle connection crossing the wetland in the NE corner of the park expansion as a "bridge" crossing, the approval should include a condition requiring a bridge crossing rather than a culvert with fill. Applicant pointed out in the hearing that planning staff reference to a bridge in the report was incorrect. Planning staff further agreed in the hearing that the reference to a bridge was figurative, meaning that the wetland was being "bridged" by a culvert and fill. Further, the current DSL permit issued for the crossing is based on a design including a culvert and fill in the wetland with the required mitigation for the wetland disturbance. The Corps of Engineers and DSL permit allows work on and near the subject wetlands on the property. As part of that permit review, qualified state and federal staff evaluated the impact of the proposed work on a complete range of species. The impact to all sensitive species was evaluated and accommodated as part of approval of the DSL permit. Mitigation for determined impacts is already included in the DSL permit. Condition of Approval # 9 requires review of construction methods and techniques to minimize impacts to the wetland in the immediate vicinity of the Applicant's post-hearing memorandum CUP 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park Expansion) Page 1 of 5 • • proposed crossing. Standard construction methods will include installation of erosion control fencing prior to the start of construction to clearly define the impact area. EXHIBIT - Forrest letter This exhibit does not contain new evidence. It contains additional argument, most of which repeats arguments already in the record of oral testimony from the public hearing. The exhibit includes a brochure from the Tualatin Riverkeepers titled "Birds of the Lower Tualatin" and a copy of the hearing notice with the northern area circled as an area of greatest concern. In their letter Mr. and Mrs. Forrest raise three issues. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Forrest explain the variety of "abundant wildlife" present in the area of the proposed expansion. While the Forrests express "concern...that the proximity of the playing fields will all but eliminate a number of the species now present" they do not purport to be expert in matters of environmental biology or habitat management, and do not provide any substantial evidence to support their opinions. The Corps of Engineers and DSL permit allows work on and near the subject wetlands on the property. Several options for sports field layouts were included in the COE/DSL permit application. As part of that permit review, qualified state and federal staff evaluate the impact of the proposed work on a complete range of species. The impact to all sensitive species was evaluated and accommodated as part of approval of the DSL permit request. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Forrest encourage "sensible setback limits....". The applicant agrees. Setback buffers to the wetlands are important to the health and viability of the wetlands. The applicant has approached the issue seriously, as indicated by the judicious arrangement of the ball playing fields to reduce the potential of balls rolling or being hit into the buffers. Even though the minimum required buffer is twenty-five (25) feet, the submitted design includes minimum fifty (50) foot buffers to all of the wetlands proximal to the ball fields. Although the Forrests are concerned about encroachment into the buffers, they provide no evidence that any additional buffer is necessary. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Forrest ask for clear definition of the amount and species of trees and other landscaping between the playing fields and wetlands. The current DSL permit specifies with some clarity the required mitigation/enhancement plantings currently mandated by that permit. Additionally, the final construction documents for the park expansion project will include complete landscape construction drawings with detailed specifications relative to plant size, species, spacing and quantities, as currently required by the development code. Applicant's post-hearing memorandum CLIP 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park Expansion) Page 2 of 5 0 0 EXHIBIT - Counts letter Mr. Counts asserts the application does not fully comply with four criteria of the City of Tigard Development Code. The applicant respectfully disagrees with Mr. Counts. In his letter Mr. Counts raise four issues, and includes copies of seven supplemental documents supporting his arguments. Supporting Document 1- Redfern Memorandum Supporting Document 2 - City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory Unit 9 Supporting Document 3 - USA Memorandum Supporting Document 4 - Drainage Basin Map The Redfern Memorandum describes his (Roger Redfern) preliminary examination of Cook Park and vicinity, observing surface water, ground water and wetlands. The memorandum states that the reconnaissance did not disclose any natural or enhanced wetlands not previously mapped in background materials supplied by Mr. Counts. The applicant does not know what background materials were supplied, but assumes they are maps available from the City of Tigard mapping wetlands, water areas and sensitive areas of the city (probably Supporting Document 2). The memorandum goes on to describe an overflow outlet channel mapped on the Tigard Wetlands Inventory Unit 9 (supporting document 2) traveling south and extending to within 75 feet of the Tualatin River. The memorandum describes the channel as a "created channel apparently excavated (emphasis added) through both hydric and non-hydric soils..." that carries surface water connected with both natural and enhanced wetlands north of Cook Park. The memo concludes that the "significance of this and the jurisdictional nature of the aquatic resource is beyond my understanding and authority". The created channel is proposed to be partially filled and is included as a work area in the COE/DSL permit discussed elsewhere in this memorandum. At the public hearing City of Tigard staff explained that the "created channel" traveling south along the east boundary of the existing park is NOT identified as a "wetland" on any official maps used by the City of Tigard for administration of the development code. The 75 foot setback from the Tualatin River does NOT reach to the edge of wetland #F-18 or #F-19, the two identified wetlands that impact the subject site. The two site-impacting wetlands, #F-18 and #F-19, fall under Chapter 18.7.97.020 (2c) of the development code and require a minimum twenty five (25) foot buffer. Staff interpretation of the relevant applicability of the Development Code should be considered expert evidence that the buffer criteria is satisfied. Based on supporting document #4 and primarily on the oral testimony made by Mr. Counts at the April 10 hearing, applicant believes Mr. Counts is attempting to describe the "minor perennial stream" that serves property to the north and discharges into the wetlands along the north boundary of Cook Park. There are no other streams or drainages in this area. This drainage is completely contained within the identified wetland area and its buffers. Relative to Supporting Document -3, a memo from USA staff, there is a general reference to "Sensitive Area" on page 2 of the memo. Mr. Counts does not offer additional opinion, but restates the requirement that "The river, wetland/sensitive area shall be identified on plans." The plain reading of this USA requirement means that the graphic elements of the submittal should identify all Applicant's post-hearing memorandum CUP 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park Expansion) Page 3 of 5 0 0 water-based elements and/or resources. The graphic elements of the submittal have met the requirement. Supporting Document 5 - Sue Marshall Editorial-Oregonian 6-26-199? Mr. Counts quotes two items under the heading "Master Plan For Tigard" appearing to infer that the application is deficient because these two issues were not specifically addressed as part of the application package. He cites two points raised in the Marshall editorial. In that document Ms. Marshall mentions "Cook Park, for example, is a year round home for the pileated woodpecker and a winter home for the buffle-headed duck" and "decentralizing the location of playing fields". While Ms. Marshall and Mr. Counts may believe that a master parks plan for the City of Tigard is important, the development of that document is not part of the required submittal package for the current land use application, and the specific study of "decentralizing playing fields" is not germane to the application under review. As stated earlier, a current COE/DSL permit is in effect. The impact to all sensitive species was evaluated and accommodated as part of approval of the COE/DSL permit. Supporting Document 6 Kasson letter (July 1992) Supporting Document 7 - Counts memo to Nicoli (September 1996) While both of these letters touch on the general condition of, and specific historical incidents relating to, Cook Park and the surrounding neighborhood, there is nothing in either of these two letters that relates specifically to the current application for land use approval. It is assumed that these letters are submitted to substantiate the concerns of Mr. Counts relative to "noise and crinunal code violations", but the specific issue he cites "the full impact of more development within the Cook Park" is not clearly identified in either letter, relative to this application. Because the two letters are somewhat generic and are historic, 1992 and 1996, in nature, they do not address any specific proposal within this application. Under the heading "wetland resource protection and enhancement", Mr. Counts refers to the Cook Park Master Plan and cites the comments relative to fencing mentioned in the written report. Fencing is not proposed at this time, however, increased plantings and expanded buffers as described in the application materials and at the public hearing will provide protection to the significant resources identified by the City of Tigard. That concludes the applicant's post-hearing memorandum. If new testimony is not submitted or we decide it does not warrant a response, we will advise you promptly of our decision to waive our right to file such a final argument. In either event, we appreciate your courtesy and attention and look forward to your decision. Sincerely, CONSULTING ENGINE TG SERVICES, INC. obb . ot Anthony ieller, P.E., P. .S. Vice Presi ent Applicant's post-hearing memorandum CUP 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00003 (Cook Park Expansion) Page 4 of 5 April 2, 1 9 °R A' permit to remove and place approximately 3.000 cubic yards of fill in a wetland at two locations. at Section 14, Township 2 South, Ranae 1 ?Nest, Cook Park, Tigard. Oreeon. has been issued to City of Tigard on April 2. 19 98 Address of Permittee 13125 SW. Hall Boulevard, Tigard. Oregon 97223. Permit Number /Wt~" Jan tuart, Ph.D. ID NO: 97-1483 FO District Commander Robert T. Slusar Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer ENG FORM 4336 . Jul 81 33 C-R 320-330) EDITION OF JUL 70 MAY BE USED P.0ou"e-t CECw PSnCIVED OCT 19 1998 Proi. No. KAMPE ASSOC. INC United States Army Corps of Engineers Nor Reply to Attention of: Construction-Operations Division 9 DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PA. BOX 2946 PORTLAND, O~EGON 97208-2946 [Apn 2, 1998) SUBIECT: Permit Application ID No: 97-1483 City of Tigard Attn: Jim Hendryx 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Hendryx: 0 AEDMIVED OCT 19 1998 Proj. No, KAMPE ASSOC . INC Enclosed are your fully executed Department of the Army Permit and a notice of authorization which must be posted at the work site. Please carefully read the permit and its conditions. In addition, if you have a contractor and/or agent, please review these conditions with them to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the permit terms. Also be aware that other authorizations from Federal, state, or local governments may be required by law. If the work is not completed prior to the permit expiration date, you may apply for a time extension. We recommend you apply for a time extension at least 90 days before the expiration date of the permit. If you have any questions, please contact me, at the above address or telephone (503) 808-4381. Sincerely, cal- ~ ?511 i an S Ph.D Proj ct Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures OCT 1.91998 Proi. NO. KAMPE ASSOC. INC DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT RECEIVED Permittee: CITY OF TIGARD APR 02 1998 Permit No: 97-01483 REGULATORY BRANCH Issuing Office: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND DISTRICT NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under, the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordancewith the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: To remove about 354 cubic yards of material and place approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill material in a mitigation wetland at two locations for the constructions of a mad/ rail and park improvements. One of the impact areas is for the installation of a recycled wastewater line leading to the mitigation wetland. The majority of the 1.23 acres of existing mitigation wetland that will be impacted occurs in a part of the wetland that resembles a T-shaped ditch. The ditch-like wetland is narrow, steep sloped, and vegetated by a low quality emergent plant community (mainly reed canary grass). The proposed mitigation plan is to replace the loss of 1.23 acres of wetland by creating 3.4 acre palustrine emergent, forested and scrub-shmb wetland and enhancing 0.23 acres of emergent wetland. The applicant will also provide a 30 foot buffer where there is access to the mitigation area from Cook Park Purpose: To expand the park's nature area; sports facilities; and provide an emergency ingresslegress mad for the park Project Location: Cook Park, Washington County, Tigard, Oregon (Section 14, T2S/R1W). Drawing: Six marked 97-1483 (Cook Park Expansion) General Conditions: - The_ time limit for completing the work. authorized ends on March 31, 2001. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 0 0 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions a. through n.: a. Fill materials used to construct the structure shall be free of toxic substances which are in concentrations that are toxic to aquatic (and other) life. b. During construction, techniques shall be employed to prevent petroleum products, chemicals, harmful materials, construction debris, excessive suspended solids (sediment run-off, and wet concrete), and machinery from entering the wetland or Tualatin River. c. Untreated waste water 1 stomt water runoff may not be deliberately directed into the wetland d. Safeguards to prevent stockpiled material at upland sites from entering a waterway shall be employed. e. All in water work will be limited to the preferred is-water work period, June 1 and September 30, as imposed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. E Turbidity shall be monitored and shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities as a result of the project. The turbidity standard may be exceeded for a limited duration, period not to exceed 2 hours, provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented, as applicable, including, but not limited to: - use of filter bags, sediment fences, silt curtains, leave strips or berms, or other measures sufficient to prevent off-site movement of soil; - use of an impervious material to cover stockpiles when unattended or during a rain event; - graveled construction accesses to prevent movement of material offsite via construction vehicles; and - sediment traps or catch basins to settle out solids prior to water entering ditches or waterways. g. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Executive Building, 811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, at the end of each week of operation, h. Erosion control measures shall be maintained as necessary to ensure their continued effectiveness, until soils become stabilized. i. Any wetlands adjacent to the construction area shall be flagged or fenced off for wetland protection during the construction phase. j. Vegetative disturbance shall be the minimum necessary to achieve the project purpose. L Areas of bank disturbance and exposed soils shall be seeded or planted with native grasses, legumes, shrubs and/or trees. All exposed soils shall be stabilized immediately after project completion to prevent erosion and sedimentation. 1. The mitigation area shall be deed restricted to protect the area into, perpetuity. A copy of the deed restriction shall - be submitted to this office by December 31, 1998. 7 i • m. The mitigation plan must be fully implemented within -one-year of the date of the permit: Construction for ail mitigation work will commence concurrently with the authorized filling activity. An as-built report of the mitigation area shall be submitted by December 31 of the year build. The mitigation shall be monitored for 5 years with 80% survival of planted species being considered successful. Photodocumented monitoring reports shall be submitted annually to this office by December 31. n. Once the compensatory mitigation has been approved as complete, the permittee may maintain the site, if consistent with the compensatory mitigation goals, by such activities as control of nutria, removal of exotic (non-native) or pest plant species, and controlled burning if consistent with the compensatory mitigation goals. The permittee may not engage in activities inconsistent with compensatory mitigation goals, such as removal of vegetation or alteration of hydrology, without written approval from this office. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). O Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U: S. C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification. suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information yon provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. i b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above), c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. le- (PEOITTEE S16NATURE) / / (DATE) (PRINTED NAME) r (TITLE) This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. Gc.~ April 2,. 1998 ISTR , ENGINEER) (DATE) OR . Robert T. Slusar Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions. have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 1 = IW o Q SATTLER ST DURHAM PROJECT SITE T~T I N MFR 2TUALA TIN - Cook Park Expansion--COE #97-1483 SHEET I OF 5 12-3-97 M.urra~,S,mlii~h"fissoaates hc. Y -0,, N g = WI~LIGGJ/flitlW~$ o _ _ _ _ - ? Itl fl. Spey Ails 1020 19pQ ?~OGIO (iJ ' Mac Rgoo 8201 1u M-1612 RD 4 m Q 2 RD LOCATION MAP SCALE: I'-1000' SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES Ecoloeists & Metland"Recicklls JJ977 S. Tolirer Rd. • moialla, oR 97038 aMaratio (503) 829-8318 • FAX: (303) 029-3074 of%'" ) ORA" ICY 101MCo Pru ) srAc ws &,~owM CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD OREGON 1 u+ic 1 . . , . 1917 Q GPI o O i i- CHILDS REe`o+VEO OCT 19 1998 Pcoi. No. KAMPE ASSOC. INC SITE LOCATION MAP OF COOK PARK 4/f 1 Cook Park Expansion--COE ##97-1483 SHEET 2 OF 5 12-3-97 ' SCALE. 1' a 200' PJ COW PARK DVANSICIV AREA 2 3 ACRES Ae~"'i~?+ r . xk. yr aoR PRO,tcr ci; h wrriuroaw AREA rfi 1-, 0.06 ACRE U. 1 PC7R1C OCvYIOPVCnf / • wriurow AREA 06 ACRE i 1 Y Y a go1 F i t PARKING MrTlCATIDN WETLAND AREA g TO BE Bf IMPACTED SfT 0 A 1 RECYCLED W B9Tt F ND WASTEWATER AR ouTLE r I W P. i . !2 RECYCLED WASTEWATER LINE FROM USA SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT DURHAM ~ yr aII 6 : ~ ~ 6r 1 13 Cook Park Lrxpansiou--COE #97-1483 1 SHEET 3 OF S 12-3-97 2 ti r ~4v t SCatE J' = 50' co co co HA or s o~ zg~ lea . DF DF I a ~ 4)- 1 . , co Rg. 8 ^ ti \ OF w jj 25• f-00T (?OFFER 'LONE ~ , a CO _ - ' WE L AND &ouNOARr i B p OF SEE' AT TACHED = OF PLATT SPEC I £S ' DF h D RA Qh LEGEND rF 09 - - - - DF 8 I P co 4 i ~ e ; SLR K ODF f I I 11 " c~. ..'•r DF Co OA* \ OA i~• ::`I~~~~~ tip. VIR~ ` . i ~,,.•y ,TM,,, ter; \ DA k" A 41, -y'.•::.,,...' " l I 011 I 1 A RA , iv f- Li p 111 ;.y. ~ ~ -y ~ ~ -i •!-YL i~ Ea 1 Q ~ fl DF ys °x a c~ c0 ~I J, OA II ~ ~ 3 I ....10D > f ' Q< IOD of I • Z HERBACEOUS PLANT COMa- butterfly meadow - 0.62 acre ANT I NG METHOD AND RA T OMMON NAME I I F 1 C NAMF p .C EL a red fescue Festuca rubro hydroseed 509 of seed mix by weight ' F o9 Z FLOWER SPECIES., hydroseed 50Z of seed mix by weight (each species T. 1%) G yarrow Achilleo millefolium hydroseed a asters Aster chifensis hydroseed Id a Aster subspicutus hydroseed Delphinium Delphinium nuttollii hydroseed p C: 2 goldenrod Canidensis solidogo hydroseed -e small-flowered penstemon Penstemon procerus hydroseed z p farewell-to-spring Clorkia amoeno hydroseed LU C7 lupines Lupinus bicolor 40 transplants Lupinus polyphyflus 40 transplants paintbrush Costillejo miniato 100 transplants western bee palm Manardedo adoratismo 100 transplants early blue violet Viola adunco 150 transplants aZ Maurito Smyth, Environmental Consultant assisted in selection of butterfly meadow plant species. g d aW F °C NO SYMBOL HERBACEOUS PLANT COMMUNITY: 0.36 acre in buffer zone and upland (outside of butterfy meadow) C b COMMON NAME MFNTIFIC NAME PLANTING METHOD ANQ RATF V colonial bentgross Agrostis tenuis hydroseed 100 lb./A 59 Bower seed, 959 grass seed perennial ryegross Latium perenne California poppy Eschscholzia colifomica red clover Trifoli protense chicory bus Cichoriu ium intytius toll fescue Festuco arundinace e 4 NO SYMBOL HERBACEOUS PLANT COMMUNITY: 3.4 acres in created and enhanced wetland COMMON NAME .5CIENTIFIC NAME Pf ANTING METHOD AND RATc W F. red fescue Festuca rubro hydroseed 100 lb./A 57. Bower seed, 959 grass seed E a tufted hairgross Deschompsio cespitoso U o o mannagross Glyceria occidentalis O bird's-foot trefoil Lotus cornicutotus v] v redtop Agrostis alba a photo monitoring station H ^ ° F M~ r $ to 8 ca G 1111 4 n IU III Jill Cook Park Expansion--COE #971483 (1 106 SHEET 5 OF 5 12'3'97 11013 Of 13 96-a~~~.+03 .-U20L COMMON NAME Oregon white oak DF Douglas fir OA Oregon ash RA red alder big-leaf maple Douglas hawthorn CO cottonwood Pacific crabapple F1 cascara Pacific willow 1 Scouler's willow ® Douglas spiroeo red-osier dogwood 2 toll Oregon grape ® 2 red-flowering currant 1 sword fern ® clustered wild rose. ® Nootko rose a salmon berry black twin-flower vine maple. HA hozelnut butterfly-bush blue elderberry. red elderberry ® small-fruited bulrush o soft rush. 0o 0 slough sedge ® hard-stem bullrush SAFIFIC M Quersus garryana Pseudotsuga menziezii Frazinas latifolia Alnus rubra Acer macmphylum. Crniaegus douglasiic. Fbpulus tri,drocarpa. Pyrus malus Rhamnus purshiana Saliz lasiandru Salix scouteriana Spirrae douglasii Cornus stolonifera Yahonia aqui folium Ribes sanguineum. Fblystichum. munitum Rosa pisocarpa. Rosa nutkana Rubus spectabilis Lonicera involucrata Acer cirrinatum Corylus cornuta Budlia dividii Sambucus cerulea Sambucus racemosa Scirpus mimvcarpus. Juncus a ffusus. Carsz obnupta Scirpus acutus Cook Park Expansion--COE #974483 SHEET 4 OF 5 12-3-97 NUMBER OF ? SPACING or RATE MINI PLANTINGS AND /OR ARF G ' t ' 5 1 a 5 36 28 dFd 20' 36" - ~i 53 Z CS rn seedling - 2/3 E G 15' 36" 117 IL Y 15' 3s" 45 0 20' 36" 42 w 0 00Z O 12' 30" 36 V ' 20 3 cultings/location 43 12' 24" - 36" 20 12' 24' - J6" 18 O o i 15' 3 cuttings location 60 LU 15' 12" potted plant 38 O L o p 3 4' o.c. 24" 550/0.18 AC vF 6' o.c. 24" 25010.16 AC 6' a. c. 24" 15010.27 AC 6' a. c. 24" 15010.27 AC 6' o. c. I got. 7510.27 AC 4' a. c. 24" 70010.23 AC 6' o. c. 24" 180/0.13 AC 4' o.c. 24" 75010.23 AC ° v ~ W ° A 4' 30" 17 y F S ~ o N e 8' 24' 82 = U O = - n i 5' 4" 6 o rJ3 o ° Q ` I gal. 5 e r O a ~ s I gal. 7 F 3! O A ° I gal. 12 V a 2' a. c. rhizome 250010.20 AC vl c 2' o. c. rhizome 91 ° 2' o. c. rhizome 240010.19 AC S 2' o. c. rhizome 280010.23 AC ea G 1! . Illllllu~mF~°" 1 OA 1OA of 1: ~ w 4 96-67+b5 I A t .I 91' • W 5 s 0 S f 12'-0" r 4 -v -I OUTFALL STRUCTURE-P IAN, N TS I :r a" (TYP) - A v, 4'-0" f r MIN roll i IQO RIPRAP 2 ,1 1W r r r ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ♦ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r EX ISa WETLAND EXIST GRADE 8" NEW 610 HOPE SCALE: 5' 0' SL =0.004 FT/FT - , , ~!L 1 12' n •i i i ;I .,I 3 o~ O 29 °a Y tyy3 U tt 92z W F EXIST 6" RECYCLED m 16 jjNNaSTEwATER ;PPIPING a o ° a PROPOSED § F6- GATE VALV E 9 3 PROPOSED -5" OUTLET PIPING w~ c PROPOSED a a OUTLET STRUCTURE 0 a l t e[ _ pot 13 13 ar s -A o,CaeP Division of State Lands eEO>:M PLANNING Pem„t No.: 14620 775 Summer Street NF-'PE Permitoe: Removal/Fill Salem, OR 97310 OCT 1. 5998 APR 0 $1998 Waterway: Tualatin/Wetlands 2 503-378-3805 Proj.No. County: Washington KAMPE ASSOC. 1N(bgy0FBGM Expiration Date: March 30, 1999 J Corps No.: 97-1483 CITY OF TIGARD 1 ~ U IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 196.800 TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A AND TO THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The permit holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by another. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance with local zoning or other local, state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this permit. The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceeding under this permit. 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this. project are set forth on Attachment A. 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit are subject to administrative and/or legal action which may result in revocation of the permit or damages. The permit holder is responsible for the activities of all contractors or other operators involved in work done at the site or under this permit. 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the work site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. 6. Employees of the Division of State Lands and all duly authorized representatives of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the conditions of this permit may request a hearing from the Director, in writing, within 10 days of the date this permit was issued. 8. In issuing this permit, the Division of State Lands makes no representation regarding the quality or adequacy of the permitted project design, materials, construction, or maintenance, except to approve the project's design and materials, as set forth in the permit application, as satisfying the resource protection, scenic, safety, recreation, and public access requirements of ORS Chapters 196, 390 and related administrative rules. 9. Permittee shall defend and hold harmless the State of Oregon, and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, suit, or action for property damage or personal injury or death arising out of the design, material, construction, or maintenance of the permitted improvements. NOTICE: If removal is from state-owned submerged and submersible land, the applicant must comply with leasing and royalty provisions of ORS 274.530. If the project involves creation of new lands by filling on state- owned submerged or submersible lands, you must comply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Division of State Lands, to conduct activities on state-owned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal liability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Division of State Lands, 378-3805. Earle A. Johnson, Manager 14 Western Region Field Operations Oregon Division of State Lands 'ksalem I`•f*1fMM11aWM1 =c.d= March :0, 1998 Authoriz Signatu- Date Issued i RFreIVF0 OCT 1 9 1998 Proj. No. ATTACHMENT A KAMPE ASSOC . INC Special Conditions for Material Removal/Fill Permit No. 14620 This permit authorizes the placement of up to 3,000 cubic yards of material in Section 14, T2S, R1W (Tualatin River, wetlands) for construction of a road/trail and parks improvements as outlined in the attached permit application, map and drawings. This permit also authorizes the removal of material necessary to complete the mitigation requirements, subject to special condition 6 below. 2. Turbidity shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities as a result of the project. The turbidity standard may be exceeded for a limited duration, (per OAR 340-41) provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented as applicable, including, but not limited to: -use of filter bags, sediment fences, silt curtains, leave strips or berms, or other measures sufficient to prevent offsite movement of soil; -use of an impervious material to cover stockpiles when unattended or during a rain event; -graveled construction accesses to prevent movement of material offsite via construction vehicles; -sediment traps or catch basins to settle out solids prior to water entering ditches or waterways; and Erosion control measures shall be maintained as necessary to ensure their continued effectiveness, until sails become stabilized. 3. Petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials shall not be allowed to enter the water. 4. Waste materials and spoils shall be placed at an upland location and not in any unauthorized wetland areas. 5. Removal of existing woody vegetation shall be the minimum necessary to achieve the project purpose. 0 0 Attachment A RF 14620 Page 2 of 3 MITIGATION CONDITIONS 6. The following conditions apply to the enhanced/created wetlands as described in the revised application and Mitigation Plan and as depicted on revised Sheets 6,9,10]) and 13 of 13 and Table 1. a. The replacement wetlands shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the wetland filling activity. b. The wetland shall be excavated or maintained to the depths outlined in the Mitigation Plan. C. The shoreline and shallow emergent areas of the wetlands shall be seeded or planted as specified in the Planting Plan (sheet 10A of 13) and as depicted on Sheets IOC, 10D and 13 of 13. Trees and shall be protected with heavy gauge wire to prevent animal damage. Following planting of the area, the vegetation shall be watered the first year and allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance. The criteria for success shall be 80% survival for a period of five years. d. The issuance of this permit is conditional upon establishment of replacement wetlands of approximately 3.6 acres for loss of 1.2 acres of wetland habitat. Table 1 depicts two additional projects that will be mitigated at the site for an additional 0.86 acres of habitat for a total of 4.46 acres. MONITORING CONDITIONS 7. To insure a successful habitat replacement the permittee shall, for period of five years, maintain the created wetlands integrity until vegetation has become established. 8. The permittee shall establish fixed photo stations . Photo documentation reports as outlined in the Monitoring Plan shall be submitted annually to the Division of State Lands for monitoring purposes for five years after the mitigation construction is complete. Attachment A RF 14620 Page 3 of 3 9. Fallowing receipt of the annual monitoring report, the Division of State Lands, in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall review the data submitted and the site conditions with the applicant. Necessary measures to ensure achievement of the mitigation objectives will be determined at the end of the review. CONTINGENCY MEASURES 10. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to require appropriate corrective actions to the mitigation site in the event the newly created wetlands are not functioning as designed within a period of five years. 11. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of excessive turbidity or damage to natural resources. March 30, 1998 Division df State Lands A T T A C H M H 1rmnlt~A RF-14620 - Renewal 775 Summer Street NE NOTICEm.. itType: RemovaVFill Salem, OR 97310 rway: Wetland/Tualatin River 0 503-378-3805 THIS PERK-11-Date: Washington March 30, 2000 M 97-1483 15 T 7B s AL IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANU QAh 4"6I00-'TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A AND TO THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The it holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by anoth. r. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance vA local zoning or other local, state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this-nermit The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceed' tative this permit: 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon A Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this project are set forth on Attachment A. 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit s ect to administrative andlor-legal action which may result in revocation of the permit or damages. Th t holder is responsible for the activities of all contractors or, other operators involved in work done at the site or under this permit. 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the r site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. 6. Employees of the Division of State Lands and duly authorized representatives of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the Ac ons of this permit may Yruest a hearing from the Director, *in writing, within 10 days of the date this permit was issued. 8. In issuing this permit, the Division of State Lands makes no re resentation regarding the quality or adequacy of the permitted project desi R,erials, construction,. or enance, except to approve the project's design and materials, as set fo the permit application, satisfying the resource protection, scenic, safety, recreation, and public access requirements of ORS Chapters 196, 390 and related administrative rules. 9. Permittee shall defend ld harmless the State of on, and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, suit, or action roperty damage or pers al i 'ury or death arising out of the design, material, construction, or maintena ce f the permitted improve. NOTICE: If remo om state-owned subme and submersible land, the applicant must comply with leasing and royalty p ons of ORS 274.530. I e project involves creation of new lands by filling on state- owned submerged o !bbmersible lands, you must 2bfdply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Division of State Lands, to conduct activities on awned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or cri ina iability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Division of State Lands, 378-38 . Earle A. Johnson, Manager Western Region Field Operations 11 Oregon Division.of.State Lands ) ._March.3.0, .1.999 Authorize "Si ture Date Issued fi ATTACHMENT A Special Conditions for Material Removal/Fill Permit No. 14620 k - 1., This permit authorizes the placement of up to 3,000 cubic yards of material in,. Section 14, T2S, RI W (Wetland/ ualatin River)4or construction of a road/trail and parks improvements as outlined in the attached _permit application, map and drawings. This permit also autho:rize:s.the removal of material necessary to. complete the mitigation requirements, subject to. special condition 6 below. 2: Turbidity shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidit'ies as a result of the ; project. The turbidity standard may be exceeded for a limited duration, (per OAR 340-41) provided;.all,practicabie erosion control measures have been implemented as applicable, including, but not limited to: -use of filter bags,-sediment fences, silt curtains, leave. strips or-berms- or other measures- sufficient to prevent offsite movement of soil; -use of an impervious material to cover stockpiles when unattended or during a rain event; _ 1 _ ~-graveled„construction accesses to;prevent movement of material offsite via construction vehicles; -s.ediment-traps. or catch: basins -to_settle out solids prior to water entering ditches or waterways; and Erosion control measures shall be maintained as necessary to ensure_ -their continued"effectivehess; until soils become stabilized. 3. Petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials shall not be-allowed-to - enterlhe-water. 4. Waste.materials- and spoils-shall be placed.at. an -upland location and not=in _any unauthorized wetland areas., 5. Removal of existing woody vegetation shall be-the minimum. necessary to achieve the project purpose. ,Y Attachment A RF 14620 Page 2 of 3 MITIGATION CONDITIONS 6. ;The.following conditions apply to the enhanced/created wetlands as described in the revised application and Mitigation Plan and as depicted on revised Sheets 6,9,10D and 13 of 13 and Table 1. a) The replacement wetlands shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the ,'wetland filling activity. b) The wetland shall be excavated or maintained to the depths outlined in the Mitigation Plan. c) The shoreline and shallow emergent areas of the wetlands shall be seeded or planted as specified in the Planting Plan (sheet 10A of 13) and as depicted on Sheets 10C, 10D and 13 of 13. Trees and shall be protected with heavy gauge wire to prevent animal damage. Following planting of the area, the vegetation shall be watered the first year and allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance. The criteria for success shall be 80% survival for a period of five years. d) - The issuance of this permit is conditional upon establishment of replacement wetlands of approximately 3.6 acres for loss of 1.2 acres of wetland habitat. Table 1 depicts two additional projects that will be mitigated at the site for an additional 0.86 acres of habitat for a total of 4.46 acres. MONITORING CONDITIONS 7. To insure a successful habitat replacement the permittee shall, for period of five years, maintain the created wetlands integrity until vegetation has become established. 8. The permittee shall establish fixed photo stations . Photo documentation reports as outlined in the Monitoring Plan shall be submitted annually to the Division of State Lands for monitoring purposes for five years after the mitigation construction is complete. Attachment A RF 14620 Page 3 of 3 9. Following receipt of the annual monitoring report, the Division of State Lands, in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall review the data submitted and the site conditions with the applicant. Necessary measures to ensure achievement of the mitigation objectives will be determined at the end of the review. CONTINGENCY MEASURES 10. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to require appropriate corrective actions to the mitigation site in the event the newly created wetlands are not functioning as designed within a period of five years. 11. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of excessive turbidity or damage to natural resources. March 30, 1999 attachmen(AwestNRF-14620.doc 9 JOINT U S Army Corps of Engineers Corps Action Id Number Date Received Oregon Division of State Lands Number PERMIT APPLICATION FORM THIS APPLICATION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 80TH AGENCIES District Engineer ATTN: CENPP-PE-RP P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 5031326-7730 10 Applicant Name and Address ® Authorized Agent O Contractor Property Owner (if different than applicant) Name and Address Street, Road or other descriptive location Northeast comer of Cook Park East of SW 92nd Ave. and south of Waverly Dr. Date Received 0 State of Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE Salem, OR 97310 5031378-3805 r~~o business phone # (503) 639-4171 home phone # Quarter business phone # (503)829-6318 home phone # business phone # home phone # Legal Description Section Township Range .14 2S 1W In or Near (City or Town) County Tax Map # Tax Lot # Tigard Washington .1500 & 100 Waterway River Mile Latitude Longitude 50 & north of Tualatin River A ~ Is consent to enter property granted to the Corps and the Division of State Lands? 0 Yes ONo 0 Proposed Project Information Activity Type: ® Fill 1W Excavation (removal) Oln-Water Structure OMaintain/Repair an Existing Structure Brief Description: Fill mitigation wetland at two locations for the construction of a road/trail and nark improvements. One impact area for installation of recycled wastewater line Ieadine to mitigation wetland. Fill will involve cubic yards annually and/or 3000 cubic yards for the total project Fill will be ORiprap ORock Gravel- ® Sand ® Silt Clay ($1 Organics Other Fill impact Area is 1.2 Acres; various length; various width; various depth Removal will involve cubic yards annually andlor 38 cubic yards for the total project Removal will'be ORiprap O Rock XO Gravel 0 Sand ® Silt ® Clay (8) Organics OOther Removal impact Area is 0.0008 Acres; 90 ft. length; 2.5 ft. and 10 ft. width; 4 ft.- and 10 ft. dept City of Tigard, Mr. J'cn Hendryx City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223. Schott & Associates 11977 S. Toliver Rd Molalla, OR 97038 Project Location Estimated Start Date June 1998 Estimated Completion Date September 1998 Will any material, construction Aebris, runoff, etc_ . enter ;a wetland °tbr=water way? OYes 6Si No If-yes, describe the type of discharge and show the disdharge location on the -site•plan. - - Q Proposed Project Purpose & Description Project Purpose and Need: There is a deficit of open space for passive and, active recreation in the City of Tigard. The City is has acquired a 21- acre property adjacent to Cook Park (7 acres of which is currently being purchased from the Unified Sewerage Agency) to expand the park's nature area and sports facilities.' Currently, there is only one access road to Cook Park. An alternative emergency route is needed for the park The proposed access toad "will double as a trail, and will serve to connect the park to the regional trail system (Fanno Creek Trail), Project Description: Improvements in the expansion.area include sports fields, nature areas (wetland, butterfly meadow, and woods), trails, picnic grounds, parking, and an emergency access road/trail. An existing mitigation wetland will be impacted by the road/trail, and by filling in a T-shaped ditch. A total of 12 acres of low quality wetland will be impacted. How many project drawing sheets are included with this application? 13 NOTE: A complete application must include drawings and a location map submitted on separate 8%X11 sheets. 0 Project Impacts and Alternatives Describe alternatives sites and project designs that were considered to avoid impacts to the waterway or wetland. The project was designed to minimized impacts to the existing mitigation wetland. There were no practical -alternatives to the project design that would completely avoid the wetland areas. The proposed emergency access road/triHl crosses a narrow segment of the wetland at the northeast corner of the park The road/trail will provide the park with a direct connection to a major roadway (Hall Blvd) for emergency vehicles, and will connect to the Fanno Greek Trail System. The Cook Park Expansion Project will involve filling in only portions of the mitigation wetland that resemble a ditch. These ditch-like portions of the wetland do not provide high quality wetland habitat, are unsightly, and interrupt access into and within the expansion area. See Sheet 6. Describe what measures you will use (before and after construction) to minimize impacts to the waterway or wetiand. Erosion into the unimpacted areas of the wetlands will be minimal. During construction activities, natural vegetation will be left undisturbed in and surrounding unimpacted wetland areas. During rain events, the undisturbed areas will help to trap potential sedimeat erosion coming from unvegetawA disturbed areas. Sediment barriers will be placed at the base of impacted areas. The erosion control plan will comply with Washington County and Unified Sewerage Agency guidelines. ® Miscellaneous Information Adjoining Property Owners and their Addresses and Phone.Numbers Below are neighbors within 250ft. of the proposed. impact areas. Property owner to the east: Unified Sewerage Agency, 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 270, Hillsboro, OR 97124, 648-8621 Property owners at south end of SW 88th Pl.: Mary Shaver, 13499 Khuran St.., Lakeside, CA 92010 Michael Zoucha, 12540 SW 68th Pkway, Suite B, Tigard, OR 97223 List all other approvals or certificates received, applied for, or denied that are related to this application. Issuing Agency Type of Approval Identification Number Dates of application / Approval / Denial none Q City/County Planning Department Affiu.-vit (to be completed by local planning official) ()This project is not regulated by the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. ® This project has been reviewed and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. QThis project has been reviewed and is not consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 0Consistency of this project with the local planning ordinance cannot be determined until the following local approval(s) are obtained: OConditional Use Approval ODevelopment Permit Q Plan Amendment dZone Change Q Other An application Qhas Qhas not been made for local approvals checked above. 10a 1'q C- -3 -'f 7 gignature (of local planning icial le Gym City ouOy Date Coastal Zone Certification If the proposed activity described in your permit application is within the Oregon coastal zone, the following certification is required before your application can be processed. A public notice will be issued with the certification statement which will be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for its concurrence or objection. For additional information on the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program, contact the department at 1175 Court Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 5031373-0050. Certification Statement I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the proposed activity described in this application complies with the approved Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program and will be completed in a manner consistent. with the program. NA Applicant Signature Date Signature for Joint Application . (Required) Application is hereby made for the activities described herein. ( certify that I am familiar with the information ' contained in the application, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. 1 understand that the granting of other permits by local, county, state or federal agencies does not release me from the requirement of obtaining the permits requested before commencing the project. I understand that local permits may be required before the state removal-fill permit is issued. I understand that payment of the required state processing fee does not guarantee permit issuance. Applicant Signature Date I certify that I may act as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Authorized Agent Signature Date . i Supplemental Wetland Impact lnformattun* (For Wetland Fills Only) Site Conditions of impact area impact area is QOcean QEstuary ORiver 01-ake QStream 0 Freshwater Wetland Note: Estuarian Resource Replacement is required by state law for projects involving intertidal or tidal marsh alterations. A separate Wetlands Resource Compensation Plan may be appended to the application. Has a wetland delineation been completed for this site? 0 Yes QNo If yes, by whom: Fishman Environmental Services Portland, Oregon Describe the existing physical and biological character of the wetland/waterway site by area and type of resource (use separate sheets and photos, if necessary) The existing wetland in the Cook Park Expansion area is a mitigation area where mitigation credit was granted for 3.72 acres of wetland creation and 3.88 acres of wetland enhancement (Sheet 5). Creation and enhancement activities took place in 1992. There are several upland islands within the wetland. The side slopes of the wetland perimeter and upland islands are steep (approximately 10:1, or greater). The wetland floods during the winter months, and then drains to less than 12 inches of standing-water during the summer months. The source of wetland hydrology are springs at the base of the hillside at the northern edge of Cook Park. The wetland plant community is not diverse. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is the dominant herbaceous species throughout. Volunteer red alder (Alnus rubra) saplings are common in the western portion of the wetland. There are willow (Salix sp.) and hawthorn trees (Crataegus douglasit), and small patches of cattail (Typha latifolia) and soft rush (Juncus of =us) scattered throughout. The Cook Park Expansion Project will impact 1.2 acres of the 7.6 acres of the mitigation wetland (Sheet 6). The Cook Park Expansion Project will involve filling in only portions of the mitigation wetland with low quality emergent communities. Most of the impact area resembles a ditch Reed canary grass is the dominant plant species in the impact areas. Resource Replacement Mitigation Describe measures to be taken to replace unavoidably impacted wetland resources 316 The loss of 1.2 acres of low. quality wetland will be mitigated by creating 24 acres of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetland (a mitigation ratio of The proposed mitigation area is located south of the existing mitigation wetland at Cook Park (Sheet 6). The Cook Park Expansion Project mitigation area will be part of a 3.4 acre mitigation wetland. (Three projects will share in the construction of this proposed mitigation wetland They include the Menlor Reservoir Project, The Cook Park Expansion Project, and the•Petrie Development Project. A separate permit application is submitted for each project). The 3.4 acres of mitigation wetland includes 023 acre existing wetland that will be enhanced for mitigation credit The proposed mitigation area will planted to a mosaic of emergent, scrub-shrub and forested communities (Sheets lOa-d). The created wetland area will be excavated to achieve wetland hydrology. The elevation of the existing wetland in the mitigation area is approximately 113 ft. The elevation of the created wetland area will range from 113 ft to 111 ft.. The wetland will be constructed to include elevated areas and pools. See Sheet 9. Wetland hydrology will be augmented during the summer months by recycled wastewater (quaternary treated) from the neighboring sewerage treatment plant at Durham. The recycled wastewater will first enter the existing mitigation wetland, where it will back up and created ponded conditions to the 110t contour. At 114ft, the water will then spill south into the proposed mitigation wetland, where it will pond to the 113 ft contour. See Sheet 13. } w:•~ V;f , This mitigation plan restores a more natural drainage pattern to the property. Currently, the ditch-like wetland area at the southern end of the existing mitigation wetland drain the wetland to the east and then directly south, which is against the natural lay of the land. Originally, the property drained toward the south and the southeast- This natural drainage pattern will be restored by filling in the ditch-like wetland areas, and by constructing new wetland to the south. A 25 ft. buffer zone will boarder the existing and proposed mitigation wetlands. Approximately 2.2 acres of existing mitigation wetland (south of the proposed road crossing and north of the proposed mitigation wetland) will be enhanced by planting 159 trees within the wetland and 25 ft. buffer zone (See Sheet 10Q. These plantings are in addition to the required mitigation activities. t r1 .p V r .O r SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES o Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. • Walk, OR 97038 (503).829-6318 • FAX: (503) 829-3874 WETLAND FILL`PERMIT APPLICATION COOK PARK EXPkNSION PROJECT, TIGARD, OREGON Submitted to State of Oregon Division of State Lands . and US, Army Corps of Engineers Prepared for. City of _Tigard, Oregon November 1997 0 COOK PARK EXPANSION PROJECT Tigard, Oregon - WETLAND MITIGATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES The objective' of the project is to expand the recreation and natural areas at Cook Park. The expansion area includes 21 acres at the northeast corner of Cook Park (Sheets 1 and 2). Improvements in the expansion area includiv sports fields, nature areas (wetland, butterfly meadow, and woods), trails, picnic grounds, parking, and an emergency access road/trail (Sheet 6). The expansion property is currently unimproved (Sheet 5). In recent years, approximately 7 acres of the property has been used for pasture, approximately 7 acres was converted to a mitigation wetland in 1992, and 7 acres is an open field. The objective of the proposed mitigation plan is to replace the loss of 1.2 acre of wetland by creating acre palustrine emergent, forested and scrub-shrub wetland. Because the impactedsw`~etland was constructed as a mitigation wetland, the proposed mitigation ratio for this project is 2:1. The applicant will also provide a 25 ft. buffer where there is access to the mitigation area from Cook Park The Cook Park mitigation area will be on-site, and will be part of a proposed 1.4 acre mitigation wetland, located at the southeast corner of the park (Sheet 6). This mitigation wetland will replace impacted wetland areas at three project sites. See Table 1. The other two projects include the Menlor Reservoir Project, located in Tigard, and the Petrie Development Project, located 'in Beaverton, Oregon. Separate Joint Permit applications -are being submitted for each project. The application for the Menlor Project was submitted in September 1997, and the application for the Petrie Project will be submitted in November 1997. WETLAND EAFACTS The Cook Park Bxpansio ,,R id ject will-':impact 12 acres of low quality; .palusUine emergent .wetland, This-is.approxiznattily-16%- of the existing wetlands on the 21-acre expansion property The impacted wetland was part of a mitigation project which did succeed in. E providing rich wetland habitat. The plant, community at the mitigation wetland is not diverse. -Reed canary grass (Phaiaris arundinacea) is the dominant herbaceous species throughout. Volunteer red alder (Ainus rubra) saplings are common in the western portion of the wetland. There are a few willow (Salix sp.) and hawthorn trees (Crataegus douglasii), and small patches of cattail (Typha latifolia) and soft rush (Juncus effusus) scattered in the wetland. There are several upland islands within the wetland. The side slopes of the wetland perimeter and upland islands are steep (approximately 3:1, or less) The wetland floods Gduring.the winter Months, _andthen drains. to less than 12 inches of standing wafer duar~ng the surnmer_ months._ The source. of wetland„.hydrology- .are springs _at the base of _the_ hillside- at ..the t- - northern-edge-,of Cook Park. The. existing- ritigation_ wetland will be impacted by the construction of an access road/trail, and by filling in ditch-like "areas wfiuch interrupts access to the expansion area (Sheet 6).= A ` hir-j pord'o- 'of the impact area occurs u%a part of the wetland that resembles a T-shaped • • ditch. The ditch-like wetland is narrow, steep sloped, and vegetated by a low quality - emergent plant community (mainly reed canary grass). NIITIGATION PLAN The proposed mitigation wetland at Cook Park covers acres. • This-includes 0.2 acre of existing, low quality, emergent wetland that can be enhanced, and acres of created wetland. The proposed mitigation area will planted to a mosaic of emergent, scrub-shrub and forested communities (Sheets 10a-d). The created wetland area will be excavated to achieve wetland hydrology. The elevation of the existing wetland in the mitigation area is approximately 113 ft.. The elevation of the created wetland area will range from 113 ft. to 111 ft.. The wetland will be constructed to include elevated areas and pools. See Sheet 9. Wetland hydrology will be augmented during the summer months by recycled wastewater (quaternary treated) from the neighboring sewerage treatment plant at Durham., The water outlet will be located at the southwest comer of the existing mitigation wetland, and will be opened only during the summer months to maintain ponded conditions and wetland hydrology throughout the year (Currently, very shallow ponded conditions (less than 12 inches) occur in the deepest parts of the wetland during the summer months). The recycled wastewater will back up in the existing mitigation wetland and create ponded conditions to the 114ft. contour. At 114ft., the water will then spill south into the proposed mitigation wetland, where it will pond to up to the 113 ft. contour. Above 113 ft., the water will then drain eastward to existing wetlands. See Sheet 11. This mitigation plan restores a more natural drainage pattern to the property. Currently, the ditch-like wetland area at the southern end of the existing mitigation wetland drains the wetland to the east and then directly south, which is against the natural topographic drainage pattern of the site.. Originally, the property drained toward the south and the southeast. This natural drainage pattern will be restored by filling in the ditch-like wetland areas, and by constructing new wetland to the south of the existing wetland area. A 25 ft. buffer zone will boarder the existing and proposed mitigation wetlands. Approx- imately 2.2 acres of existing mitigation wetland (south of the proposed road crossing and north of the proposed mitigation wetland) will :be enhanced by planting 159 trees within the wetland and 25 ft. buffer zone (See Sheet 10Q. These plantings are in addition to the , required mitigation activities. There are several benefits to the proposed wetland mitigation activities at Cook Park, including: The enhanced hydrology at the site, the grading plan, and the planting plan will create a rich diversity of wetland habitats in both existing and created wetlands. A more natural drainage pattern will be restored to the property by filling in the drainage ditch that directly empties the wetland into the Tualatin River. Not only will the existing mitigation wetland be expanded, but it will be enhanced by planting one-hundred and fifty-nine trees in an area of a low quality emergent plant community. The wetland provides education- opportunities to nearby schools and park visitors. Tigard High, which is within I mile of Cook Park, can especially benefit from the proximity of this rich educational resource. The educational value of the site will be improved by the enhancing the diversity of wetland habitats and plant species. Wildlife within the Tualatin River corridor will benefit from the expanded and enhanced wetland area. GOAL The goal of the mitigation is to have an 80 percent survivorship of the planted woody species in created and enhanced wetland areas by the end of the third growing season following planting, and to have 80 percent coverage of herbaceous species at the end of three years, except in open water areas.. MONITORING PLAN VT_ A tree season monitoring plan is proposed. There will be two site visits during the growing season of the first year. The purpose of the first site visit will be to inspect the hydrology of the wetland areas. The second site visit will be in late July or early August, for the purpose of sampling the vegetation. Only one site visit is proposed the following Aws years, and will be used to monitor the vegetation. four Tree and shrub survivorship will be estimated by counting the planted trees and shrubs. Each planted tree and shrub will be staked at the time of planting to insure that all plantings can be located. Herbaceous species will be estimated by using ten square meter plots. Coverage of each species will be visually estimated. The plots will be permanently located by placing a stake in the S.E. comer of the plot. Photo points will be established and marked by using a stake, and photographs will be taken each year of the monitoring program. CONTINGENCY PLAN A contingency plan will be developed if problems with the mitigation are observed during the monitoring. The causes of problems will be identified if possible, and corrective measures implemented. There are numerous things which can go wrong with 'the mitigation area, including lack of water and animal damage. Table 1. Wetland Impact Areas and Total Mitigation Area Proposed at Cook Park. PROJECT Menlor Reservoir Petrie Development Cook Park Expansion WETLAND IMPACTS PROPOSED (ACRES) MITIGATION 0.036 wetland creation 0.39: 0.32 wetland creation +0.066 wetland enhancement 1.2 - I wetland creation '!v✓j ICR MITIGATION MITIGATION RATIO AREA (ACRES) 1.75:1 I 0.062 1.75:•1 0.57 3.5:1 0.23 Wit" 3: TOTAL : PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA: 1(i 0z 446 acres 34 acres 5 SCNO ~ 5 FER1~Y _ R ~-J TUALA TIN Tualatin VICINITY MAP SCALE: l 5000' SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES cmroFnGAR>a F"logists lk 19 tlandp Specialists _ I1~1u1~tS 11977 S. Tollver Rd. • Molelle. OR 97038 cm~ TIGARD OREGON : - I21 it. S>tsaee Stile 1629 1H61R 1S 9619 (503) 829-6318 6 FAX: (503) 029-3874. Lt - Paget! 2111221T2M lu mm otncRm ~ MW4 Km ~ "cxto Pru SMt AS VO" Mats "mumn 1207 But( Mtn Tigard 1 F King City /009 RIVER SITE VICINITY MAP OF COOK PARK • _F ' R r RD o } o ~ m SATTLCR ST 'DURHAM PROJECT SITE TUaLAT I N 1 UALA7*1N Durham RD 0 LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1'01000' McaR&&&)Zodatellnc. SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES CITY OF TIGARD Ecologists & Wetlands SR al3sta AUM Eagiaeezsl~lanners 11977 S. Tollver Rd. • Nolelle, OR 97030 TIGARD OREGON 111 21. SJmaa SJ4 1020 2BOIR 273 9010 (503) 629-6310 4 FAX: (5103) 929-3674 - . i roir •/*4vHrA 1997 Q RD 2 C-) o GD .r 00~~5 P~ CHILDS SfTE LOCATION MAP OF COOK PARK • Oct 11 H:1g6%0341.4o91c00KPAax7l;;G.IG:.•e NUMBER OF Z SPACING MINIMUM PLANTINGS iygoL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME or RATF pJ ANT SIZE ANDIOR AREAS 0 W Oregon white ook Quercus 9arryana 15'. ' 36" 28 0 I CJ .36 Z pF Douglas fir Pseudolsuga menziesii 20 seedling - ?/3 53 E O Oregon ash Frvxinus latifolia 15' 36" 117 14 Y OA red a RA alder Alnus rubra 15' J6" 45 !r C) CL L6bd big-leof maple Acer nmcrophylum. 20' 36" 42 no Douglas hawthorn Crataegus dougta.siic. 12' 30" 36 W 0 co cottonwood Aopulvs tri.dr+ocarpa 20 3 cuttings/location 43 Pacific crobapple Pyrus malus 12' 24" - 36" 20 cascara Rhamnus purshiana 12' 24" - 36" 18 O P Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 15' 3 cuttings/location 60 F a O ' O Scouter's willow Salix scouleriana !5' 12" potted plant 38 G p ~ a ® Douglas spiroeo Spireae douglasii 4' o.c. 24 550/0.18 AC red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 6' o.c. 24" 25010.16 AC O&M 2 toll Oregon grope Mahonin a"i folium 6' o.c. 24" 15010.27 AC ® 2 red-flowering currant Ribes sanguineum 6' o. c. 24" 150/0.27 AC ,Q 1 sword fern Pblystichum 7nunitum. 6' o.c. 1 got. 75/0.27 AC ~~38 ® clustered wild rose. Rosa pisocarpa 4' o.c. 24" 70010.23 AC ® Nootko rose Rasa nutlbana 6' o.c. 24" 180/0.13 AC Q salmon berry Rubus spectabilis 4' a- c. 24" 75010.23 AC W a E = block twin-flower Lonicera invoi-ucrata 4' 30" 17 ~ d mp o H vine maple. Acer cirxtinatum 8' 24" 82 U e f :a a° hozelnut Corytu5 cornuta 15' 24" 6 a butterfly-bush Budtia dividii 8' I gat. 5 blue elderberry. Sambucus cerulea 8' I gal. 7 E- N = O m° red elderberry SarrLb=us rncemosa 8' 1 gal. 12 U S ` small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus. 2' o.c. rhizome 250010.20 AC ® t± o soft rush. Juncos effusus. 2' o.c. rhizome 91 0o slough sedge Carnx obnupta 2' o.c. rhizome 2400/0.19 AC 'g V 0 I ® hard-stem butrrush Scirpus acutus 2' a. c, rhizome 280010.23 AC a ~~}Iflflluuul~~,.. Illl Itlil uu I I II I 111uu vd7 1 OA I ,1 OA of ! . 7.Oet 91 11;\96ti0347.4054I~00KPARK2IF?f:•i0!.9 ' HERBACEOUS PLANT COMMUNITY - butterfly meadow - 0.62 acre fOMMON NAM_ 5ciFNrIFIC NAME Pt ANTINC METHOD AND RATE red fescue Festuco rubra hydroseed 50Z of seed mix by weight NO SYMBOL NO SYM80L FLOWER SPECIES. hydroseed 5090 of seed mix by weight (each species 7 .17.) yorrow Achilles millefolium hydroseed asters Aster chilensis hydroseed Aster subspiculus hydroseed Delphinium Delphinium nuttollii hydroseed goldenrod Conidensis solidago hydroseed small-flowered penste man Penstemon procerus hydroseed farewell-to-spring Clarkin amoeno hydroseed lupines Lupinus bicolor 40 transplants Lupinus polyph),flus 40 transplants paintbrush Costillejo miniato 100 transplants western bee palm Monordella odoratisma 100 transplants early blue violet Viola adunco 150 transplants Mourito Smyth, Environmental Consultant assisted in selection of butterfly meadow plant species HERBACEOUS PLANT COMMUNITY: 0.36 acre in buffer zone and upland (outside of butterfy meadow) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING METHOD AND RATE colonial ben (gross Agrostis tenuis hydroseed 100 Ib./A 57 flower seed. 95% gross' seed . perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne California poppy Eschscholzia californica red clover Trifolium protense chicory Cichorium int),bus tall fescue Festuca orundinocea HERBACEOUS PLANT COMMUNITY: 3.4 acres in created and enhanced wetland COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING METHOD AND RATE red fescue Festuco rubro hydroseed 100 Ib./A 5% flower seed. 957. grass seed tufted hoirgross Deschampsio cespitoso mannagross Clyceria occidentolis birds-foot trefoil Lotus comiculatus redtop Agrostis albo photo monitoring station j L_~~ ! ST 92N15 7vr SCALE. - 200` \ I I-_/ I PARK k w0005 ol 1 ~®~6 I I Nr 30J r P~ l~ 1 , OPEN FIELDS 1 II---w o SURVEYED WETLAND) I ! PASTURE BOUNDARY I "r-- I r l ~ ~ 12!E i ` J 50 0. cp 099 ti ~ d~k'7i : l; f (~e:ti,::~ -`r"44 1: _ r JCeD,I.'~~. ~I`~.e• - ~ ~ I ~ °~l', Iri ~~.SYa a o ,Y°•W iWY ~F f S .`JtaF ~ MEFAMD FOR na QIY w neum rlmlECr musurlvars: wwaE wwwul, rc ~aA~ Y 7- 'r A~ co _ v A l i -i~ 1 I ~w ! I 1 u: USA FAOPVM u, I n; COOK PARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PROPOSED FEATURES U rw«n o I 7Zi CITYOFTmmo COOKAARKEWAMIONM 111 I TICMD OREGON W AN PROPOSED FFATU 0 i t ~ , 1 ~ SCALE 200' , r i ° d I %I~ I PASTURE --w owxw z- ti i ' I 0 OPEN FIELD D I I ~ O4 EXISTING 4 I tir P tr MITIGATION WETLAND (CONSTRUCTED 1992) A O f U' 1F l: I W P lit, RECYCLED WASTEWATER LINE FROM USA SEWERAGE I ; TREATMENT PLANT AT DURHAM - - PARK do WOODS ------SW 92ND AVE- -1-- \ scA[.F: 1' -zoo' EXISTING + O PARKING . ~ + 4- - xi d~ o~ 4 AK • ` Sec S'4.Kfl3.F13 W SPORTS FIELD I PI. 1 _ PARKING MlTICAr1DN ` WETLAND AREA I K - - - - r' i dAc!? C A 11 TO BE IMPACTED W 1 P. - ` J r RECYCLED - - ' - - `r v, 's'<F~w.,• TL D + WASTEWATER OUTLET COOK PARK C)PANSIM pno,rEOr urr,uriov ARCA :rJ<°YY~~--~~~~•• ~h,-~;~4<~;? ~ x - - - _ 7.3 ACRES Gr~r*.,'•V . 1Ui3 ~iz;; 6k ~ I aJFNIUt PROJECT .6 ~ ,-1.. ,~•~`r~~'~'~~-~•~''~ U wnwTiw AREA , 0.06 ' ACRE "';vr` ter, J . - - - ~ rETRiE oEVCCOPVU+i ~~1~' Y~ ~ ~ ' r - - - - - ' ~ w rocAr my AREA r . ' • ~1 r 0.8 ACRE r RECYCLED WASTEWATER LINE FROM USA SEWERAGE fA 1 TREATMENT PLANT AT DURHAM r • • w1N\a7~l.amlcVa►~at7Ykc-7 10-3-4-_9•1 ~A X.. y"[sr r,\111 rj 1 ~ ~ r - ~1 Jr~` ` 1 t rrlF`1} (J! J ( 1 r T L/ In ! ~ 1 O t ~ ! : ,gyp I, ~ - i.` I r~ r ~ ~ ~ ~1 0 ~ , 10 ^ 1 I o !Fn /-\l~l 1G•~ r/~1 l ! !a l F ~I AREA TO SE USED FOR YOUTH SOCCER & YOUTH I r / = `mil / r BASEBALL FIELDS. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN & LAYOUT t BEING DEVELOPED. THE YOUTH SPORTS AREA WILL i / 1 I1 I~1 rl f / r NOT ENCROACH THE LAIN. 25FT BUFFER TO WETLANDS. NO LIGHTING OR AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEMS. FIELD ' ~•~//f l ORIENTATION WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR ZERO IMPACT ON WETLANDS INCLUDING FOOT TRAFFIC & BALLS. I I r iv/ PLANTING A NATURAL BUFFER ZONE WILL TAKE PLACE 5 0 BEFORE SPORTS FIELDS ARE USED. 41 11 Fn ~~b~~ . SCHO'TT k ASSOCEATES I ~i1 . r ~.u..,n. Reeeldkeli ~m Or ~~\Z\pJJJ ~~1 i S 1 , /s K~ n aS I(JO14, • / ~ i- 114 ~J 1 J ~ J / , FP J ~ -114 .J 0 B ~U 0 e lnlal. r. Ml1[auTruc7l~rc-a ro•lr.~T ta~af r~ [fT • VER r l I f l / i ~ j i! I ~ r l~ ! 1 , 11 1 ` I I 1! ! I \ ~ I I I 1 I 1 1 I I - 1 / I ~ I I 1 1 I I ~ 11 ~ 1 I I 1 _ 1, 1 I ~ I + 'I 11 \ A - a I \1 I 1~ i l i y l y 0D I ~ I r 1 1 ~ l 1 1 1 r l ~ - 1 ` 1 ~ a F 1 ~ / ! 1 Il I_ J~\ \I 1 1 I r-1 III r J ~ ~ `p 1 I rl r !7 1 II / I II / ''J~ 1 I r J ~ ~ I II r lv~ I I I / 1 , 1 I ~ \ f I 1 1 1. I 'r __00 ~~rll', I 1 r ~ ~I ~ SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES l1 al cam . 1 ■.-I-4, SeeN~li. I i a w 1 1 7;_ / ~'l I I , I I 1 I -i I II I I / r I o 4 1 r co c r I I o z 1 l ~ D w ~ 1 c r ~ ~ r ~ u w ~f I f 0 l ~ T ~ C0~' SCALE: 150' 25 FOOT BUFFER ZONE f~ v ~J, IgAAy M6 1 . A DF Df / OF 1 i ' / \ ► ! It 11 /t \ 11 `&OAS l~ 1 \ t 1~I OA Q _ OA @A 1t ~ J I i \ \\1 r` Ji I 11 1 t~ r IS ! t 1\\ ' I I ~ 11 t I t 1 ► ! ' 1 1 I v 1 1 ,I . 1 } ► 1 I I I 1 I! I' I r 1' I ~ I ~ it 1 r r II r I I' ~ 1 11 ~ I I I ! llsrlNG t ! ITIGATION WETLAND J I I / II ! / I /I ! I i / I I I rr~ I PROPOSED I I I I ROAD CROSSING I I ! 11 pF / / / 1 I A -III? A A \ fj A 0. r -rf I II t ~ t \ QA f ! r t I \ t p i 1 I! \ 1 P A RA \ ;'~j,a 111 I / 1 \ 0 .a;j~' ' OA 'LJ DA DA 0 S ~ R A ~ 0 RA RA RA ® RA 3 ~ USA PROPERTY • 3 SEE ATTACHED PLANT SPECIES LEGEND i / I II i I / i • w z h Jev ti SCALE.- 150' V i s a Co HS %tV U W co NAD of co J+.-.~ .-_.+.r. DF J c0 . • - - - - ~y • r . . - . y 25 FOOT 4UFFER ZONE CO Cp : WE 'LAND BOUNDARY B co OF 8 OF DF F OF 8 RA cam= OA / OF )F Q FiF OA S r• I OF) Co w; \ P ;1: mss- 1T we . ~~I'; !ice 1 ~ • ~ r ..s+~ ~ ~v'tia F 19 x I ' A ` ► I :gip ~ ~ rjA r ARA d. :CEO r •I'IIJ~~r~~+C.~cr.~_ - - - J` ~ ~ r - - ~1.-.s~' I I SEE' A T TACNEC PLATT SPECIES LEGEND r. "V A.1f..rrLJ r DP I J. q OA i~ T• 1 . M` 1 $ o o ZS 1 j i ' i i i i f I . ~ I I ! 1 I ~ i ~ I I ti I I I i I s f f I I I f 1 i j 1 ~ N i I r i ! I I ! r f i i i i i 1 h ' i 1 j 1 0 f : f 1 i I I - l 1 I i 1 I S O I \I : I ,m I f I 1 1 I i . 1 i I ~ ~ 1k f I. I• I I i 1 f ! 1 I I I I I 1 x i i ; /fitI I r'. f I i I~ lA I i I~ I 1 I f i I i SCHOTT k ASSOCIATES T CROSS SECTIONS OF e I `/1 P p(Mro1e I ECol-W, A, s.rt.od- CFrYOFTiQARG M IACrARM AT • Y.1."• n' .'M.n II°OA^ 1 TIGARDOREGON . a7TQH Zt Jri+ .i-.1 TIMeu .OC-.1 77r7S B of-r erw Oi-0 aw ooro to to un Ntl Jro ax ~uw ({r rfl rif , , ~r , W nr f' r) - )OrYJ 111stx3 O G R~ frr rfl Q A 21 im .f-.1 7FKW.Of-.1 .7?F= cn r .CA 0o.t 0f•f. 00•1 0f •f 00-C in. I, 00-t efaf M f Of ~t 00•t as ee•r Df-e 00.0 s r gr 4 e L i • ~fei i iro exodone~ ~ a 7 O " MrlA 7M4frr) ~ ~ • •n «r v Ro ~ - 0 (7YP)~ r. ~v NEW 6`0 HDPE SCALE. I' = L'll 0 m SL=0.004 FT/FT x t-T I 12 rIMlN ' i ~I o L~ 0 CL r00 RlPRAP QqF Ex15r 6.. RfO 12- NG° r ! 12'-0' ' SECT I ON A-A. s ~r/a ° IPPING pUTEALL STRUCTURE-PLAN, MTS NTS PROPOSE." 6° GA rf y f j r '.6.. OUTLF a / J w `may/ V o \ ° D PIPING PROP0K'_ 0 P OUTLET vy r S TRUC TURE c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - eL S"\ E -7 7- 7 x Y t i i City of Tigard Wetlands December 1994 Unit 9 Tualatin River Unit 9 is located in the southern end of the study area between Highway 99 and S.W. 85th Ave. in the vicinity of the Tualatin River. It contains approximately 24 acres of wetlands including 11 acres of forest, 8 acres of emergent and 5 acres of open water. Most of the sites are centered around Cook Park (F15-21, F26) which includes a mosaic of uplands and wetlands near the river, and natural, agricultural and mitigation ponds on 'terrace above the flood plain. Abundant open space occurs north of the park up to approximately 1600 ft. wide. This reach also includes a small forested wetland (F22) and emergent wetland (F23) located in the flood plain upstream from Cook Park. Uplands adjacent to these upstream sites have been reduced by dense residential development on top of the hillslopes north of the flood plain. Unit 9 wetlands rated the highest with Unit 7 (Middle Fanno Creek) in the City of Tigard for overall wetland functional values. The high ratings of the wetlands are due to their large size, large adjacent uplands;-and excellent public access and developed trail systems. The large expanse of diverse wetlands and uplands adjacent to the river provide excellent wildlife habitat for large and small, resident and migratory species. Natural (F15, F16), mitigation (F17-19), and agricultural ponds (F26) north and east of Cook Park also provide amphibian breeding habitat and waterfowl wintering and nesting habitat. Public parking, a boat ramp, and dock are available at the park. There are numerous soft paths that wind through the natural areas of the park and a paved bicycle trail that parallels the river. Educational opportunities are also important; Tigard High School is located immediately north and within walking distance of Cook Park. Natural areas within the park should remain undeveloped. Enhancement opportunities within Unit 9 are plentiful. Removal of Himalayan blackberry would provide an opportunity for the native shrub and understory species to develop; native species could also be planted once blackberry is removed. Fishman Environmental Services page 38 Oregon Method Summary Sheet Unit 9 Tualatin River Flood Plain Function Evaluation Des cription Rationale Wildlife habitat A Permanent water, diverse habitat & structure, connectivity. Fish habitat A The Tualatin River provides habitat for cutthroat trout, stocked salmon, N. squawfish, large scale sneekers, blue gull, and largemouth bass (ODFW, 1994). Water quality A Flood plain with FO (45%) and EM (33%); fringe wetlands trap sediments and nutrients. Hydrologic control A Flood plain provides runoff & flood storage opportunities. Sensitivity to impact B Potentially sensitive. Enhancement potential A Soil is minimally disturbed; most wetlands located within 100 yr flood plain of the Tualatin River. Education A Tigard High School is located just north of Cook Park. Trails and safe access already established Recreation A Most of Unit 9 is located in the Tualatin River y Greenway or Cook Paris. Public access and trails are already established. Aesthetic quality A Tualatin River Greenway contains generally a quiet, well developed riparian corridor. Characteristic Description Physical characteristics of generally flat, broad Tualatin River flood plain; includes approximately 11 acres watershed or basin FO, 8 acres EM, 5 acres OW Biological information provides fish and wildlife habitat; vegetation and habitat diverse with excellent interspersion. Water quality I Tualatin River has been rated severe WO condition by DEO (1988). Land use existing land uses within 504' of wetland edge include 67% agricultural and 33% open space. Fishman Environmental Services page 39 !A f= r234...~::: - - ~r/ 'ZZ-- i ~H' TATALATIN = C TY OF TGARD ~ . =7T= WETLANDS INVENTORY ,,.,.r. F ~2 UNIT 9 Identified Wetlands A-1 Wetland ID TIGARD I~ USA HIGH TREATMEN SCHOOL PLANT .:.a.. .eSi:aisrna. - ..1 um } - - nc cr . x'45!. -r srx - 4.• . 'ACW Cf Cf I-MCFALAND QT f . 14113 2424 - Aquatic Resource Unit Boundary .r..~ Stream Urridor Wetlands 34 Public "Land Survey Section IDs Source: Scientific [resources Inc. and Fishman Environmental Services. Aerial photography from April, 1994 at a nominal scale of 1" n 400'. Information on this. map is of a generalized nature. In all cases, actual field conditions determine wetland boundaries. Public Land Survey Information: All Public land survey sections depicted on this map survey are within either T1SR1W or T2SR1W. NORTH Scale 1":800 FEET i 0 800 1600 PI OT DATF- n2/in/4.5 Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory - Offsite Option WETLAND SUMMARY SHEET UNIT: 9 WETLAND: F-15,16 Wedand Acreage: 3.41 Field Verified Date: $129194 (F15 =2.5ac PFO, = lac PEM; F16= 0.25ac POW) Location: W of SW 92nd (N of Cook Park) Beaverton Quadrangle 72S R1W Sec. 14 Tax Map: 25114 AC, BD Zoning: R-4.5, R-12, Park, Greenway Aerial: SE NWT Classification: PFO, PEM, POW WWHA Score: 57 Mapped Soils: 14 Cove Clay Hydrologic Basin: Tualatin Sub-basin: Tualatin River Hydrologic Source/Comments: Depression/seep; water greenish; a few floating logs. Dominant Vegetation: Frees Alnus rubra Salix lasiandra Sh-ruln Salix sirchensis Her1fi/Emereents Phalaris arundinacea Boundary Information: distinct topographic break; vegetation changes to Himalayan blackberry Buffer Information: Ball park, soccer field - south; residential - north (top of slope) Comments: Excellent shrub with scattered tree cover surrounding pond, logs in pond, potential amphibian breeding habitat; no garbage, natural odors. Interspersion with Cook Park and Tualatin River. Fishman Environmental Services i . r AREA - F Wetland # Acreage Major Plant Community 1,2,13,14 L76 No adjacent vegetation 3 0.06 Salix, Alnus 4,5 0.71 Alnus, Thuja, Pseudotsuga 6,7,8 1.75 Alnus, Populus 9,10 1.27 Typha 11,12 0.78 No adjacent vegetation 15,16 3.41 Salix, Alnus, Rubus 17 2.39 Phalaris 18,19 2.26 Typha,luncus 20,21 7.57 Fraxinus, Rubus *Soils Series Key No. Soil Name 13 Cove silty clay loam 14 Cove clay 16C Delena silt loam (3-12% slopes) 21C Hillsboro loam (7-12% slopes) 22 Huberly silt loam 42 Verboort silty clay loam 43 Wapato silty clay loam 9 Hydric WWHA WWHA Soils* Score Class 22,42 14 4 42 40 3 42 54 3 42 63 2 22 30 4 22 14 4 14 57 3 14 28 4 14 41 3 non-hydric 66 2 0 0 DATE: November 30, 1995 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Chris Counts As a member of the Friends of Cook Park and the Copper Creek Neighborhood Association, I would like to encourage the Planning Commission to purchase Cook Park Parcel F-2 with local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. I am joined by strong community support from the South CIT, Tigard High School science teachers, the Audubon Society, the Wetlands Conservancy, and the Tualatin River Keepers. We hope you will agree that this parcel will yield the highest return from an investment of greenspace dollars. Our assessment is based on the following local project selection criteria for natural areas: A. Possesses unique or important natural resources--Parcel F-2 contains sensitive lands that are identified as protected under Chapter 18:84 of the Tigard Development Code. 1. Forest--Parcel F-2 contains an overlapping vegetation community between the floodplain and 150 foot tall Douglas fir trees that has been identified as sensitive in the City Forest Inventory. 2. Wetlands/Wildlife--Parcel F-2 is 43 percent floodplain and contains a high quality natural wetland. Protection for this wetland has been urged by Wetlands Biologist Jack Broome of the Wetlands Conservancy. He concluded that no alteration to this valuable wetland should occur without a full application and review. Mike Houck, an urban naturalist, in a letter to the city of Tigard identified portions of the land as "significant wetlands with riparian wildlife habitat." The existing natural wetland offers an excellent buffer between residential areas and Cook Park's active • • recreational areas. The city of Tigard's Wetlands/Wildlife Inventory reported that, "The large expanse of diverse wetland and uplands adjacent to the river provide excellent habitat for resident and migratory species." Due to the uniqueness of this natural area, Tigard High School science teachers take their biology classes to the diverse wetland. In a letter to the Friends of Cook Park in 1992, teachers stated that the location "is basically a wildlife oasis in the development throughout Tigard Students have many opportunities to study wildlife and wetland ecosystems at Tigard High School." 3. Water Quality--A lawsuit was filed in 1986 against the Environmental Protection Agency for the failure to enforce the Clean Water Act on the Tualatin River. It has since become the subject of intense clean-up efforts. The United Sewerage Agency currently cleans its waste water to some of the highest standards in the nation. However, surface water runoff remains a critical source of pollution in the Tualatin. In light of this, we should protect this parcel from residential development. It contains a Class 2 perennial stream which drains south/southeast into the wetlands described above. This stream, which flows throughout the year, has a watershed which contains the residential development of 92nd and Millen streets. It has a well-defined channel with a medium gradient, high water velocity, and flashy flows (quick to peak and recede). Cook Park Parcel acts as a natural sponge, soaking up surface water runoff from the upland residential area. Under these hydrologic conditions, water is cleaned in a natural purification process before it reaches the Tualatin River. Therefore, this parcel could be classified as a component of the city's green infrastructure. Millions of dollars are invested in infrastructure to prevent pollution with dozens of public and private sector partnerships formed to support this investment. I submit that we provide additional water quality protection for the Tualatin River with the purchase of this site. B. Completes a city-owned natural area--Two objectives of the Cook Park Plan contained in the Tigard Park Plan adopted by the city council in 1987 were to: (1) acquire land within the 100 year floodplain and (2) prepare a master plan to promote the retention • of important natural open spaces in Cook Park. The addition of this eight-acre parcel to Cook Park will accomplish both objectives. C. Provides a link to other natural areas--Parcel F-2 is an ideal buffer linking the active recreational areas of Cook Park to the upland residential development. The parcel also is a small ecotone linking significant plant and animal communities with wetlands to the east of 92nd.(United Sewerage is purchasing this property) D. Potential loss to development--Parcel F-2 has twice been the subject of developer's proposals. In 1986 and in 1992, proposals to develop the site fell through. E. Presents unusually favorable acquisition opportunity-- The current owner has recently spoken with adjoining property owners clearly indicating his readiness to sell to a developer. F. Community support--The Friends of Cook Park, which should be commended for its efforts, was formed in 1992 to maintain the viability of Cook Park as a natural resource. Both the Friends group and the Copper Neighborhood Association are very concerned about the loss of this unique land. As a group, we have demonstrated our strong support with many letters urging the purchase of this parcel. In addition, a South CIT vote revealed a majority of its members favoring the purchase of Parcel F-2 over other available sites. In addition to meeting the local selection criteria, the parcel complements tourism and family-based recreation in Cook Park, Tigard's most popular park destination. As a venue for special events such as the Hot Air Balloon Festival, it has a positive impact on tourism in Washington County. (Travel expenditures in Washington County for tourism generated $242,485,000 in 1993.) Projections by the Oregon State Department of Economic Development indicate that "cost-effective, safe, family-oriented destination will be increasingly popular." Welcome to Cook Park. 0 0 Family-based recreational activities like those in Cook Park build strong communities. In 1990, Tigard had 12,084 households. About 68 percent of these were family households where members are related. For this active group of families, Cook Park is a highly valuable community resource. Five non-profit youth organizations make extensive use of the soccer and baseball fields. More than 50 groups made reservations in 1995 for 200 or more people. The population trend forecast for Tigard is almost 50,000 residents by 2005. We have insufficient park acreage to meet the future park needs. One means of accomplishing this objective is through Cook Park expansion by land acquisition as noted in the Tigard Park Plan adopted by City Council. Expansion of Cook Park would preserve open space and enhance the natural area for park visitors including the ducks. A community park where we share our hopes and dreams for the future is worth protecting. REFERENCES i Benefits of Parks and Recreation, Parks and Recreation of Ontario, pages 45-60, 1992. Executive Summary of Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, Public Review Draft, MSD, pages 1, 11, 15, 17-21, 1992. Friends of Cook Park, Meeting Notes, Letters, 1992. Forest Park, Natural Resources Management Plan, Portland Parks and Recreation, pages 29-63,1995. Interstate 5 Highway 217/Kruse Way, Environmental Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, pages 50-58, 1990. Tigard Data Base, City of Tigard, Population, Household Forecasts, pages 13-16, 1994. Tigard Park Plan, City of Tigard, Five Year Plan, Acquire 19 Acres, Cook Park Plan, pages 17, 30, 35-39, 1988. Tourism, Washington County Visitors Association, Reprint from the State Department of Economic Development for 1993. Q T f ti! c ► ~ ~ ~ oar JQ~ M fL r 1 + r't, I t *h"~ ~Qh ab ivjc~ j fl( Jul f,» fill N f~t! JJtJt►il ►It f //!?toil I a r 1.11 J/1111 Ile `r t I f t+ t l d t t J~jlr\ 111 ► t t ~ d ~ tt1 \111 f t J ~li~,~, ! I I 1 I ?r 1 ~ ~ I♦ ~ / ~ III 1 r ► , . ~ \ 44 'mss ~f~ t I 01 4 ~1 ~ ~~t 7w i 1 t t J k- To)// c~v o~gb,ws d (t t jl t t Jj t !ll J i /I I It low r i ottt I r too tdiitl~ljil It jt 1trj l t t (fil' I►► t 1♦ 1 I ►IJ ~ ~ ~~l~I l1 t Ilttt ~ i till till Q _ )fill -e Now so*, e '4M 010 F I I 1 111 1 I 1 I t \ 1 1 J t i ~ 1 ~ I 1 J \ t ! , 1 1 t ` I I o- v `~.7~Y'.4a `arN •R~ ~ 'a roe-- Y. .4 fir' a ' ~ S6~ ,FS- ~ . ' , ' ~x a~.. 4 µlk: c 6 L fl. . k ' t X14• C.~fi-"~ ,r v' ~ ¢"t r w ~ ; ~ 04 2 . , y, 1/x•0 » _ ~r a •~R,•'1h alt.. ' ~y _ 7 _ - ~ 4:1~,•"d'~ ~ d j ~'a ~ • •ti,~~ R~a JS { is L r;y: • • ' ~ ~,a~, 1 ,mot y . 47 ~t ~ ~ T ~ s ~ 7 X141 ••~cj~~,,,,~~ ~ 4L ; I 1 4 • . t-Otl v"l ~9 5~)3 TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: O'-k - \ d - ~ 0 i 0 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) 0 0 Agenda Item: 2_1 Hearing Date: Aoril 10.2000 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER CITY OF TIOARD Community Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SfwpingABetterCommunity 120 DAYS = 619/2000 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: COOK PARK EXPANSION CASE NOS.: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review SLR2000-00003 APPLICANT/ John Roy OWNERS: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Conditional Use Approval to expand and improve Cook Park in accordance with the approved Cook Park Master Plan. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres and will include 4 Little League baseball fields north of the existing developed portion of the park, on the east side of SW 92"d Avenue. The improvements include several structures accessory to the park, a parking lot and trails. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for alteration and development in the 100-year floodplain and Water Resources Overlay review for alteration and development in areas regulated by the Water Resources Overlay standards. The proposal includes the filling of a man-made drainage ditch and alteration of some wetlands for an emergency access drive/pedestrian pathway. The proposal also involves the creation of wetlands as part of mitigation required by DSL/US Army Corps of Engineers permits approval. LOCATION: Within and north of the existing Cook Park. WCTM 2S114AO, Tax Lot 1500; 2S1 14D0, Tax Lots 101 and 501; and 2S1 14AC, Tax Lot 700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 and R-12. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.705, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards for a Conditional Use. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 1 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS Plannina Conditions: 1. Submit a detailed plan showing that street trees will be installed along the park frontage on SW 92"d Avenue adjacent to the area of expansion. 2. Submit a revised plan that shows wheel stops will be provided for all parking stalls abutting landscaping and walkways. 3. Submit a detail of the bicycle rack in accordance with Section 18.765.050.C. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows the parking spaces will be clearly marked. The revised plan must also clearly show the dimensions of all proposed parking spaces so staff can confirm that the dimensions stated in the narrative will be installed in the parking lot. The plan must also show that the ADA accessible spaces meet the required dimensional standards and that at least one is van accessible (9 foot space with an 8-foot aisle). 5. Submit calculations verifying that the proposed landform alterations will not result in an increase in the floodplain storage capacity. 6. Submit a revised tree plan that clearly shows the location and size of trees proposed to be removed. 7. Prior to construction, clearly identify the trees to be removed by marking the trees on- site. This will avoid inadvertently removing trees not intended to be removed. 8. Install tree protection fencing and adhere to tree protection methods for trees near construction areas prior to any site work including, but not limited to grading. 9. Provide additional information on the construction materials and methods that will be utilized on the pedestrian bridgelemergency access road. The construction must utilize equipment designed to minimize ground disturbances and the methods must be consistent with other requirements of the Water Resources Overlay standards. Specific details needed include: the type of equipment to be used, the area impacted, and how the construction methods will insure that there is no more impact than necessary for the construction. 10. The applicant shall install construction fencing around trees that will not be removed within the work area to insure that they are protected. 11. Prior to construction, the work area adjacent to the Water Resource Area shall be identified and marked on the site with construction fencing. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 2 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/1012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • 12. Prior to any site work, all erosion control measured must be in place and may only be removed after the construction is complete. Enaineerina Conditions: 13. Prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the proposed sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water line improvements inside the park. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 14. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 15. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall obtain from Unified Sewerage Agency the necessary permit to allow the two taps into their trunk line, as shown on the preliminary plan. 16. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 17. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 18. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 19. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 3 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/1012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Enaineerina Conditions: 20. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 21. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as- builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. Plannina Condition: 22. Install improvements as per the approved plans. Any modifications to the site plan must be approved in writing by the project Planner prior to the modification being approved. If modifications are not approved, the developer will be responsible for correcting necessary changes and/or fines could be assessed for violation of the conditions of approval. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICERS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History Cook Park is owned by the City of Tigard. There have been many land uses and building approvals for this site. Some of the more recent approvals include SLR 90-0007 for installation of play equipment, SLR 90-0008 for access improvements, SLR 92=0003 for road construction improvements and SLR 98-0007 for the construction of a picnic shelter and band pavilion. A master plan was approved by the City Council on June 10, 1997. With the approval of this conditional use, all improvements shown on the Cook Park Master Plan will be approved. Vicinitv Information: The proposed improvements are located in Cook Park and on a lot directly north of the existing approved boundaries of Cook Park. Cook Park is designated as open space and located in the 100-year floodplain and floodway of the Tualatin River. The Tualatin River is south and east of Cook Park. To the west is property zoned R-4.5 also designated as open space and in the floodplain and floodway. To the north are single-family residential lots ranging in density from R-4.5 to R-12. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant has requested Conditional Use Approval to expand and improve Cook Park in accordance with the approved Cook Park Master Plan. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres and will include 4 little league baseball fields north of the existing developed portion of the park, on the east side of SW 92"d Avenue. The improvements include several structures accessory to the park, a parking lot and trails. Sensitive Lands COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 4 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • ! review is requested for alteration and development in the 100-year floodplain and Water Resources overlay review for alteration and development in areas regulated by the Water Resources overlay standards. The proposal includes the filling of a man-made drainage ditch and alteration of some wetlands for an emergency access drive/pedestrian pathway. The proposal also involves the creation of wetlands as part of mitigation required by DSUUS Army Corps of Engineers permit approvals. Approval Process - PhasincL A Conditional Use approval is valid for 18 months. The applicant may request the development in phases provided the total time period for all phases does not exceed three years. The intent of this application is to phase the development. While the applicant would most likely like to have longer to complete the development, the Code does not appear to allow a longer phasing plan than three years. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing park use and make improvements within the park itself. This use is classified as Community Recreation, which is listed as a Conditional Use in the R-4.5 zone. Summarv Land Use Permits and Decision Makina_ Procedures: Chapters 18.310 and 18.390 A Type I Water Resources review is required for trails, viewing shelters, etc. within the Tualatin River Riparian Setback area. A Type II Water Resources Review is required for the construction of a pedestrian trail/emergency access road across a significant wetland. A Type II Sensitive Lands Review is required for the alteration of land within the 100-year floodplain and floodway. The proposed expansion of an existing use (Community Recreation) requires a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO decision. Type III-HO procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type 111-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to or review by the City Council. Whenever applications are submitted concurrently, they are all reviewed by the highest applicable review authority, therefore, the Type I and Type II applications will be reviewed by the Hearings Officer as well. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERI A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Specific Conditional Use Criteria (General Approval Criteria) (Additional Conditions of Approval) B. Applicable Development Code Standard 18.705 (Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) 18.765 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 5 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795 (Visual Clearance) 18.797 (Water Resources Overlay) C. Additional Site Develooment Review Approval Standards D. Street Utility and Imorovement Standards Streets Sidewalks Sanitary Sewers Storm Drain Utilities Additional City and/or Agency concerns regarding street and utility improvements Impact Study SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.3 requirements in Chapter 18.330. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance; 18.797, Water Resources Overlay District; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.600, Community Plan Area Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.780, Temporary Uses; and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, 'found to be inapplicable as approval standards. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE $ OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ! i General Annroval Criteria for a Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is 51 acres with an additional 28 acres being included after the expansion. Based on the facilities proposed as part of the Master Plan, it is clear that the site is large enough to accommodate the desired facilities for this park use. This report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, landscaping, etc. and, as conditioned, the site size is adequate for the needs of the proposed expansion. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The majority of the area is already being used as a park. The expansion area, to the north of the existing park will be buffered from the residences by no less than 200 feet by the existing wetland mitigation and buffer area to the north. The proposal limits the amount of alteration in the floodplain and floodway as much as possible while continuing to provide public facilities that are characteristic of community parks. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail further in this report under Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are. met except as modified by this chapter. The following table provides the dimensional standards in the R-12 zone (which is the area of expansion); the additional dimensional requirements for Community Recreation uses specified in the Conditional Use Standards Section 18.330.050.6.15 and the dimensions proposed for this development. STANDARD Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Setbacks - Front yard - Side facing street on comer & through lots - Side yard Rear yard - Side of rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line and garage entrance R-12, CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT d 13,050 sq. ft. I N/A 179 acres I NIA I N/A I >100 feet 20/15 ft. 30 ft 270 ft. 20110 ft. 30 ft N/A 1015 ft 30 ft 275 ft 20115 ft 30 ft NIA 30ft 30 ft 275 ft' N/A NIA NIA COOK PARK EXPANSION CUP2000-00001 PAGE 7 OF 33 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER As identified in the table above, the applicant's plans show that the dimensional standards for structures in the base zone and Conditional Use are exceeded. In addition, the distance between the property lines and any park development such as ball fields or paths meet the dimensional standards as well. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapter of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. The additional applicable standards of the Development Code are discussed further in this report. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied or will be met as discussed and conditioned further in this report. Additional Conditions of Anoroval for Conditional Use. Section 18.330.030.8 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; Due to the nature of the use and its location, the park is already limited in hours. It closes at dusk during the summer and at 4 p.m. during the winter months. It is not, therefore, necessary to place additional operational conditions on the park. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The neighbors to the north of the expansion area are elevated above the park and separated by a minimum horizontal distance of more than 200 feet of vegetated- open space. Any noises reaching adjacent neighbors are limited to daylight hours as the park closes at dusk in the summer and 4 p.m. during the winter. The ball fields will not be lighted. The only evening activity planned in the park is the Balloon Festival, which is a yearly event and already permitted. This expansion will not create more noise impact than currently exists due to the Balloon Festival. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 8 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; Due to the existing wetland mitigation areas, the area to be developed is already no less than 100 feet away from the nearest adjacent parcel, over 200 feet away from the nearest residentially developed parcel. Because of the existing setbacks, additional setbacks are not warranted. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; Based on the plans submitted, all the structures will comply with the height requirements. Because the site is primarily open park, the lot coverage area will continue to be fully met once all the impervious surface and structures are constructed. Because of this, an additional condition is necessary. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; A condition is not necessary for this criterion since access is discussed further in this report and conditioned if needed. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a new emergency access/pedestrian bridge at the east end of the park to provide additional access in emergency situations. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; This is discussed and conditioned if necessary under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section of this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; The parking lot will be required to be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping and screening standards as discussed further in this report. Screening is not necessary because the parking lot is located within the park and it is not adjacent to private property. No additional condition is needed. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; Signs within the park will be for direction and informational purposes only. An additional condition limiting the size, location, height or lighting of signs is not necessary. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; Because the park is only open until dusk, no outdoor lighting is proposed, therefore an additional condition is not necessary. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 9 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; This is a park and, therefore has many natural areas that will continue to provide a visual screen and buffer from adjacent properties. In addition, the new ball fields will be separated from the adjacent residential properties by the wetland area and buffer. No additional screening or buffering conditions are recommended. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The park is isolated from adjacent properties by the wetlands and is buffered by the wetlands as well. An additional condition is not necessary. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; This is a park facility and as such, it is the desire to maintain it in as natural a state as possible. The plan calls for the removal of some trees, however every effort has been made to save trees. Additional measures are not needed to preserve additional trees as long as proper tree protection measures are in place to insure trees to be saved are not harmed during construction. A condition is recommended further in this report to this effect. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and While the park is adjacent to the floodplain, the entire park is public open space, therefore, this condition would be redundant. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. While the project is within and adjacent to the floodplain, part of what this request is for is the construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths. This condition is, therefore, not necessary. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all possible conditions listed above are not necessary or will be addressed elsewhere in this report. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Apcess,Egress and Circulation: Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 10 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER i • industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The park provides a network of paths that connect the proposed public use structures to the private street system within the park. The applicant has indicated that walkways will be provided between parking lots, restroom and concession, tot-lot playground and the picnic shelter. Walkways will be a minimum of 10 feet in width and will provide a concrete or asphalt walking surface. There are also soft trails proposed within the park which will provide access to the more natural areas and will be surfaced with bark chips to provide a solid walking surface. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; and While there is a network of pathways within the park, none of the pathways are actually required based on the requirement of the code, therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plans indicate that the required walkways from the parking lot to structures and the pedestrian bridge/emergency access will be concrete or asphalt. Additional paths will be soft paths constructed with bark chips. Minimum Access Requirements: Section 18.705.030.1-1 and I provides the minimum access requirements for Residential, Commercial and Industrial uses: In all instances except single family with less than 6 lots or commercial with more than 99 parking spaces the required driveway width is' 24 feet of pavement. If there are more than 99 parking spaces, the requirement is for two 24-foot wide access points or one 40-foot wide access. Because this use is not Residential, Commercial or Industrial, the applicant should be, required to comply with the most restrictive. The site plan shows the new parking lot will have 2 access points onto SW 92nd Ave with a pavement width of 24 feet each. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the access and egress standards are satisfied. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 11 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Landscaoina and Screening - Chanter 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The project fronts on SW 92nd, a public street, however, no street trees are shown as existing or proposed. A condition is necessary requiring the planting of street trees along the portion of SW 92nd Avenue fronting the park. Land Use Buffering and Screening: There is no buffering indicated between Community Recreation uses and residential uses. Landscaping and screening is required in accordance with other standards such as the Conditional Use criteria. Because no screening is listed as required under this section and there are other standards that will insure privacy and landscaping between this use and adjacent uses, this standard does not apply. Screening - Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces.in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and, the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The parking lot is within the park itself and therefore does not require screening from adjacent properties or the right-of-way. Screening within the parking lot is required, however, and as shown on the plans and narrative is met by providing 1 tree for every 7 parking spaces. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standard will be fully met. CONDITION: Submit a detailed plan showing that street trees will be installed along the park frontage on SW 92nd adjacent to the area of expansion. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765) Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 12 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The applicant has proposed adding 265 parking spaces, eight (8) of which will be ADA Accessible. ORS 447.233 requires no less than 7 ADA accessible spaces when 201-300 parking spaces are provided. At least one of these spaces must be van accessible with an 8-foot aisle in addition to the 9-foot-wide parking stall. The applicant has not provided the dimensions of the ADA accessible parking spaces for staff to confirm that the dimensional requirements are met and that at least one is van accessible. A condition is needed in order for staff to determine that this is met. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The proposal provides two 24 foot wide access drives onto SW 92"d Avenue from the parking lot located on the east side of SW 92"d Avenue and two 24 foot wide access drives from the southwestern parking lot onto the private drive system within the park. Both parking lots will allow for a 2-way loop that will insure traffic' moves through and within the parking lot efficiently without the need for backing movement within the street. The parking lot will be paved with asphalt. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans do not indicate the parking spaces will be clearly marked (striped). The narrative states that the proposed standard spaces will be a minimum of 10' x 18'6" and the compact spaces will be 8' x 16'6". However, this is not clearly shown on the plans for staff to confirm that this will be satisfied. A condition is needed in order for staff to confirm that the proposed parking spaces will meet the dimensional standards. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 13 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • landscaped areas or-sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The parking plan does not indicate wheel stops will be provided. The applicant must modify the plan to show wheel stops will be provided where the parking is adjacent to landscaping. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. Based on the dimensions proposed in the narrative, the standard, compact and ADA accessible spaces will meet the standards. A condition has been discussed previously in this report that will require the applicant to clearly show the parking lot striping and dimensions which will allow staff to confirm that the dimensional standards are in fact met. The plans provide for a minimum of 24 feet for the aisle width. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be. used to locate the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Bicycle parking is shown on the plans, however, because there is really not a primary structure, the location criteria can not be applied. The bicycle parking is located south of-the proposed parking lot in relatively close proximity to the park facilities (playground and ball fields). Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/z feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 14 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. The applicant has not provided detail of the bicycle parking rack, therefore, staff can not determine if this standard has been met. If the applicant submits a detail of the bicycle rack, staff will be able to review it to insure that the design complies with the standards of the Code. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Refer to the discussion below for explanation on the required parking for this park facility. The plan indicates 12 bicycle parking spaces will be provided. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.1-1 states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.768.2 states that 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet are required for community recreation uses. The calculation is generally based on the square footage of structures. In this case, the structures would not accurately reflect the demand and a calculation based on the total site size would be unrealistically high. The applicant has prepared an inventory of the existing facilities and suggested a rate of parking for each facility along with the proposed facilities and suggested rate of parking. This analysis appears to provide a better balance and more realistic demand for parking in this particular facility. The suggested parking was based on current use patterns. The analysis of needed parking is discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the narrative with the matrix located between these two pages. Based on the applicant's. estimate, the necessary parking spaces for the existing and proposed facilities are 427 whereas 457 spaces are proposed. Staff has reviewed the matrix and analysis and finds that it adequately addresses the parking needs for the park facility as a whole. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be satisfied. CONDITIONS: Submit a revised plan that shows wheel stops will be provided for all parking stalls abutting landscaping and walkways. Submit a detail of the bicycle rack in accordance with Section 18.765.050.0. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 15 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 Submit a revised plan that shows the parking spaces will be clearly marked. The revised plan must also clearly show the dimensions of all proposed parking spaces so staff can confirm that the dimensions stated in the narrative will be installed in the parking lot. The plan must also show that the ADA accessible spaces meet the required dimensional standards and that at least one is van accessible (9 foot space with an 8-foot aisle). Sensitive Lands Review Chanter 18.775 Outright permitted uses with no permit required. Except as provided by Subsections B, D and E below, the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-year floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground when the use does not involve paving. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" shall exclude: children's play equipment, picnic tables, sandboxes, grills, basketball hoops and similar recreational equipment. • Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areas; • Farm uses conducted without locating a structure within the sensitive land area; • Community recreation uses, excluding structures; • Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open space, forest, and wildlife resources; • Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, or other noxious vegetation; • Maintenance of floodway excluding re-channeling; • Fences, except in the floodway area; • Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet in size, except in the floodway area; and • Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area. The use is a Community Recreation use but includes structures and involves landform alterations within the floodway and filling of a drainage way, therefore, the proposed use requires Sensitive Lands Review. Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; The applicant has indicated that preliminary calculations indicate a net increase in the floodplain storage of 22,575 cubic yards due to the proposed wetland mitigation. If these calculations are correct, the alteration will preserve or enhance the floodplain storage. While staff believes the calculations are probably correct due to the amount of wetland being COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 16 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/1012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i created, the application submittal does not include the actual calculations. A condition is needed requiring the applicant to submit these calculations. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; This development is in a residential zone; however, the use is Community Recreation. Provided the applicant obtains approval and meets any applicable conditions for this expansion, this standard will be met. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100- year flood; Due to the wetland mitigation areas, the proposed alteration will result in a net increase in floodplain storage area of 22,575 cubic yards. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; The pedestrian/bicycle pathways on the proposed plan are in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathways and the Cook Park Expansion Master Plan Expansion. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; The applicant has indicated that preliminary calculations indicate that the average annual flood is 115' elevation and all proposed pathways will be at this elevation or above. As discussed previously, the applicant will be required to provide evidence of these preliminary calculations. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant has already obtained the necessary permits and a copy was included in the application submittal. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 17 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER. This standard is not applicable because this is a City project that already involves the construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Within drainaaewavs. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances.to the extent greater than that required for the use; The ditch is to be partially filled and incorporated into the water quality swale and wetland mitigation area. Because of the development and wetland mitigation, the ditch is no longer needed to convey storm water to the Tualatin River. The storm water will now be directed towards the wetland mitigation area and then drain to the Tualatin River from that point. This filling is in accordance with the approved DSL/US Army Corps of Engineers permit. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; The existing ditch is to be partially filled and incorporated into the proposed water quality swale and wetland mitigation area. - Because this is all to be designed in compliance with approved DSL/US Army Corps of Engineers permit, staff is comfortable that the alteration will not create adverse on-site or off-site impacts on life or property. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The existing ditch will be partially filled and incorporated into the water quality swale and wetland mitigation area. Because this will be accommodating the existing flow, the capacity will not be decreased. The final design will be prepared by a professional engineer. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; The existing ditch will be covered with vegetation as it is to be incorporated into the mitigation area and the water quality swale. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; The drainageway will be incorporated into the water quality swale and wetland mitigation area as approved by DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 18 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has obtained DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers approval. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This is a Community Recreation project that is already achieving the desired effect; therefore, this condition is not necessary. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff can not confirm that the Sensitive Lands Review approval standards have been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit preliminary calculations verifying that the proposed landform alterations will not result in an increase in the floodplain storage capacity Tree Removal - Chapter 18.790 Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant's narrative indicates that approximately 7 trees will be removed to develop the 47 parking spaces in the southwestern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing ball fields. It is not clear where these trees are from the plans. In addition, there are only 4 trees listed for removal on the tree mitigation plan (sheet 5 of 5). Regardless, because only 7 trees are proposed for removal and the total number of trees in the entire park is extensive, no mitigation is required. The applicant has proposed, however, to mitigate the trees removed on an inch for inch basis. Staff is also recommending a condition be imposed requiring the trees proposed for removal to be clearly marked on the site and on a revised set of plans so staff can insure that no more than 7 trees are in fact removed. In addition, tree protection fencing must be in place for trees in the vicinity of construction activities to insure they are not inadvertently harmed during construction. FINDING: , Based on the analysis above, the standards have not been fully met. If the applicant, complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met. CONDITION: COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 19 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Submit a revised tree plan that clearly shows the location and size of trees proposed to be removed. Prior to construction, clearly identify the trees to be removed by marking the trees on-site. This will avoid inadvertently removing trees not intended to be removed. Install tree protection fencing and adhere to tree protection methods for trees near construction areas prior to any site work including, but not limited to, grading. Visual Clearance Areas - Chapter 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.B. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. There are no proposed structures or vehicle parking spaces inside of the vision clearance area at the northern parking lot. The southwestern parking lot shows existing parking off of the drive, which is in the way of the proposed access drive, however, because this is off of a private drive and within the park itself, vision clearance standards do not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the standards of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas have been met. Water Resources Overlay - Chanter 18.797 The following shall apply to all development, including native vegetation removal and excavation, within the WR Overlay district. No application for a use identified in Section 18.797.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each of these standards in writing. Alternatives considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most Type 11 and III uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian setback areas. Therefore, Type II and III development applications must carefully examine upland alternatives for the proposed use, and explain the reasons why the proposed development cannot reasonably occur outside of the water resource or riparian setback area. The project is a public recreation use. The development requiring Type II Water Resource Overlay review is the pedestrian path/emergency vehicle bridge crossing of the significant COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 20 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • wetland on the east side of the park. Due to the nature of the use and the location, there is no alternative that would provide emergency access crossing this wetland area. Minimize siting impacts. The proposed use shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and adverse hydrological impacts on water resources. For Type II and III uses, the Civil Engineer, with experience in water quality, must certify that any adverse water quality impacts of the development proposal will be minimized, consistent with best management practices. For all uses, the development shall be located as far from the water resource, and use as little of the water resource or riparian setback area, as possible, recognizing the operational needs of the proposed development. The applicant's narrative states that every attempt has been made to insure minimum impact to the water resources. The applicant's Engineer, Tony Weller, P.E. has stated that any adverse water quality impacts will be minimized consistent with best management practices. The DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers approval for the wetland crossing also supports the applicant's statements that the proposed emergency access bridge will result in the least impact to the wetland while still achieving the desired affect. Construction materials and methods: Where development within the riparian area is unavoidable, construction materials or methods used within the riparian setback area shall minimize damage to water quality and native vegetation. The applicant's narrative states that no development is proposed with riparian setback, however, this is not true. The emergency access bridge will be within the resource area as well as the riparian setback. The applicant has not provided details of the construction materials or methods for staff to confirm that there will be minimal damage to the water quality and native vegetation. A condition is needed that requires the applicant to provide additional information on the construction materials and methods. The construction must utilize equipment designed to minimize ground disturbances and the methods must be consistent with other requirements of the Water Resources Overlay standards. Specific details needed include: the type of equipment to be used, the area impacted, and how the construction methods will insure that there is no more impact than necessary for the construction. An example of equipment designed to minimize ground disturbance is a spider hoe. Minimize flood damage: Aboveground residential structures shall not be permitted within the WR Overlay district, where such land is also within the 100-year floodplain. On-site flood storage capacity shall not decrease as a result of development. The cumulative effects of any proposed development shall not reduce flood storage capacity or raise base flood elevations on- or, off-site. Any new commercial or industrial land development proposed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed consistent with Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lands. No residential structures are proposed. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 21 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Avoid steep slopes: Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25% or greater and in areas with high erosion potential (as shown on SCS maps), except where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. This standard does not apply because the project is necessary to construct a public facility. In any event, the slopes do not exceed 25%. Minimize impacts on existing vegetation: The following standards shall apply when construction activity is proposed in areas where vegetation is to be preserved. Temporary measures used for initial erosion control shall not be left in place permanently; Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to reduce potential damage to trees and vegetation; Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the work area; In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees and brush shall be taken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place; Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on a permanent basis. The applicant has stated that, upon completion, all temporary erosion control devices will be removed. The applicant has indicated that prior to construction, the work areas will be carefully identified and marked to reduce potential damage to trees and vegetation. A condition to this affect will be required. The applicant has stated that no trees will be used for anchoring or stabilizing equipment and that trees will not be permitted to fall or be placed outside of the work area. The condition to clearly mark the work area will help to insure this standard is met. The applicant has stated that care will be taken during tree and vegetation removal to avoid injuring adjacent trees and vegetation. In addition, staff will require as a condition of approval that the applicant install construction fencing around trees that will not be removed in the work area to insure they are protected. The applicant states there may be temporary stockpiling of material, however, there will be no permanent stockpiling of materials on-site. Vegetation mitigation plan: If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource site or riparian setback area, or mitigation is proposed as a method to reduce the riparian setback in accordance with Section 18.797.100, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis; Where approval is granted to reduce the riparian setback area, the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating for the reduced setback by replacing non-native vegetation within the remaining, protected riparian setback area on a 1.5:1 basis. That is, for each 100 square feet of riparian setback that is lost to development, at least 150 square feet of existing disturbed area within the riparian setback or wetland shall be re-planted with native plant species; The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of native plant species designed COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 22 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • to achieve pre-disturbance conditions. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any native plant species that do not survive the first two years after planting, and for ensuring the survival of any replacement plants for an additional two years after their replacement. The vegetation mitigation plan has been approved by the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers. 'The proposal does not request a reduction in the riparian setback area; therefore, this standard does not apply. The applicant's re-vegetation plan provides for the replanting and maintenance of native plant species designed to achieve pre-disturbed conditions. Both DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers require longer survival periods than specified under this standard and those longer survival periods shall take precedent and will be enforced by these agencies. Water and sewer infiltration and discharge: Water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid infiltration of floodwaters into the system, and to avoid discharges from such facilities to streams and wetlands. The Water system will have backflow valves installed to prevent floodwater from entering the water system. The applicant has indicated that the mobile restroom will be removed during the winter, with water and sewer lines capped to prevent anything entering or exiting the systems. On-site systems: On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited within the WR Overlay district. No septic systems or private wells are proposed. Erosion control plan: If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource site or riparian setback area, the erosion control standards of 18.797.080.J shall apply within the WR Overlay and be adhered to. The applicant's narrative indicates that the erosion control standards of 18.797.080.J will be followed. The erosion control plan submitted shows erosion control will be placed along the wetland buffer areas. A condition will be attached requiring the erosion control measures be in place prior to construction and removed only after construction has been completed. The condition to clearly mark the construction area will insure that this is further satisfied. In addition, the US Army Corp of Engineers permit and a condition of this approval will insure that erosion control measures are in place. This approval is based on the applicant acknowledging the above standards will be adhered to. Plan implementation. A schedule of planned erosion control and re-vegetation measures shall be provided which sets forth the progress of construction activities, and mitigating erosion control measures. An approved Erosion Control of Re-vegetation Plan shall be implemented and maintained as follows: COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 23 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stripping or excavation work; The applicant shall implement the measures and construct facilities contained in the approved Erosion Control Plan in a timely manner. During active construction, the applicant shall inspect erosion control measures daily, and maintain, adjust, repair or replace erosion control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly; Eroded sediment shall be removed immediately from pavement surfaces, off-site areas, and from the surface water management system, including storm drainage inlets, ditches and culverts; Water containing sediment shall not be flushed into the surface water management system, wetlands or streams without first passing through an approved sediment filtering facility or device; In addition, the applicant shall call for City inspection, prior to the foundation inspection for any building, to certify that erosion control measures are installed in accordance with the erosion control plan. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan that will insure the standards are met. In addition, the final construction documents will provide more detail on the erosion control to be provided. A condition will be- required that all erosion control measures be in place prior to beginning construction. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Water Resources Overlay standards are not fully met. If the applicant complies, with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: A condition is needed that requires the applicant to provide additional information on the construction materials and methods. The construction must utilize equipment designed to minimize ground disturbances and the methods must be consistent with other requirements of the Water Resources Overlay standards. Specific details needed include: the type of equipment to be used, the area impacted, and how the construction methods will insure that there is no more impact than necessary for the construction. The applicant shall install construction fencing around trees that will not be removed within the work area to insure that they are protected. Prior to construction, the work area adjacent to the Water Resource Area shall be identified and marked on the site with construction fencing. Prior to any site work, all erosion control measured must be in place and may only be removed after the construction is complete. Note: The applicant, by submitting a proposal to comply with these standards, accepts responsibility in insuring that the proposed methods are utilized during construction. If construction activities do not comply . with the standards specified, the applicant is responsible. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 24 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/1012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i C. ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and is, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this report and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses); 18.360.090.8 (100 year floodplain); 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the disabled), and 18.360.090.15 (Provisions of the Underlying Zone). Relationship to the Natural and Phvsical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The park and structures have been reviewed as part of an overall Master Plan by citizens, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The locations proposed considered the natural features of the park and are located in such a way as to blend into the natural setting and still provide the necessary facilities to the public utilizing the park. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 25 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this project and has offered no comments or objections in regard to the need for additional lighting or crime prevention features. FINDING: Because there are no .concerns from the Police Department, Staff has determined that the Crime Prevention and Safety Standards have been satisfied. Public transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The project is not adjacent to an existing or proposed transit facility, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because no bus lines run along the site frontage, this standard does not apply. D. Street and Utility Improvements Standards - Chapter 18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a local residential street to have a 50-foot right-of-way width and a 32-foot wide paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 92"6 Avenue, which is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is 50 feet of ROW, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. No additional ROW dedications are necessary. SW 92nd Avenue is currently paved and provides two-way travel. The roadway is posted "No Parking" on both sides from SW Waverly Drive to the north property ,line of the subject COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 26 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER property. From that point, it is posted "No Parking" on the east side of the roadway to the end of the street. The City intends to improve SW 92"d Avenue in the future as another phase to the Cook Park improvements. It is not intended to include the costs of the roadway improvements in this phase. At present, with the "No Parking" restrictions, the roadway functions adequately. However, this expansion could add significant traffic to-the roadway. If that occurs, the City should place this roadway on a list of potential Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in the near future. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states,that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cull-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. SW 92nd Avenue is presently constructed as far south as it can be. The south 750 feet of the roadway lies within the 100-year floodplain. No further extensions of this roadway are necessary. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: • All cull-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent 'street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. SW 92"d Avenue is an extremely long cul-de-sac (approximately 1,250 feet in length from SW Waverly Drive). However, since this roadway is existing, it is not required to meet the above standard for length. The roadway is terminated with a circular turn-around. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 27 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4110/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • As was stated above, the City has future plans to improve SW 9211 Avenue. If this expansion results in a significant increase in traffic, the City should make improvement of this street a higher priority. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is a 42-inch USA trunk line that crosses this site in an east/west direction. The proposed plan indicates two locations where 6-inch sewer laterals will be tapped into this trunk line to serve new restrooms. Any taps to this trunk line will require a permit from USA. This permit shall be obtained prior to construction. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and floodwater runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this site falls to the south into existing wetlands adjacent to the Tualatin River. There are a number of existing on-site conveyance pipes that drain surface water runoff in the park. The proposed park expansion will include additional storm water conveyance pipes to handle the additional runoff. Since the park site is owned by the City, Staff considers the onsite pipes "public" facilities, so any new additions to the system will be considered public lines and subject to review by Engineering. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 28 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Since this site lies adjacent to the Tualatin River, it is better for the additional storm water to be conveyed directly to the river, rather than detaining. The proposed plan is adequate. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. There is an existing asphalt pathway through the park, as well as a number of other trails. The park addition includes some additional pathways that lead to new baseball fields and the wetland mitigation area. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. The City intends to include the cost of the new pathways in this project. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The new pathways in the park will be between eight feet and 10 feet in width, which will meet this standard. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 29 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional, poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in- lieu of under-grounding. All new utilities in this project will be placed underground. ADDITIONAL CU AND/OR AGENCY CONCEMS LIEGARDING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: publLWatet SystertU This site is served from the City's public water system. The proposed plan shows new service lines to be extended to serve the new restroom facilities. The new water line layout must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Public Works departments. Storm Water Qualitv: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 66 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 30 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The plans indicate that a vegetated swale will be installed across this site to treat additional storm water from this site. In addition, the plan calls for the use of "eco-stone" in one of the parking lots. This type of surfacing allows the storm water runoff to percolate back into the soil below. Three drywells are also proposed to handle a portion of the runoff. Based upon the preliminary storm drainage calculations and the plans, it appears the proposed storm drainage plan will adequately handle the additional storm water runoff. Gradin4 and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant's expansion will add approximately 28 acres of developed land to the existing park. An.NPDES permit will be required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the street utility and improvement standards have not been met outright, however, if the applicant complies with conditions 13 through 21 specified at the front of this report, the standards will be met. IMp act Study; Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. . In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has provided an Impact Study that shows that the park improvement will not result in a negative impact on existing public facilities and services. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposed and offered the following comments: COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 31 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 411012000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 1. Symbol * shown in red on drawings - Provide handicap parking stall. 2. *1, *2, *3, *4 shown in red on drawings - Provide an accessible route. All buildings shall be accessible. 3. 1 find no hydrants on the plans provided. The City of Tigard Utility Manager has had the opportunity to review the proposal and has offered the following comments: Eliminate the two additional 3/" connections with potable water "public" system and serve off existing 1 Y2" water meter or upgrade to 2-inch. Provide reduced pressure principle (RP) device assembly (backflow prevention) directly behind domestic water meter. Also provide insulated enclosure. Please note that the public water main terminates at or near the fire hydrant. The City of Tigard Police Department and The City of Tigard Property Management/Operations Department have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Section has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Title 3 data shows a stream and stream. buffer on the site, but I can't see anything on our current photos. Staff response: Current Planning staff has reviewed the Significant Wetland Inventory and found a significant wetland on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has requested Water Resources Overlay review for development within this wetland. This submittal was received before the USA standards intended to implement Title 3 were in effect and therefore, Title 3 issues can not be applied to this project. SECTIO&/lll. AGENCY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the proposal and offered comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments. The representative from ODFW provided a copy of the comments originally sent to DSL in response to the request for permits. Staff is assuming that all of those comments that could be required were incorporated into the DSUUS Army Corps of Engineers permit. The following are additional comments received in response to the more detailed plans sent by the City for comments review: The application indicates that several trees will be removed for the construction/grading for a gazebo (attached sheets). The removed trees can be used to diversify the wildlife habitat in the forested area or the wetland mitigation area. The removal method should allow the COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 32 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER rootwads to remain attached to the trunk. The method should retain as many limbs as possible. The woody debris can be placed in overlapping structures (2-4 logs/structure) on the wetland islands, the wetland side slopes, or the wetland buffer. As there is a high potential for the structures to move during flood events, we recommend that the structures be connected together and anchored (cable to large rock or deadman, pin with rebar, etc.). The Tualatin River provides rearing and migration habitat for several fish species including game fish stocks such as cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, and coho salmon. The steelhead trout are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. The proposed project includes excavation within the floodplain and appears to increase the potential for fish entrapment during flood events. The project should include adequate opportunity for entrapped fish to escape back to the river. Providing for positive drainage to the river is one method to allow fish to escape. Another method is to incorporate an engineered fish passage structure - bypass pipe or weir system. Staff Response: Staff can find no standards that require that applicant to comply with these recommendations, however, the applicant should take these recommendations into consideration when constructing the improvements. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has had an opportunity to review the proposal and has offered the following comments: The proposed maintenance building and restroom will require adequate fire flow and hydrants when constructed. Fire access appears to be adequate to both buildings. US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: The Corp permit 97-1483 expires on March 31, 2001 - if additional time is needed to complete the work, you must request an extension prior to the expiration date. All wetland work must comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. Division of State Lands, PGE, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, City of Tualatin, NW Natural Gas, General Telephone, and US West were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. PRE RED BYE Julia Hadjuk Associate Planner APPROVED BY: v Richard Bewerrff Planning Manager i_\curpln\juIIa\Cook Park.doc April 3. 2000 DATE April 3. 2000 DATE COOK PARK EXPANSION PAGE 33 OF 33 CUP2000-00001 4/10/2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ,k7-SW DURHAM ROAD L= .FI Ews,uc .1 I -01 \1C yI+ J` jt 1 • FA51WG 6• L ~ -I'M 110 ` uru • ♦ I FII'. 9'KMKiL ACGLff -vp .2w •4 i C:=r~ G0 W SAN E%15TIN SLrfll EAS01EMt i I 1 - V+IDa110 LGl I ` WElGN6- {7 rAALLf al s ALL f , LOT ~ ~ - . _ I ' ~:/77•~/. /!r i/.~Ali..: I/ - * -Aw[MC - i ~ i t + 100 47NL9 Cf MC1n3 / ~ *"4 tAr° usa° ,ec f fm % ~I' C`~ s° n di s WETLAND r . \ m 7 ,'I ( I MITIGATION •7°~ AREA • j ; .Yp fit, ~ ~~,y{ ~p° r'~° 4,,\\ 67 COMO wEA.4NU 11 ~I room rm° d lU-~~ ~ ! c • j~,~ 1 to:JOG al •/i J; I \ 1 1 3aiaA cAfEe° , i pjgY ~~~w.s'Y3 COOK PARK ° TUALATbV i A=m L~f !111°!1 ■ , fJ ~ 9 I~ I I N la R61r.00Yf a` f auva.AO OR rcenE 1~aav 'Im 1 ~ T CUP2000-0000' Of "GAO aw OF TIGAR® SLR2000-00003 N (Map is not to scale) SITE PLAN COOK PARK EXPANSION A W CITY of TIGARD GEOORAPMIG INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP Cu P2000-00001 SLR2000-00003 COOK PARK EXPANSION i N 0 800 6D0 Feet V- 739 Met h~,- City of Tigard information an Ws map is for general location only and j should be varif ed with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall OW Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 h up jAV-.cl.tiga rd.ar.us b 15, 2000; C:%magicjMAGIC03.APR C ouRr,RU RD m nIIQ . ,-T-1 7, ~;'.1jnuRHAJUADL- RD COOK PARK EXPANSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON MAJOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITUTIONAL USE SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW FOR ALTERATION IN A FLOODPLAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: John Roy, Property Manager City of Tigard 12800 SW Ash Avenue 13125 SW Hall Boulevard (mail) Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-4171 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Tony Weller, P.E., P.L.S. Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 15256 NW Greenbrier Parkway Beaverton, Oregon 97006 (505) 690-6600 (505) 690-2595 PROPERTY OWNER: ZONE; TAX MAP/LOT/AREA: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-4171 R-12/ open space 2S 1 14 A Lot 1500, 21.13 acres 2S 1 14 D Lot 101, 42.67 acres 2S 1 14 AC Lot 700, 15.25 acres total site: 79.05 1 .f CITY OF TIGARD GENE BAL INFORMATION CONDITIONAL USE TYPE III APPLICATION 13125 SW Heft Blvd., Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (5D3) 684-7297 on SW 92nd Avenue and south Property Address/Location(s): of Waverly Drive Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 2S 1 14A, 1500: 2S 1 14D. 10 1 ; 2s 1 14AC, 700 Site Size: 21.1 . '?5 Y '7 9.0 5 acres 42-67, P. is Property OwnerlDeed Holder(s)': City of Tigard Address: 12800 SW Ash Avenue Phone: 639-4171 City: Tigard , Oregon Tap: 97223 Applicant': John Roy Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd Phone: 432_44-7, City: Tigard, Oregon Zip: C17 When the owner and the applicant are different people. the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. ERMOSAL SUKMM The owners of record of the subject property request Conditional Use approval to allow (please be specific): _ Expansion of Cook Park cn previously vacant land: extaansion of over Please see narrative for detailed descriptions. _ Applicant's Representative:- TONY WELLER, P.E., P.L.S. 15256 NW Greenbrier Parkway _ Beaverton, OR 97006 503-690-6600 / 503-690-2595 fax PRE-APP. HELD WITH. Julia Hajduk DATE OF PRE-APP.: a -)_-)R--)nnn FOR STAFF USE Ob" Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Date Determined To Be Complete: Camp Plan/Zone Designation: CIT Area: Rev.11r,*8M J1ku 1nlmasterslatadoc i =UIRED S1L,8MITTA,0LEMEIM ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Application Form ❑ Ownees Signature/Written Authorization ❑ Title Transfer instrument or Deed ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-000 checK fist) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81h-x 11 ❑ Applicanfs Statement of copies based on pre-app check fist) ❑ USA Sewer Use Information Card (aistritxnedloorapiete0 at application submittal) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes ❑ Fling Fee $1,615.00_ 1 List any VARIANCE, SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Sensitive Lnads Permit to Site Develognent Review APPLICANTS: _ - - - - - - - a -i To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUW17TAL ELSMEMTS as described on the front of this application In the "Required Submittal Elements" box. !1 (Detaiied Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above raQust do%Lnot vlo6,p any-d@%Lrestrictigps that mgy be attacW to or IMpnsed ugg the subs • N the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terns and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exNbit$ transmitted herewith, are true, and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, indudng the policies and criteria. and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of -19 Owner's Signature Ownees Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 ! i 11 3,61 } 1 0 1 ~ ~ 11 p !i • r { w ~ Is ~ " f t O t t n ry i ~ IR q n - 9 4 5• ,~~1fas~ ~ 1 ` L 41 Ile, I i . . , I 4~ 6 1 1 4i ' y a ^ e :cy~O.r~ 0 Z a v SITE PLAN S VICINITY MAP e !SL b j1 ~ E^' ° 4`° d7 a ai °fiwYa~~~y e 8e a , ! s f. s ' ilk £ II 1 ,ti tY,~ I N{ r% SW 92ND AVE A ! ~t 17} ~!q • uP~1 . ° r F Y I r- I '.I z t a p 77 $ a I 6 €(f~LT'~S 1~ ~ I ° t ~ ' ~ { I 1 l Ir+ 11 I ~ ~°r r~ it =1_ I • 1 I r - - - - - - - 41 COOK PARK EXPANSION [tnLL~ tom t 23 1 IM TL ISM 14AC % 300. 140 n 101 13.25 S.W. M" W.V.) wom, OR 97323 (so3) 639-171 NARRATIVE & IMPACT STUDY COOK PARK EXPANSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Summary of Proposal The City is proposing to expand and improve Cook Park, tax lots 1500 of tax map 2 S 1 14A, tax lot 101 of map 2S 1 14D, and tax lot 700 of tax map 2S 1 14 AC. The park comprises approximately 51 acres. The proposed expansion will add an additional 28 acres for a total park area of 79 acres. The park is currently accessed from SW 92 Avenue. The park and expansion area is zoned R- 12/open space. Community Recreation is allowed as a conditional use in the R- 12 zone. Surrounding land uses include residential to the north, industrial (USA treatment facility) to the northeast, vacant land with wetlands to the east and the Tualatin River to the south and west. Existing uses include sport fields, parking, picnic tables, a picnic shelter, a multi- use gazebo, maintenance building, trails, and open space including wetlands and forested areas. The expansion area is currently vacant with mowed meadow and some created and natural wetlands. Upland areas are utilized for over-flow parking during heavy park use. The Cook Park Master Plan was developed with the assistance of a specifically appointed task force in conjunction with a design consultant to design the park. The Task force evaluated parking, uses, environmental concems and other issues conceming park development. On June 10, 1997, City council approved the Cook Park Master Plan by unanimous decision. The City of Tigard is now seeking land use approval for implementing the approved Cook Park Master Plan with minor modifications. The proposed park expansion encompasses approximately 28 acres to the northeast and east of the existing park. Improvements to the expansion area include 4 little league fields, approximately 4.5 acres of created wetland, restroom -concession building, restroom, tot-lot, paved walkways, parking, bus drop-off and tum-around, emergency tum-around, an emergency road/multi- modal path, picnic shelter, picnic tables, wetland viewing gazebo, soft trails, nature/cultural interpretive signs, and rest seating. Improvements to the existing park include a new parking lot, maintenance building, removal of 2 baseball fields, creation of 2 soccer fields and site preparation for mobile restrooms. Connections will be made to existing sanitary sewer and water lines in the park. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces will be treated before being released into the natural drainage system. Existing wetlands and their associated buffers identified as significant on the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory Maps will not be altered with one exception: the located in the northeast section of the parts. A second area proposed for partial Page 1 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard fill is the exlstlng manmade, drainage ditch located on the south, westerly line of the expansion area. This manmade ditch, is not identified as a wetland on the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory Map. Creation of wetlands is proposed as part of mitigation required by DSUArmy Cops for the impacts associated with the proposed park improvements. In addition, the proposed wetland creation and enhancement mitigation at Cook Park will provide mitigation credit for Menlo Reservoir Project and Petrie Development Project. The proposed wetland creation will provide higher quality wetland habitat and a more natural drainage pattern then currently exists on-site. The proposed layout will route treated storm water into created wetlands prior to entering the Tualatin River. DSUArmy Corps permits required for the proposed fill and creation have been issued. A copy is provided with this application. Summary of Approvals Required Conditional Use/ Maior Modification of a Conditional Use Proposed use is a change from vacant to community recreation and an expansion of use over 10% and as such requires Conditional Use approval. Sensitive Lands Review for Alterations in a Floodpiain The following actions require sensitive lands review: proposed park improvements which occur within the 100-year floodplain; partial filling of the manmade ditch is considered an alteration of a drainage way; and the emergency road/pedestrian trail is an alteration within a City inventoried wetland. Water Resources Ovedav District Type The Tualatin River is defined as a major stream by the City and as such requires a riparian setback of 75' from the top-of-bank or edge of associated wetland. The riparian setback is shown on the plans. No wetlands associated with this section of the Tualatin River are identified on the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory Map. Trails, viewing shelters, picnic tables and interpretive signs are proposed within this Riparian Setback Area as allowed under a Type I permitted use with mitigation (Table 18.797.1.b). Type !1. The City of Tigard lists wetlands located on the northern and eastern portion of the expansion site as significant. No fill or alteration is proposed in these areas except for the emergency road/pedestrian trail in the northeast section of the site. The emergency road/pedestrian trail is permitted in the isolated wetlands under a Type II permit with mitigation where no reasonable alternative exists. Although the emergency road/pedestrian trail is for emergency vehicular use only, it is considered a local street or driveway serving public facilities (Table 18.797.2 2. D.). As discussed previously, altemative locations for the emergency road/pedestrian trail are not feasible. Page 2 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard The manmade ditch proposed for partial fill is not identified as a significant wetland on City of Tigard maps and is therefore, not subject to WR overlay. Filling of the ditch is subject to DSUArmy Corps jurisdiction and has been approval and permitted. 18.330 CONDITIONAL USE The proposed expansion and park improvements are considered a major modification of an existing conditional use: 18.330.020 Approval Process B. Major modification of approved or existing conditional use 2. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) has resulted if one or more of the changes listed below have been proposed. a. change in land use RESPONSE The proposed park expansion and improvements are considered a change in land use. The previous land use while held in private ownership was vacant. b. 10% increase in dwelling unit density RESPONSE The proposed expansion and park improvements are not related to dwelling unit density. c. change in the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected RESPONSE The park has one main entrance from SW 92 Avenue. Visitors now enter the park via automobiles, bicycles and on foot at this entrance. The proposed expansion includes new parking lots and emergency turn-around, which should improve impacts to offsite traffic by providing more parking within park boundaries. The parking lot and emergency turn-around do not create new routes, possible `short cuts' or new access points to the park therefore they are not expected to change the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic could be affected. A new emergency road/pedestrian access located in the northeast portion of the park will add one access point to the park. However, this access point will be for pedestrian and emergency access only and will not impact off-site traffic. This pedestrian way will connect with the Fanno Creek Multi-modal Trail providing a desirable pedestrian connection. The trail will traverse private property with no public access points until it connects to the Fanno Creek Trail at SW 85th Avenue. There are no road connections or road crossings, or other pedestrian trails that could intersect the proposed trail until the connection at SW 85th Avenue. Page 3 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard A second pedestrian connection to Fanno Creek Trail is proposed in the southeast comer of the park. This pedestrian connection connects at the southwest boundary of USA property. Again, we do not anticipate any change in off-site traffic as a result of this new pedestrian connection since it links directly to private property with no opportunities for road connections, road crossings or other pedestrian trails that could intersect the proposed trail until the connection at SW 85th Avenue. d. an increase in the floor area proposed for non-residential use by more than 10% where previously specified RESPONSE The proposed gazebo, restrooms, concessions, and picnic shelter will create more than a 10% increase in non-residential floor area. e. a reduction of more that 10% of the area reserved for common open space and/or useable open space RESPONSE The proposed development is for an alteration of existing open space, not a reduction. f. a reduction of specified setback requirements by more than 20% RESPONSE No reduction of specified setback requirements are requested. The required 30' perimeter building setback is observed. g. an elimination of project amenities by more than 10% where previously specified provided such as: (1) recreational facilities (2) Screening; or (3) Landscaping provisions; and RESPONSE The proposed development is for an expansion of recreational facilities and landscaping, not a reduction. No reduction of screening is required. h. a 10% increase in the approved density RESPONSE No increase in density is proposed. 3. Upon the director determining that the proposed modification to the conditional use plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new application in accordance with Section 18.320.020A. RESPONSE We are submitting the Cook Park expansion application as a major modification to be processed as a Type III Hearings Officer Procedure 18.390.050 using approval criteria contained in 18.330.030. Section 18.320.020A refers to annexations and is not applicable to this application. Page 4 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of approval A. Approval standards. The Hearing Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; RESPONSE The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the proposed uses as illustrated on the site plan. 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; RESPONSE The impacts of the proposed development can be accommodated on site. The proposed uses fit well within the available square footage, shape and location in which they are proposed. Exiting topography is generally flat and is easily developed for the proposed uses. Natural features are preserved and new natural features are proposed. 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; RESPONSE The site is currently served with all the public facilities required for this proposal (e.g. roads, sewer, water and power). Each public facility has adequate capacity to serve the proposal. 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter, RESPONSE Zoning district dimensional requirements for lot size, width, setbacks, site coverage, frontage, and special building height provisions do not apply to the proposed use. Applicable zoning district requirements are discussed below. 5. the applicable requirements of 18.330.050; RESPONSE The applicable requirements of this section found under section 18.330.050 are: 5. Community Recreation and Parks: a. all building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30' from any property line b. there are no off-street parking requirements. RESPONSE a. Thirty-foot setbacks are provided at all property lines as shown on the site development plan. Page 5 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard b. Although parking is not required, parking is a desired use for the Park. Please see section 18.765 off-street parking further in this document. 6. the supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. RESPONSE Applicable supplementary requirements are discussed in this narrative, addressed by section number. 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.090 Approval Criteria A. The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions, or denying an application: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.800, Street and Utility standards... RESPONSE All applicable requirements of the title are addressed in this narrative and on the enclosed drawings. Applicable requirements are addressed under specific sections in numeric order. 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. Buildings shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air, circulation and fire-fighting; and (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. RESPONSE The proposed buildings (gazebo, picnic shelter, maintenance buildings, restrooms, concession building, and maintenance buildings) have been located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage while providing locations useful to their intended function. Adequate distances will exist between adjoining buildings and uses to provide for adequate light, air circulation and fire fighting. Ground slumping or sliding is not expected in the building areas. Consideration was given to sun and wind orientation when locating these buildings. 3. Exterior elevations... a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures shall.... RESPONSE Page 6 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard The proposed buildings are not single-family attached or multiple-family structures, therefore, this standard does not apply. 4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses.... Buffers and screening are not required between residential uses and open space or parks (section 18.745). However, buffers or screening may be required at the discretion of the Hearings Officer for conditional uses to ensure the proposed use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity. Cook Park is bordered on the south and west by the Tualatin River. Across the river is the Tualatin Country Club, a compatible use to the proposed park expansion.. To the east is vacant land with wetlands owned by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) which is also considered compatible to community recreational and open space uses. Buildings and treatment facilities on the USA site are located beyond the northeast corner of the park beyond the range where buffers would be beneficial. Residential neighborhoods exist north of the park. The expansion of Cook Park will provide compatible uses to existing residences to the north. Proposed sport fields, parking lots, restrooms, and picnic areas are separated away from adjacent residential neighbors by existing wetland and wetland buffers. Existing wetlands and associated buffers will provide a minimum of 240' between the closest residential property line and proposed sport fields. Both the distance and existing vegetation between active park areas and adjacent neighbors will help to reduce any potential noise or use impacts associated with active park uses. The sports fields will not be lighted and night games will not be played when residential neighborhoods might prefer quiet hours. The park is closed at dusk during the summer and at 4 p.m. during the winter. Proposed parking is located over 600' from the closest residential property line. Native wetlands and/or sport fields will provide a landscaped buffer between the homes and proposed parking lots. Distances and landscaping will provide exceptional buffers to northern neighbors. 5. Privacy and noise: multi-family or group living uses...... RESPONSE The proposed use is not adjacent to or a multi-family or group living use. 6. Private outdoor area: muff!-family use... RESPONSE The proposed use is not adjacent to or a multi-family use, therefore this standard does not apply. Page 7 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 7. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi-family use RESPONSE The proposed use is not adjacent to or a multi-family use, therefore this standard does not apply. S. Where landfill and /or development is allowed within and adjacent 100? year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for green way adjoining and within the floodplain..... RESPONSE The proposed use is considered a green way and is owned by the City. Additional dedications are not necessary. 9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention.... RESPONSE The park is entirely a public space. 10. Crime prevention and safety RESPONSE Proposed park improvements are designed to reduce the opportunity for vandalism and crime. Extensive lighting is not proposes since the park is closes at dusk during summer hours and at 4 p.m. during winter hours. 11. Public transit RESPONSE The park is not located adjacent to existing or proposed transit route. However, a bus turn around and drop off area is provided in the first parking lot. 12. Landscaping RESPONSE A landscaping plan and wetland mitigation plan approved by DSUArmy corps permit) are included with the application package. The landscaping plan addresses landscaping associated with proposed parking lots, sport fields and other park improvements located outside of wetland areas. The wetland mitigation plan, which is part of the DSUArmy corps permit creating and enhancing wetland areas, provides landscaping plans for the wetland and buffer areas of the park. The Landscaping will meet or exceed minimum requirements for off-street parking, buffering and screening as discussed in section 18.745. The remainder of the park will be landscaped to meet recreational needs and wetland standards. Please see the DSUArmy Corps permits for wetland and associated plantings. 13. Drainage RESPONSE Proposed drainage is in accordance with the criteria adopted in the 1981 master drainage plan. Page 8 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 14. Provisions for the disabled.... RESPONSE Provisions for the disabled will be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447. 15. All of the provisions and regulations for the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title... RESPONSE All applicable provisions and regulations for the underlying zone, will be met unless modified by other sections of this title. 18.390 Decision Making Procedure/Impact Study RESPONSE The Cook Park Expansion Project is being submitted as a Type III, Major Modification of a Conditional Use, and Site Development Review with Sensitive Lands Review for alterations in a floodplain. Moreover, the park lies within the Water resources Overlay District, which requires the following: Type I permit for: • the proposed trails located in the Tualatin River riparian setback (without mitigation), and • removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with native plant species no closer than 10' from the tip-of-bank or edge of wetland (with mitigation). Type I I permit for: • crossing the wetland with the emergency access/pedestrian trail (with mitigation). Pre-application Conference was held on December 28, 1999 with Julia Hajduk, City Planner, Brian Rager, City Development Engineer, and Tony Weller and Kirsten Van Loo of CES, Inc. The required notices and hearing will be executed by the City. The required 2 sets of stamped and addressed, legal-sized envelopes, with labels at 1" x 47, and a notarized list of all owners of property within 500 feet are included in this application package. 18.705.030 Access, Egress and Circulation Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets, which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. RESPONSE Walkways will be provided between parking lots, restroom and concession, tot-lot playground, and picnic shelter. Walkways are separated from driveways and parking lots. Walkways will be a minimum of 10' in width and provide a concrete or asphalt walldng surface. Soft trails are also proposed in the park, located in Page 9 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard more natural areas, generally south of the picnic shelter. Soft trails will be surfaced with bark chips and will provide a solid walking surface. Access standards for community recreational or open space uses are not addressed in this section. 18.745 Landscaping & Screening Standards RESPONSE Parking lot screening is not required for parking lots in parks (interpretation from City planner Julia Hajduk). However, landscaping standards do apply to the parking lot and are met as follows: • Plantings are utilized to reduce visual impacts of the parking lot. Trees and shrubs in landscape islands provide shade and relief from the visual mass of asphalttgravel surfaces. • Landscape islands are equally distributed throughout the parking lot to provide a continuous canopy of trees at a rate of one tree per 7 spaces. • The minimum landscape island is 3' wide and protected from vehicle damage through the location of wheel guards or curbs 18.765 Off-Street Parking RESPONSE The Conditional Use Standards state that there are no parking requirements for community recreation or parks, however, current use patterns indicate that additional parking is both necessary and desirable. In an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of parking spaces we have developed the following matrix, Recreation Facility & Parking Inventory. While reading the matrix, consider that the numbers we established for `Parking Spaces Per Facility assume that park users will utilize several facilities in a single visit and not limit themselves to one activity. For example, a family with small children may arrive for a picnic and may visit the dock, nature trails, and playground. Also, we assume that some sport field players and spectators will carpool and have reduced the number of anticipated vehicles by a third of the total number of players, substitute players and coaches involved in a typical game. One other consideration when determining the number of parking spaces is to recognize that not all park facilities will be in full use at the same time. For example, soccer and baseball have different seasons leaving spaces provided for baseball available during soccer season, and spaces provided for soccer available during baseball season. The matrix shows that the existing parking provides approximately 69% of the estimated number of parking spaces needed to service the existing facilities. Proposed parking will provide 107% of the estimated number of parking spaces Page 10 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard Picnic tables (some covered) View Point Gazebo Children's tot lot Children's playground Restrooms Concessions facility Multi-use gazebo Sport Fields Baseball/softball Soccer Basketball Volleyball Trails in miles W/in park Floating dock Cook Park Master Plan Recreation Facility & Parking Inve ntory Existing Park Facilities Proposed Park Facilities Suggested Estimate Estimate Rate of # of Total of Total Parking Parking Facilities Parking Existing Spaces per Spaces Proposed (Proposed Spaces Facilities Facility Needed Facilities + Existing) Needed 75 1.5 112.5 35 110 165 0 3 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 1 1 3 1 6 6 0 1 6 2 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 20 1 2 40 2 20 40 2 4 BO 3 20 60 2 5 100 1 10 10 0 1 10 1 10 10 0 1 10 0.8 5 4 0.7 1.5 7.5 1 3 3 0 1 3 Total parking 184 265.5 273 457 427.5 Ratio of Est. Needed to Provided Parking: 69% 1 107% needed to service existing and proposed facilities. Proposed parking will more successfully serve parking needs. The proposed parking meets established City standards for access and dimensions as follows. Two entrance aisles are proposed with 24' pavement widths in a 40' right-of-way with curbs. Proposed standard spaces are a minimum of 10'x 18'-6", proposed compact spaces at 8'x 16'-6". Up to 50% of the parking spaces may be compact spaces. Handicap stalls are 18'-6° x 10' with 6'-8' exit aisles and are provided at a rate of 7 per 201-300 new parking stalls. Bus drop-off/ turn-around and emergency tum-around areas are provided. Bicycle parking standards require bicycle parking within 50' of primary entrances to structures. Bicycle parking is proposed adjacent to the proposed restrooms and concession building located just south of the bus turn around. 12 bicycle racks will be provided. Bicycle racks will be securely anchored to the ground, a minimum of 2.5'x 6', with a vehicle clearance of T, a minimum access aisle 5' wide. Each space is accessible without moving another bicycle. Appropriate signage will be provided. Landscaping is designed to meet section 18.745 and is discussed above. Vision clearance is discussed in section 18.795 later in this narrative. 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review The park expansion and improvements require Sensitive Lands Review since it is located in a 100-year floodplain and includes wetland areas. Slopes over 25% are not located on the park site, but may exist along the Tualatin River banks. We are not proposing any alteration to areas with slopes over 25%. Section 18.775.020A. The following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-year floodplain and drainage way when use does not involve paving.: 1. Accessory uses such as lawns.... 2. Farm uses..... 3. Community recreational uses excluding structures (the definition of structures does not include children's play equipment, picnic tables, sandboxes, grills, basketball hoops and similar recreation equipment). 4. Public conservation areas for water, soil, open space, forest and wildlife resources 5. removal of poison oak, tansy, ragwort, blackberry or other noxious vegetation 6 maintenance of floodway area 7. fences except in the floodway areas. RESPONSE Proposed picnic tables, grills and tot-lot are not proposed for paving and are therefore, outright permitted uses in the 100-year floodplain. Page 11 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 18.775.020 C. Jurisdictional wetlands. All wetland areas identified on the site plan are jurisdictional wetlands. These jurisdictional wetlands include those identified on the City of Tiigard's Wetland Inventory Map for this site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands have issued permits for the proposed development associated with the on- site jurisdictional wetlands. Permit approval package is included with this application package. The remaining portions of the proposed expansion are subject to the applicable sections of 18.775 Sensitive Lands. 18.775.020 E. Sensitive Lands Permits issued by the Hearings Officer We are pursing a sensitive lands permit through the Type IIIA procedure with this application using approval criteria contained in section 18.775.070 B-E discussed below. The sensitive lands permits are required for the following proposed actions: a. ground disturbances in floodway area b. landform alterations in floodway fringe of over 50 cubic yards of material e. accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas: restroom/concession building at 1,230 square feet, the restroom building adjacent to the tot-lot at 560 square feet, and the picnic shelter at 1,080 square feet. Sections 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits 18.775.020 E. Sensitive lands permits issued by the Hearings Officer. The Hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type 111A procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070 B-E. 18.775.070 Approval criteria. A. Permits required.... Approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain are presented in Subsections B-E below. B. Within the 100-year Floodplain: Approval from Hearings Officer based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied. 1. Land for alterations shall preserve or enhance the flood plain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in food levels during the base flood discharge; RESPONSE Preliminary calculations show that the proposed park improvements and wetland creation will preserve or enhance the flood plain storage on-site. Preliminary calculations indicate a net increase in floodplain storage of 22,575 cubic yards. Page 12 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard Therefore, proposed floodplain alterations will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100 year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards, RESPONSE The proposed land form alterations and developments are community recreation uses and therefore are allowed uses in the 100-year floodplain for areas designated residential. The underlying zone is residential R-12 and all applicable zoning standards are met as described in this narrative. The criteria of this standard is met. 3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 year flood, RESPONSE Proposed land for alterations and development are permitted in the floodplain as described in this narrative. Preliminary calculations indicate that the proposed development will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. Preliminary calculations indicate a net increase in floodplain storage of 22,575 cubic yards. 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrianmbicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Offices as untimely RESPONSE The proposed pedestrian/bicycle pathways are in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan and the Master Plan Expansion for Cook Park. 5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. RESPONSE Preliminary calculations indicate that the average annual flood is 115' elevation. All proposed pathways will be at the 115' elevation or above the 115' elevation. 6. The necessary Army Corps, State Of Oregon Land Board, DSL approval shall be obtained, and RESONSE A copy of the required Army Corps and DSL permits is included with this application. Page 13 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. RESONSE The proposed development is open space. Dedication of additional open space is not required. C. With excessive Slopes RESPONSE No development or alterations are proposed in areas with 25% or greater slopes, therefore this section does not apply. D. Within Drainage ways RESPONSE The proposed landform alterations are within the 100-year floodplain, which includes any drainage way designation for the Tualatin River. E. Within Wetlands. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied. 1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the . Comprehensive Plan Fooodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. RESONSE All of the proposed development with the exception of approximately 250 linear feet of the trial/emergency access will take place outside of identified wetlands and associated 25' wetland buffers. The Proposed emergency access/pedestrian trail crosses a jurisdictional wetland which is subject to a DSVArmy Corps permit and is not subject to the sensitive lands permit per 18.775.020.0. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. RESPONSE The proposed landform alteration creates the minimum site disturbance for the use. All required erosion control standards will be in place during construction to protect adjacent wetland areas. Page 14 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. RESPONSE All disturbed areas will be graded and planted to protect soils and to blend in with the surrounding landscape. Erosion control standards will be followed to limit any impacts during construction. Storm water runoff from all new impervious areas will be treated prior to discharge into adjacent wetland areas. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land farm alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. RESPONSE We are proposing to grade and re-vegetate the site as illustrated on the accompanying plans. Wetland mitigation will meet DSUArmy Corps standards and upland areas will meet City landscaping standards as previously discussed. Surface Water Management requirements will be met. 5. All other sensitive land requirements of this chapter have been met. RESPONSE All other sensitive land requirements have been met as demonstrated in this narrative. 6. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met RESPONSE Removal of significant trees will take place only in association with the additional parking lot located in the southwest section of the existing park. Tree removal will be mitigated per City requirements. Tree removal will not impact wetland areas. Tree plantings in wetland buffer areas will enhance the existing wetlands. 7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. RESPONSE Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied as described in this narrative. 18.780 Signs RESPONSE Proposed nature/cultural interpretive signs are exempt from sign permits because they will not be oriented or intended to be legible from a right-of-way, other property or from the air. Page 15 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 18.790 Tree Removal Significant trees (trees over 12") are illustrated on the application plans. Approximately, seven significant trees will be removed to develop the 46 parking spaces proposed in the southwestern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing baseball fields. Replacement trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Trees to be removed , and replacement trees are shown on the Preliminary Landscaping Plan and Tree Mitigation Plan. 18.795 Clear Vision Area No vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction is permitted in the vision clear area. Vision clear areas are required. a. at comers of intersections of streets, railroads and or driveways b. clear area 3' and 8' measured from top of the curb (or from street center line grade when no curb exists) RESPONSE Clear Vision Areas will be established at all street intersections and drive aisles. 18.797 Water Resources Overlay District 18.797.050 Permitted and Conditional Uses A. DSL approval required. Development proposed within any wetland or stream, in addition to meeting the standards of this chapter, shall also be approved by DSL. RESPONSE DSLIArmy Corps approval is granted for the proposed fill for the emergency road/pedestrian trail and the manmade ditch. A copy of this permit is included in this application. 8. USA buffer standards applicable. Development proposed within 25' of any wetland or stream shall also be approved by the City, which administers USA standards.... RESPONSE All development activities proposed within 25' of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards. USA requires a 25' vegetated corridor (wetland buffer) adjacent to all isolated wetlands and the Tualatin River. Twenty-five foot buffers are maintained for all proposed development except for the proposed emergency road/pedestrian trail in the north east portion of the site which is exempt from these standards under section 3.11.4b. 1) a. This standard allows road crossing a vegetated corridor... or across the sensitive area (wetland). Gravel walkways or bike paths not exceeding 8' in width are also permitted in the vegetative corridor up to 10 feet from the sensitive area. If the walkway is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width of the path. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation (section 3.11.4b.1) c). All proposed pathways are located outside of vegetated corridor areas. Page 16 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard C. City of Tigard exemption. When performed under the direction of the City and in compliance with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management on file in the Engineering Division, the following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 1. Public Emergencies, including emergency repairs to Public facilities, 2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement programs. 3. Non-native vegetation removal, 4. Planting of native plant species, and 5. Routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects. RESPONSE Wetland creation and enhancement, is a part of this application and discussed throughout this narrative. Non-native vegetation will be removed and native vegetation plated to create the proposed wetlands and buffers. Each of these activities is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. D. Permitted and conditional uses. Table 18.797.2 summarizes permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR District RESPONSE Wetlands located on the northern and eastern portion of the expansion site are listed as significant by the City of Tigard. No till or alteration is proposed in these areas except for the emergency road/pedestrian trail in the northeast section of the site. The emergency road/pedestrian trail is permitted in the isolated wetlands under a Type I I permit with mitigation where no reasonable altemative exists. Although the emergency road/pedestrian trail is for emergency vehicular use only, it is considered a local street or driveway serving public facilities (Table 18.797.2 2. D.). As discussed previously, alternative locations for the emergency road/pedestrian trail are not feasible. The Tualatin River is defined as a major stream by the City and as such requires a ri parian setback of 75' from the top-of-bank or edge of associated wetland. The riparian setback is shown on the plans. No wetlands associated with this section of the Tualatin River are identified on the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory Map. Trails, viewing shelters, picnic tables and interpretive signs are proposed within this Riparian Setback Area as allowed under a Type I permitted use with mitigation (Table 18.797.1.b). 18.797.060 Application Requirements RESPONSE Trails within the Tualatin River setback area are shown on the site plan. Page 17 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 18.797.060 D. Type 11 and 111 uses: require the following studies and midgation reports. 1. Hydrology & Soils RESONSE Currently, storm water flows from adjacent residential neighbors to the north, down hill into the existing wetlands along the north edge of the park. Park drainage flows either into the Tualatin River, the existing wetlands or the manmade drainage ditch along the forested edge. For Storm events smaller than a 5-year storm, on-site wetlands drain to the manmade drainage ditch running north to south on the eastern edge of time forested area to a standpipe that empties into the Tualatin River. During storm events greater than or equal to a 5-year storm, much of the park is under water from the Tualatin River. Flows follow the main flow of the Tualatin River from the west to the east. On-site wetlands overflow to the east across USA property through existing wetlands toward Fanno Creek where it eventually empties into the Tualatin River near the railroad trestle. Post development events less than a 5-year storm, water will drain from existing wetlands to the created wetlands on-site. Storm water will continue to flow to the Tualatin River via adjacent wetlands on USA property and via a storm' drainage pipe located southwest of the proposed gazebo. The existing drainage pipe will serve to regulate the elevation of the water surface in the created wetland. Park improvements not expected to be adversely affected at this level. Post development flows for 5 year storm events or greater, will continue as existing flows. Proposed improvements will be designed to withstand anticipated flows. Buildings, roads and other structures will be constructed on engineered fill or be properly anchored into time soil. Buildings will be design to City standards for buildings in the floodplain. Soil erosion potential is low due to the flat nature site and proposed vegetative cover. McBee silty clay loam are identified as soils in the area of the proposed emergency road/pedestrian trail. Flooding is frequent and the hazard of stream bank erosion is high. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight to severe. Capability unit is IlwA with available water capacity at 10-12 inches. Permeability is moderate. The soil is rated moderate for recreational development due to clay and wetness. (Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon, USDA, Soil Conservation Service). The site survey shows that slopes range from 3 to 6% at the proposed trail crossing. Trail connections will be constructed of engineered fill to provide the necessary support. Page 18 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard Proposed designs will be submitted to the appropriate City departments for review to assure compliance with each of the applicable provisions of this code and applicable provisions of City building ordinances. 2. Grading plan RESPONSE The grading plan is submitted with this application. Grading plan shows proposed and existing preliminary contours and erosion control plan. 1. Vegetation report RESPONSE The aerial photograph shows existing vegetation and tree lines. The tree mitigation and landscaping plan shows proposed plantings. The DSU Army Corps permit shows mitigation plantings in wetland and buffer areas. Combined, these plans illustrate the vegetation character of the site after improvements. 2. Stream Bank Conditions RESPONSE Stream bank Conditions report is not necessary since we are not proposing a reduction in the riparian setback area. 18.797.080 Development Standards A. Alternatives Considered. RESPONSE The City determined that an emergency access road was desirable for the park to help ensure public health and safety. The only feasible location for the proposed emergency road/pedestrian trail is in the west, northwest portion of the park as proposed. All other park boundaries have restrictive development or landforms. To the west and south the Tualatin River excludes emergency road access. To the north, existing residential development with no road or access stubs prevents emergency road access. The only reasonable alternative is to propose an emergency access road/pedestrian trail on the west boundary at a point where connections can be made across USA property as proposed. The emergency road/pedestrian trail is proposed along this park boundary where it is considered to have the least impacts to the existing wetlands. The proposed emergency road/pedestrian trail is a permitted use with mitigation under a type Il permit. B. Minimizing siting impacts. RESPONSE A statement prepared by Tony Weller, P.E. stating that any adverse water quality impacts of the development proposal will be minimized consistent with best management practices is included in this application. This statement is further supported by approval of DSIJArmy Corp for the proposed wetland crossing. Page 19 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard The wetland crossing is located in an area where it will impact as little of the existing wetlands as possible. C. Constriction materials and methods. RESPONSE Type II development is not proposed in the riparian setback, therefore this section does not apply. D. Minimize flood damage. RESPONSE Aboveground residential structures are not proposed with this application. Preliminary calculations show that on-site flood storage capacity will not decrease as a result of the proposed development, nor will base flood elevations rise on or off-site as a result of the proposed development. The proposed development is designed consistent with Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands discussed previously in this narrative. E. Avoid steep slopes RESPONSE Proposed park improvements do not encroach upon any slopes 25% or greater. F. Minimize impacts on existing vegetation RESPONSE The following standards shall apply when construction activity is proposed in areas where vegetation is to be preserved. 1. Temporary measures used for initial erosion control will not be left in place permanently 2. Work areas on site will be carefully identified and marked to reduce potential damage to trees and vegetation 3. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation will not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the work areas. 4. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees and brush shall be taken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place 5. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation shall not be permitted on a permanent basis. G. Vegetation mitigation plan. RESPONSE A vegetation mitigation plan has been proposed. The vegetation mitigation plan is submitted here as the DSUArmy Corp permit, landscaping plan and tree mitigation plan. Page 20 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard H. Water and Sewer infiltration and discharge. Water system will have backflow valves installed to prevent floodwater from entering the water system. The mobile restroom will be removed during the winter, with water and sewer lines capped to prevent anything entering or exiting the systems. 1. On site systems RESPONSE On-site septic systems and private wells are not proposed as part of the park expansion and improvements. J. Erosion control plan. RESPONSE Erosion control will follow USA standards, City standards and the following standards for Type II permitted uses (emergency road/pedestrian trail) in the water resource: 1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used minimize visible and measurable erosion; 2. The land area to be grubbed, stripped, used for temporary placement of soil, or to otherwise expose soil shall be confined to the immediate constructions site only; 3. Construction activity will take place during the dry season (June- October), whenever feasible, and the duration of exposure of soils shall be kept to a minimum during construction; 4. Exposed soils shall be converted by mulch, sheeting, temporary seeding or other suitable material following grading or construction, until soils are stabilized. During the rainy season (November through May), soils shall not be exposed for more than 7 calendar days. All disturbed land areas which will remain un-worked for 21 days or more during construction, shall be mulched and seeded; 5. During construction, runoff from the site shall be controlled, and increased runoff and sediment resulting from soil disturbance shall be retained on -site. Temporary diversions, sediment basins, barriers, check dams, or other methods shall be provided as necessary to hold sediment and runoff; 6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and. exists to the construction site. The stabilized gravel pad shall be the only allowable entrance or exit to the site; 7. Topsoil removal for development shall be stockpiled and reused on- site to the degree necessary to restore disturbed areas to their original or enhanced condition, or to assure sufficient stable topsoil for re- vegetation. Additional soil shall be provided if necessary to support re- vegetation; 8. The removal of all sediments which are carried into the streets, water resources or on to adjacent property, are the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for cleaning up and Page 21 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard repairing streets, catch basins, water resource areas and adjacent properties, where such properties are affected by sediments or mud. In no case shall sediments be washed into storm drains, ditches or drainage ways. 9. Any other relevant provision of the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook.(City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Revised February 1994), required by the Planning Director. K. Plan implementation. A schedule of planned erosion control and re- vegetation measures shall be provided, which sets forth the progress of construction activities, and mitigating erosion control measures. An approved Erosion Control of Re-vegetation Plan shall be implemented and maintained as follows: 1. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stripping or excavation work. 2. The applicant shall implement the measures and construct facilities contained in the approved Erosion Control Plan in a timely manner. During active construction, the applicant shall inspect erosion control measures daily, and maintain, adjust, repair or replace erosion control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly. 3. Eroded sediment shall be removed immediately from pavement surfaces, off-site areas, and from the surface water management system, including storm drainage inlets, ditches and culverts. 4. Water containing sediment shall not be flushed in to the surface water management system, wetlands or streams without first passing through an approved sediment filtering facility or device. 5. In addition the applicant shall call for City inspection, prior to the foundation inspection for any building, to certify that erosion control measures are installed in accordance with the erosion control plan. RESPONSE The above described standards will be followed for construction of the emergency road/pedestrian trail, the permitted Type II use. Typical erosion control measures are shown on the proposed grading plan. Final construction documents will include erosion control plans. L. Type Ill conditional uses. RESPONSE There are no Type I II conditional uses proposed for the proposed Cook Park expansion and improvement project 18.797.100 Riparian Setback Reductions RESPONSE We are not requesting any reductions to the Riparian Setback Areas. Page 22 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard 18.797 110 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards RESPONSE We are not requesting any adjustment to the setback standards of the underlying zone. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards A. Improvements. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. RESPONSE Access is provided via SW 92 Avenue, a public street which enters the park and provided a turn-around. No new streets are proposed. The proposed parking lots are governed by the standards in section 18.765. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers RESPONSE Three sanitary lateral connections are proposed to hook up the mobile restroom facility located in the southwest section of the park, and the 2 permanent restroom facilities located in the expansion areas. Sanitary sewers connections will be installed in accordance with the provision set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Surface Water Management and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Sanitary sewer plans will be submitted to the City Engineer for his approval before permits are issued. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage RESPONSE Currently, storm water enters the park from uphill developments to the north. The water traverses the park and drains to the southwest to the Tualatin River, and to the southeast into adjacent wetlands, the existing man-made ditch, and the Tualatin River. The proposed storm drainage plan will continue to direct existing storm water runoff into adjacent wetland. In areas of new development, storm water will shed across the proposed parking lots and drain through curb cuts into adjacent water quality swales. The water quality swales will treat storm water before it is conveyed into the created wetland system and eventually the Tualatin River. The proposed parking lot in the existing portion of the park, adjacent to the existing baseball fields will be constructed with a pervious pavement similar to Eco-Stone. Eco-Stone is a concrete paver system that will support vehicular traffic and provide storm water infiltration. Storm water will percolate through the surface pavers into the permeable base/storage layer. Storm is filtered down through the gravel base and percolates into the underlying soils. The proposed storm drainage plan is illustrated on the accompanying drawings. The storm drainage plan is separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage Page 23 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard system. Surface water will not flow across any intersection or be allowed to flood any street. Drainage facilities will be sized to accommodate upstream drainage. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways RESPONSE Two connections to the regional, Fanno Creek Trail Multi-Modal Path are proposed. The multi-modal paths will meet City standards for connection to proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. The trail will have a minimum width of 8' for two-way use (the trail is separate from roadways). The trail system will have one crossing at the emergency vehicle tum-around. The crossing will be marked per City standards. 18.8.10.120 Utilifles RESPONSE Electric and phone line extended for this project will be placed underground per City standards. Page 24 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard IMPACT STUDY Transportation System Impacts to the existing transportation system are expected to be minor. Park use is largely seasonal and for the most part distributed throughout the day. Peak uses will occur with scheduled recreational uses such as little league games. No new roads or access points are proposed, therefore no new short cuts or routes through neighborhoods are possible. No new road crossings are proposed. Regional Trail Connections/Bikeways. Two multi-modal linkages are proposed to the Fanno Creek trail. One connection will be located in the southern portion of the park and the second connection will be located in the northeastern portion of the park. These connections will provide important links to the Fanno Creek Regional Trail system. Storm water/ drainage system impacts Preliminary calculations of storm water runoff created by the proposed park improvements show no significant impacts to the down-stream system. Storm water will be treated in water quality facilities located adjacent to the new parking lots. Storm water will be treated and then discharged into the created and enhanced wetlands on site. One parking lot in the existing park area will be paved with a permeable paver that will allow infiltration into the gravel base and underlying soils. Park System The proposed park improvements are expected to provide a positive impact to the public at large. Proposed park improvements described will offer the citizens of Tigard a greater selection of recreational opportunities. Sport Fields. Four new sports fields are proposed. Currently, there are not enough baseball/little league fields or soccer fields in the City to support existing demand. Two baseball fields and 2 soccer fields are proposed. The four new fields will help the supply problem. The leagues have been very supportive of the new fields and will be largely responsible for construction costs. Picnic Shelter, Tables and Tot-lot Playground. Picnic facilities and tot-lot playground will offer users greater recreational opportunities for family and group gatherings. Natural Open Space. The amount and quality of natural open space will also increase with the addition of approximately 4.5 acres of created and enhanced wetlands, Page 25 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard buffers and wildlife habitat Nature trails, wetland viewing gazebo and interpretive signs will offer visitors educational and recreational pursuits. Created wetlands will help mitigate development impacts and satisfy DSUArmy Corps requirements for various park developments. Parking. Proposed parking is designed to accommodate the new uses and is located away from adjacent residential neighborhoods. Additional parking will help to reduce the overflow parking that occurs along SW 92 Avenue and the adjacent neighborhoods during large events such as the balloon festival. Parking is expected to increase from approximately 184 stalls to 457 stalls. Emergency response services. Proposed park improvements include a second emergency access point and emergency turn-around, which will make servicing the park easier. Support services. Restrooms, concession building, maintenance buildings, Water System Existing water as-built drawings shows an 8" potable water line servicing the park. The restrooms will tie into the 8" line and the Concession stand and fire hydrant will tie into the 8" line. These existing lines are expected to adequately service the expansion needs. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer lines exist in the park and have the capacity to serve the 3 new restrooms. Noise Noise impacts to residential neighbors are expected to be minimal. Adjacent neighbors to the north are elevated above the park and separated by a minimum horizontal distance of 250 feet of vegetated open space. Any noises reaching adjacent neighbors are limited to daylight hours as the park closes at dusk in the summer and 4 p.m. during the winter. We believe the proposed Cook Park expansion will provide positive impacts to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed park expansion and improvements will not negatively impact public facilities and services. Page 26 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard Statement by a civil engineer with experience in water quality to certify that: Water quality treatment will be designed with best management practices as defined by the City of Tigard standards to minimize any adverse water quality impacts. Anthony Weller, P.E., P.L.S. Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. February 1, 2000 Page 27 of 27 Cook Park Expansion City of Tigard SECTION 14 T2S RIW W.M. 2S 1 14 J t WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGO INDEX i II I SCALE~P•4001 .~d SEE YAP II N1 1 5291111CC 1SEE ! IIIIPCO r w 28 1 IIDC to 1E110D - 111 .P~. ~u11nAY I...SS.TJR~ ` ' H ID t6 $£E MAP as 1 13A SEE YAP is 1 1408 MAP Km SEE MAP 22 1 NAB SEE MAP 2S 114A BEE MAP 2s 1 138 SEE MAP t'" + e SEE MAP SEE MAP ^WU 2S 1 14AD 1 p 1 Nm . SEE NAP 7z Vm YAP T U A L A T I N " 23 1 14AC ti C$ IIOAO i SEE YAP ~ 2$ I 14A N $EE MAP \ It60A \1 SEE MAP SEE MAP 2n 1 Iles 2$ 1 14CA _ ¢„1414AYALFK, a C. s do SEE MAP $EE MAP 23I 04CC H 1 IS06 SEE MAP 93 1 1400 b • ~ = ~fuu.r~A ADA + - 1 y{ 61k f ill , I E2 28 1' SEE YAP go / 1390 SEE YAP ss 1133A T SEE MAP Its 1 1308 FOR ASgEOBMEtR PURPOSES ONLY 00 NOT ALLY ON FOR ANY OTHER UK \,V SEE MAP SEC YAP 28 1 N0 f 291 13C C~ D y M 1B E3 14 TIGARD TUALATIN ~ SEE YAP 2$ 1 23AA 7S 1 14 SEE YAP 2 $ 1 23 N E IA SECTION 14 '12S R 1 W W.M. zs I I. WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE 1"•200' CYRIY b 1M! SEE WI SEE ww zS flo 1 c zs 1 IloO •r• .ec e.. nr. la.a..~ ~ II 12 SW...u tf DURHAM 3 1 ROAD sw+n~u POP nTr•'N•J 1~ ! .4n.r 14 13 ns.wo L.rw ir.Wt 1 + sem" ampler irs I i~ ..v1..0. r1• r ~ 11001 f 7 K I 1104 SEE YAP 's 29 1 102 1103 •r.. r. f' ii I rw:. y IS = 1 y s .w nN.•m I 9E! YAP 23°74 $ I 1200 Ea 1 lae FOR ASSESSYENr PURPOSES ONLY DD HOT RELY ON fOR ANY OTHLA YS! SEE WIP 3 y !S 1 14AO 7 4 c e ..ww •r11 ~~t~`-)..~.I.f Nu. i4 SEE YAP .Lac fipyV. ■egLYLM 7I ~w , 4fc.cc ~•i`ir`rnc ..IU. i ~ • nc .4 SS I MITE 1100 f/.1JAr- ~ N 3 ~ a + \9gS " a 9 : //f comca p•N'.iM 4rltt ME YAP TIGARD 29 1140 2S 1 14 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 14 •T 2S R I W W.M. 2S 1 14AC WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE 1'• 100• BEE MAP i 2S I MAB s..ar. rm~- SQy ~ 1f1.1•~ ~ N..I.N 116E l A00 a a~ K r r o• rw. i 00 ` 500 u, Bon SOO _ A_ F 1.1$ r Ita rs.~•1 ~•ra.m •i~ y. u• ,'?~'8. ~i LL1 Z 300 O y 46 MVERWOW '+1. C R h Mow iii •16 DR. LANZ 405 A.r ~ a••'•a'.rr d• ~ 1100 • lu n.w1 s 7Ls BEE YAP Ite a,oAs o~ b : '"1 as I INBO Its f,Nrl~~ 4M:: 0'• `r n WAVE 9 riE• '~4 TRACT '1" 3 TAR {OIIfD OM }1 Yb n 1 NAO TA.Arco iqy B{ "A • 1 ESTATES III 1E! MAP WtitiC?af liu iil.1 s=111.1r..... - n•t•__ . ,..-q w wjd ' 23-74 1 ~ ~ Ica O,f+fl I ' ; . BEE MAP T r !1} E !B 11410 I S 1 ~ . ! ~ y - } roe AMMMENT "POSES C..Ir• •T/attl'■ .1-r1 . ~.y. Vj I ONLY. uars y !2~ - u.xNr .sy__ 00 NOT 01 LT ON FOR ANY c, .•r OTHER USE. ~/n•Ia n.r ra aew SEE MAP 23 1 IAO -WO` PAR.r• T I GARD 2S I 14AC lot ~~rJ n . .csr. Sao S t~ r I~J A'~ 1 ! i . I I I~ 23-74 jt-- r ~;r !1 1 z I I~. `Sr. r Yvl., 300 1 ~C W rf OPEN SPACE 11111 1~ ~ II I I l ~r~. I Lei r 23-76 ' r / a~ ~ ~ III ~ . g 69 % /J I III a ' e II ds 1 / ~ ~ SIC I , I11I I I F at. ! I { I I 1111 I, . I ! I I I I I I I 111t ~II1 B 1111 ~ Fww 23 20 I ' I ~ III s " EI I 1111 I I 1 r I 1 I il~ It~ I t t 1 f ~ t t~ 409~ ! j 1 t!~ti y~l f SEE MAP l.. rT 1 S t91 23A ]AA r . ~I I 2S 1 14D 1 SE1/4 SECTION 14 TZS RIW W.M. WASNINOTON COUNTY GREGON SCALE r-nd SEE MAP 2S 1 11CS CAWALLTO T.L go- 1ua 101 ILE MAP SS 1 OC FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY Oo may RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER USE TIGARD TUALATIN 2S 1 140 23-78 PRELIMIANRY DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED BUIDINGS COOK PARK EXPANSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON kffdQQ MERAL NOTES COMOLSI SPA-LY U FOR GEOVE AL Tali A d.FC2 10 DV4 ii PAMRAHETER CDAWAIIOM o fm6~.ll w Y PAWS SMALL RC 9S rWi&,Ir sallcE 24VIZW a yr A 6-2OR bl~4A'~"" t KEYED NOT99 AMCDCM ear. ram ® . ..AA' 1 rROvIPC AMD 1M wf law, aaL we. GRVVND ROC ® RECCP.ACIEt 01 MT. --,L CIRWIi AS $MVR 2 P""nc "D :457ALL C2) S •r, Inv. 2 CO. FRACR Li:ifIWG "IT[K L1hLAOA IIafL R12fL. AND IA! eAm or 00LLRD11O DAV Of COAADI 400 GAZEBO LIGHTING PLAN eu.r. uv-Lu r Fvf? L i r-34. all 1C r! /mar cfafc. Fu,s Pei1 v. v AID.LM~A rAL AD AtaMrA7 ~ . f 1 1745k , e IT•s1` Ti 1~ 2.7 I : f s IF IAtlnrl' 1 f4'•fOiY C•14F .TO GAZEBO POWER PLAN sour. Iw- W MULMIMIM ii tT.o f~ L1LC.7f:lmwljm M ME" ultim aN 114{riff FLLD CO CCTOR rCCD TMC IRACR LOC4h/A. fTMM VIN L$hOAA ITAL rECD CANOri. SEAR IAC SIAM SYSIEM 10 uASPe STRLCfLFC AS RL9JDdD TO rADf1AD1 A MDIMRM OF 10'-4' AROW I'Da iD iIRJR- a pftw L AMD INSTALL IDf MCV e5w IAMaD smi IMCAMDESLTIII rrfT1ASf. jtHDKIA RTPISIL VIDI ADJISIARE OAFS 1 1. UIIOOAL DD40. TOM 417 rnrkms W& L Le Wt. ARf LONT&L ♦ W"IDC MD lMSTALL p) )IV VCAWN POW &AV. - LIW LlOl SV11CM[1 W LWAImR STOW& ~a71LE0109r mt[ C1a+R ►A70A x-70 AAaC W.M YNIDIFMlTAtR § LDNiTOL d, 4W ArT. rDRViL / Y 1PNm=m'" D*WA04Inp[Of(W-,, T / AfA7O9 f1f%A d11 Sam Dpmf-- ~I ~acaeuawe a y~11 IZI T~t+LeAPAPn Di►MC f1pLA1111-/ ,►-j' `ra Owe. ra owl 1 L 1J aCmQ r" IrLav.o.cPrA ! ra 9EGTION fN=fb PRINTED r• NMSf= F'L'"" 1 PAArsASaOC.wo. COOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS GAZEBO INSTALLATION i 9WV4T*WDM10AT1ON DiFTAL. CITY OF T.CAR7 DLr..Aewwo wrML~.i rLi fiQ rl Do rme 1 - I WFIM riAQSO 1 E2.0 t RY,If LSP L Aft :n GSA AO PCf. I STAIo"o mrveaL=.07'm e'-a• PRE-OWLT CUPOLA Y jai A• r4L ATTA04 Dow DOLTO r0p~y ORA63 SCCrOATED f-0~ER r SrTll vArtoAL rwccr ecreAlla rr8-rAQ7 -...e~ rFfO'EM ii reE-mreT C+SII rtSTAL FmLir16 Ch LOGO CeOGL! • ~ : A, ; GUTTER AW km AO ED r~C3! elm U-00L.1 WAIL e a ~EL 4 up KATE. 1 Mw omn DETAIL " _ ARCH LAM. C VALE: r . 9•-3• rm+vriece vAreli. N9• wolrrr s+Krl Si1i SlC:TION 7 C WAR LTVO DOTk 60e6 0 F A C A 1 8 i_ STAGE FRONT ELEVATION C i `oarq,4+~ a~~wr i p-rT 1+ 1) ` I oAOLC ~ / Oar . Sc K: lir.l O• SIDE ELEVATION r+•O7MFliferl SN•S733L ESD► STEEL tn.Q+ paLL wO~.EL rD nr o.r<r+ tecatw we► 1 k~ lb- i 0'•3 1b. 11{AV1r TY FEKALA ~b CWI 4' -gtay (p~ SECTION ® REMOVABLE PANELS / NO Sar Sf[CT1011 •IY r•GL DSTALS UM& . 1•-0• ~ ruT.L . w uaoo r.• Nx cow. 31M A4.5f,- \ -DOW16I.01R TD3. O wiOgovAA LN PANEL* conga Im"WRSN CCLIr•►Y. SEE "r."Pl.7 FVW PNTA" r.e . -1 r -e••i tenr~^- _.••m fK• M••Io sn+• •-s••i SACK Or COLUMN To SACK or COLUMN ..o FRAMING PLAN u.•.I•-o• FLOOR PLAN seen vv.ra• I I John Kyle Architects rNe ~ ®Is~nml.mm.aana.nc.a. ~sp1 rtt No.l S.e iv„sm at7OA•1O. ..c uan. rw p •erAL aUrriw ASCII LAW lLe ►Ae@L s 0rupt Ar++ e z»rv co u Xft %"ra ecaSECTYH •D• A DerAw n MIN. CGrC. ei •s ~ b`om SOL' EJ04R lIDM I~ sTEIL CONNECT-" ' b • s• S A UN , O n.a RIW ES S S A Cw h0M r0 COplC3. = AkCN. SOIL COMCS[iY MS ARCH. SOIf Ikr) ' THICKENED SLAB DETAIL n . A C z In_.t-a • ROSS SECTION saw C ~ a A./I i.si i PRINTED I "SSm ' 4AY{mow S¢ ® COOK PARK ZIEW EMEIV T8 - _ rlM6 - ELSlYA - SOG'rICIr • D/rM.i' QTY OF nGARO OIO• ..C GOYTra. rum 0•G •MO ~r A1.0 r4: ti ROCPFC+ CH 1t70D PGOL \ No ~v.. 1048. L Tlee P=W 6.rL.mR IO To an OCOIrAAD TO eeriETA.P TE mwAs iRW FL=0 =E"Fts. Ab4++~ ril" 61A Tkm 1CT 103924'11L. _ - - PEOIG. FVCL101 O FT/OEC. _ .0 1p-rOR/Fr 7C N+Acr iYtL OG WLD 10 LATERAL hPPOR7. 1 T~e FEAR F_OM ft"Ar4H 0 0710 / 1t ~ ~POYItb°OYi V ( 7L// ` ,,-rM l M TREAIEP COW" ~PR170 P~ 1R1 A~ '~C ~L IUVVRARr •x• 6RAC►G, WX N019 I TEI'0°ioRART -x- OQA m aim ROTE IJ PICNIC SHELTER SIPP ELEVATION ems. vv - P-a PICNIC 9L4ELTER FRONT Es mvATIQN err~a y3~r. r ra¢tAL ODCW04 Pw VXV PeoWG ' 4ms MEto.LamER-7 Tt 1 $ 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I ~ LARNAIGO I ~ I I Ld1 /ITCH - ^ I I I ~~I i I I I I I I I l I C I I I ~ ~ I _ FRAhI1NG LAN _ .cALa. vA•.r.e• I I I I I I I ~IONI~ I w.rn PO amemoo. w I wa I ereo... ? av rv1w LArL eaAH 1 ~-5~- - -O O O `-V v - RDOF LFe ~ Cep M FnWA S m ecra O t e061MY'sr Y • ,1_1_ I I_1_ . .-1 .1TAWION KWf I - - - - _ ~I- - TASe ATICICIf.. ~I ~r~•T rF\\ I 61QG OEG D[1_ ua~ . I - r1U+IC IbLl0. ~I FIT. clm ~ ROT M CPVfIPKT L I~ ~ O O L - 1 L----------- J -a•-O•^+ a SPFCES 0 $'-a• • 32• ~'-o-- FLOO'R PLAN John Kyle ArchiLeoLs IRG mor..er epee ~ y"'.4., rrn r aar ~ 41~aY.~ 11E.L co.FIG610R ,UGIOR eolre TYPICAL CR055 5ECTION OCAL!• Ys-•T-o- PRINTED w119!7 rm"'A my-ma. COOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS LOUVER PICNIC SHELTER KAM. - §&"ATX*n - .OOTM pryOF nGARD oR.ir=& m.-j mr Fa I - -.m ` ear I F 3'~ 1[ F.n.T. s" 11 A2.0 wo n N NEW TRANSFORMER AND PAD BY PCE W/4' F6CH SPLIT FACE C.M,U. SCREEN WALL SEE DETAIL PRit.IARY FEED (N)-aa&F OY PCE r - • I•PVC 5 (12)010 V 1010 CND foprell u e cu. A ~ o _ 0Z I I 1 I E I r PARTIAL SHELTER POWER PLAN 16.0 N 1-5 N7 W 6' CONC. SIU_WA.K x~ w Ij i 0 Y' r ~_ov (N)RIGIDCONDUI'I STU? ILPS (TY?) ~aoLLA>ra (..Y~ ) ORS I rra '~-6ASKFTeJALL ULF i I Y~ yYPAC %C I 6E T" P4 PAD PI.O GENERAL "QTES A REM TT~oI1~~~OhRC~EA6([D FOR CEI.LRAL NOZES - O PIIA YIIRL BF CFG RA1i0 SOURIX 240/129V EYED NOTES 1 COGM_ ]RAtE 1r:~N PaPR a"Ellm To . EA TIN. NX ^"(y R~VA.U_ N M31.501JIVOIY`fiRIIIGIIp (2)o5)64sE4 Y TO PC~fpip~t5.p10°20041112 RFFE ~Tt ~~7~p1y 2 I pppl pµyyl1p lOG1y i'NAD W~~AMLl0 N1 TNW CR4p .IS.TLRU.wY{gr1 TM . 2 IRA1+Sf 1rEF1~lETER TEN405UNE. 0; 7 N I1 TSA~ ill I) CI,WJINJF. gyAL- Nf TLA RY PCLSC(~RO A ■ N.W USILANLN. ° jr Ip c~gNIN j~~11 ~ R~rppT~N~~~~O'1e1~O~EVV"Zt~D'~ Is_N~r)r~~~~'11~AA7id'1 lu~gtu~~~pp.STD1~ Ibllu ' ~A VSt. 7 PNTAN5TCI~FIOD7lIOiY~C Yl7~CIG{I'R000S>~~CiROFX- LEQENP ct'hou1 S110-OP - PANVE~ A'EIAE,NR~CONRNACON gw.,AQC 4A *-Zak 21 NT.20A,NEVA 6-201 ANC'ION BIX J-111" Q GROUND ROD ABBREVIATION FT FO8194-D FLOOR rp HEAT..ER PROOF I i----------5 I 20M . PAAY1. , rte, UN WML -1. 10 AN C5, AK P.ANTFT) o f TRANSFORMER PAD ~'1 va F_ ' 1 E6.D 6T~0"3CAEC mIlL,~ ® COOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS 1aLJL77lVEi LOWER PICNIC SHELTER INSTALLATION V N47ENYiiGTFiW ! PARTIAL ELECTRICAL PLAN r""s1H9fju:1gw7,C17L11~ilt4.P: F11'.^"' 11~ CITY DF TICARD mul !n• -1 nIw PrO NAIR+ Cr"~r ~ii.YrV~ ~IF .'1( 1 wJ~M ! Frrorrroir ~ MIWIM E6'•O 1 WO 111ffi . , . - . - . . -v is wao . Q-•.. ~ ao amra CRAP$-= Dix- .r o d L x s a YR1[ 1V OIIW 1A. /a V.ML M /IVYSm NJ1Y ~ f ~A/.• alleod - rl~urc~ Ir ' - • I.mc wv. •roa 1 c errs ~ AWN o ` ~ ~ T~6 i • f1ao~ mrl~ ~o w s-aov \ cAaPI~IC 8CaL8 • ~ 5 VVV~~~"`°°an.Y : cao ~ -its ' / / L1 -~CarP 1 Y [w1~17Af (uc _ ` 1 e•!III~ ~r°° I ~.•rr I . 11GY DMM , L 6l.R f-G~ / snstr0 fL.V smlenws w¢! aV 'Y a r... .t uJ -t•-r-?.- \ a• ~ 'coal ~C 4 KANPE ASSOgATESlf I u 404 .91 L a'.m - arrrc c alr.r~o -I- P a.. Fw~lr r.w amlrnyvi lwa I- Wllau CAe A s/n/cV Ri[s is i sarcr m n w nol o.A areal w•.r• ~~rr or oVn!lre ann wca r.a rr.s • +~~w.r .r ..c.r AECTIRN A-A era Y . air TYV- nmt.-C017R. AANYALK AE KJN pRILITFQ ML1AS aNiK aLp06, a6 COOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS OAZEB0 AFfi QnADw4Q APR RAAWAGG PLAN CITY OF TIGARO aoRWn~o_mrwo.*I nt I.p, ~s w I opLLawo C2.0 r r WPIY 1 M ~M • lYL fYY~ I Mtam 4 4 + i } . n.`. - PLAN VIEW SECT TRANSFORMER PAD_ r Q~ ioaso G~.1 ION-A ~ r , ./r IImtKO R•ftC mrc w VxN •w I,;"G.~ 1• 0.~[ VYV1 RAF t r i f i ( q/~1„Yny Al ~~Y~.1 W1R UK -0 H03E-618 DETAIL /f v •.r aow j - j in .O' / / .rare ~ ~ \ wyl p f~` • ~ a4G t~ ' to" R I a,41 will { -C. . • v T1 ~r .NChm1 . Y RAptac SCAM ! RP-f lac su w ~o 40 f: s`10 SFF yi.• y¢, 1 f~ _ N Is KOMI, OF" L i I KAMPE ASSOCIATES M i.L7V.9 renal Cld n - raalrc c YAI wm no" rm m P1 I ~o go ur r J Pall ea-nn • (eml .r-~rn ~ m >m u1- lia I nw.ra . lna swNrra ua ocwv.+ia fosicriMa sro.ra•n ,Wra.a Croa M•o ~ ~ m !!n!r}asim ra aarrme.ui •rco• r.•eawr rnl da ~ wml...., r..•r. PniNTED 11U~7 wssosr, aC COOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS LOWER PICNIC SliE4TEA mm 4RADM AM Dp-Amda PLAN C3 fir OF TIGARD, „ a asy%i T ",*a •o ZINC Vas C3.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTS COOK PARK EXPANSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Memorandum TO: City of Tigard FROM: Anthony Weller, F.E., P.L SUBJECT: COOK PARK EXPANSION PRELIMINARY WATER Ot DATE: January 5, 2000 !4WI b`36/01" . r_\ r Enclosed please find the narrative and supporting calculations addressing USA's water quality and quantity standards for surface water management EXISTING CONDITIONS The Cook Park Expansion is located along the Tualatin River at the South end of S.W. 92nd Ave. Site elevations range from 223 feet in the northwest comer to113 feet in the southeast. Soil Conservation Service's soil survey maps of Washington County indicate there are Chehalis, McBee, Xerochrepts, Haploxorolls, Cove and Wapato soils located on the site. The Chehalis and McBee soils comprise approximately 75% of the soils found on-site and are classified as hydrologic soils type B. The Xerochrepts and Haploxorolls soils comprise approximately 5% of the soils on site and are located along the northern boundary of the park. Xerochrepts and Haploxorolls soils are classified as soil types B and C respectively. Cove and Wapato soils comprise approximately 20% of the soils found on-site and are classified as hydrologic soils type D. WATER QUALITY The preliminary water quality calculations are based on USA design methods. We anticipate the proposed project will meet USA's water quality standard of 65% removal of phosphorous by using a combination of eco-stone paving, dry wells, and a water quality swale. A total of approximately 140,569 square feet of new impervious surface will be created. Of this, 123,016 SF will be new parking, and 17,553 SF will be new building construction and walkways. The water quality swale is located south of the proposed parking lots 1, 2, and 3. The bottom width of the Swale will be 4, feet and side slopes will be 4:1 in the treatment area. Total residence time will exceed the 9-minute minimum as required by USA. Depth of water in the swale during a water quality event will be 0.45 feet with a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard. The 25-year storm event will submerge the park and swale. Attached to this memo are the preliminary water quality swale calculations. Parking lot 4 will use the eco-stone paving system to meet water quality standards. Roof drains for the picnic shelter, wetlands viewing gazebo, and mobile restrooms will discharge into drywalls located adjacent to the structures. Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. CES Memorandum Page 2 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Currently, storm runoff flows southward from developments located to the north of the park, to the park, and into the existing wetlands located near the north and eastern portion of the park. For storm events smaller than a 5-year storm, these wetlands appear to drain to a ditch running north-south along the eastern edge of the treed area in the park. This ditch drains to a standpipe that empties into the Tualatin River. Any overflow from the ditch flows easterly across USA property, through existing wetlands on the east property line of the park, and eventually empties into the Tualatin River near the existing railroad trestle located southeasterly of the park. There are existing area drains in the park that drain directly to the Tualatin River via a combination of storm water piping and overland flows. For storm events greater than or equal to a 5-year storm, the park is inundated by overflows coming from the Tualatin River. After development of the parking lot, the proposed water quality swale will drain to the existing wetland located along the eastern edge of the site. For storm events less than a 5-year storm, storm water will drain from the existing wetlands to the newly created wetlands on-site. Storm flows from the adjacent development to the north and from park development will flow from the existing wetlands to the newly created wetlands located in the southeast area of the park. From the newly created wetlands the storm water surface elevation will be regulated by a field inlet connected to the existing storm pipe mentioned above that drained the north-south ditch. Any overflow will continue to flow easterly and southeasterly across the existing wetlands on the USA property and empty into the Tualatin River. Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. JOB CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERYICES,INC. SHEET NO Or 15256 NW Greenbrier Parkway CA=LATED BY DATE Beaverton, OR 97006 (503) 690-6600 CHECKED BY DATA SCA1 r . w C:r........r......_.....' C^: - _ - r c _ . ........~...o. A- J....J...._ ..;............t............._ _......_i..---....... _!......_.__:............E................ .~L~•'I , . . . . ; . - a'~ ~ . - - _.......,._.r_._..~ ~G1.. h Q ' _ v-. - ' S - - - _ . - q . : Q _ . ..............i...._._............. _ M a S _G7% : n F . _ ~.,...33~..._.... o~D...Q.S .............._~s...__..........__......... ' fy^ - 3 5 .._.A_..R_ ........o _ _ - _ _ - _ V... O d.,-3.._..._.....~ s L I_ L - T.- _ . PRMUCI M4.1 S4* W (Padfts 124 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 1S.--Soil and [Absence of an entry indicates the feature is not a concern. See Glossary for descriptions of such Hydro- Flooding Soil name and logic I map symbol group Frequency Duration Months Aloha: I C Amity: 2 C Astoria: 3E. 3F B Briedwell : 48, 58. SC, 5D B Carlton : 68. 6C B Cascade: 79, 1C. 7D. 7E, 7F C Chehalem : 8C C Chehalis : 9, 10 B Cornelius : 18, ` 11 C. I I I D, ' 1 1 E. I I I F: Cornelius part C Kinton part C Cornelius Variant: 12A. 126, 12C C Cove: 13, 14 D Dayton : 15 D Delena : 16C D Goble: 179. 17C. 17D, f 7E, 18E, 18F C Helvetia: 196, 19C, 19D, 19E C Hembre : 20E. 20F, 20G B Hillsboro: 21 A. 218, 21 C. 21D B Huberly: 22 D Jory: 238. 23C. 23D, 23E. I3F C Kilchis: ` 24G: Kilchis part C Klickitat part B None :Tone 1 Drone ------------------------i None None None None Common Brief Nov-Mar None None None Common Brief Dee-Apr None None None None None None None None None None a 122 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 13.-Soil at>.d Hydro- Flooding Soil name and logic map symbol group Frequency Duration Months Klickitat: 25E. 2SF, 25G B None Knnppa: 26 B None Labish : 27 D Frequent Very long Dec-Apr Laurelwood : 288. 28C. 28D. 28E, 29E, 29F B None McBee: 30 B Frequent Brief Nov-flay Melbourne: 318. 31 C. 31 D. 31 E, 31F B None blelby : 32C. 320, 32E. 33E, 33F, 33G C None Olyic: 34C.341),34E,35E, 35F, 35G B None Pervina: 36C,36D,36E,36F C None Quatama. 37A. 378. 37C. 37D C None Saum: 388. 38C. 38D. 38E. 38F C None Tolke : 39E, 39F B None Udiftuvents.. 40 B Frequent Very brief Nov-Apr Verboort: 42 D Frequent Brief Dec-Apr Wapato : 43 D Frequent Brief Dec-Apr Willamette: 44A. 448. 44C. 44D B None Woodburn: 45A, 453. 45C, 45D C None Xerochrepts: ` 46F: Xerochrepts part B None Haploxerolk part C None 147D: Xerochrepts part D None Rork ornterop Bart. 'This mapping unit is made up of two or m ore dominnnt kinds of soil. See mapping unit descrlptiun for the composition a:. belinvior of the whole mapping unit. MAPS TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: 0'--A - i O --©0 III L__. I KNEELAND I I~ I I ~ - - A ~ ~ EXIS, a ~ ~ d ~ ~ .1.....-+1 ~ r,,.l.~,-° - a ~ ~ s# ~ ~ ~ EXITING n~ -~w.. r z- - WETLAND, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -ti~~ r.. Z. a c' ~ EXISTING , a ~ a ` ~ - ~ ~~w~e~m~, WETLAND 3 I~ C c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti / { , ti ~ i c ~I ~ ~ i EXiSTWG , ~ WETLAND ~ ~ ~ Ill ~F f . ~ ~ ' - L] k I ' i I ~ 4s' 32' ~ I h r - j I 2a 24 ~ _ i f k { ~ a t _ ~I ~ ~ ~ I uTTL~ cuE ~ I PARKING C: 9 C LOT 1 FELD 20 X 280 ~ ~ i~ 3z' 1z2' f J C , i ~ 8,5 185 85 185 Z - . 1 EXISTING 4O' SAN i ~ ' ~ ~ C 24 24 SEWER EASEMENT I i PARKING LdT 2 Ti S X x x i 67 STALLS 51 S All {B WC) ~ ~ ~ _ _ ® 185 _ r° 9t' ss ~ lay ----a" ss ,w ~ w ss 59' 4' a ~ - ~ - - ~ - - ~o0 5o a goo ~ C _ ~ 6lCYCLE PARKING ~ ~ , - ~ ~(ISTING 6' - t~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ PGE EASEMENT ~ e~ ~F~>~ x tam K ~ ~ - ~ ~ r ~ ~ p ~ a _ q ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ - - I. - n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 180X300 ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ EXTG GAZEBO 1 ~ ~ 7 SMALLS 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ lac) I ~ ~ ~ rp~' rl W ~ / A ~ y ~ / W 1 5' . ~ t $t C7 C7 ~ i E ,zx t - ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ _ 18,5' 24 18s' 18 S' 24' 195' 2' ~ 18.5'1 5' I ~ o STALL NSLE STAB. STALL AISIJ: STALL. J , ry;. ` .7 ~ 185 ~ _ ~ ,I- a vac r ruc m ~ ~ , r m m 4 24 ~ ern. ~ p ~ ~ 5=t ox ~ m Q `r II I J 1 ~ as ~ a j ~rmr XT NCE & , P~ ~ ~ z 1 MAx E G FE a 1 ~ ~ a n o 0 4a ~ 6ALL~1ELDS TO ,P,~ ~ ~ f ' 4 , i ~ ~ 1 nrr _ I BE REMOVED h . ® ~ ~xrrduom ca+a+~t arm ECO-STORNE PERMEABLE PANNO 's ~ BEDDING LAYER ~ ~ ~ ~~i 7 ~ ~ PERMEABLE BASE ~ ~ ■ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ SOCCER FIELD q ~ ~ i Fri ~ ~ PARKING LOT 4 TYPICAL SECTION 80 30a ~ i 1 ~ ` r H.T s. n~ # W. b~ ,...1~, aF ,~creaar+ r f S N ~ ! 1 m F(p ~ 7Y' pW~i7 T Ir~ 119'-122' ~ ' I L;~ e a . . 1 r X..~~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 165-185 24 165 185 24 185'-185' 2' x STALL AISLE STALL STALL AISLE STALL r / 1 ~~'r ~ 0 r _ I ■ ~ l ~ F - - s I~ ,agrn, ~ '0p~+m ~ PROPOSED MAINTENANCE sLDPE To nRaIN ! ox 1--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i. r- ro wQ SWAIE BUILDING 30 Xfi0 r.r ~ 1 MA ~ r 0 0'0~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 1 1 - i. amtunm eara~ arm a AsPHaLr coNDR~TE, a c I ~ y' J/4 -D" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE p ~ ~ Z ~ I~ I B~ 1 1 2'-d' CRUSHER AGGREGATE BASE £ ~ ~ / W 1 ~ ~ Q Ir Z 7/ ~ ~ ~ x 1 ~ ,v~ / ~ w v~ ~r PARKING LOT 3 TYPICAL SECTION i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii~i~~ r iT 1 ~ 1 / H ~ PROPOSED l0 BARK GH1P ~ ~ 5 _ A I m r~ ~ 5r fir I P T!i MOB LE ~ IL ~ RESTROOMS - ~ ~ ~ 185 185 24 1651&5' 2' ~ ~ rl ~TA~ ISLE srALL PROPOSED 36' X 12' I ~ ~ GRAVEL PAD FOR m ~ ~ MOBILE RESTROOM SLOPE TO DRAIN Sal OS ~ ~ m Tp WQ SWALE D~ ~1 I I ~ z 1 Max ~ 1 I O p ~ ~ w e~ 0 ~,E O ~ ~ cCNq~E cum 3" ASPHALT GONCRET£, CI. 'C' ~ a I I tl ~I~ i Q 1 1 ~ ~ 0 2" 3/4 -0 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE ~ ~ o , ~ ~ / 8~ 1 !/2~_O• CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE ~ 1 / ~ ~9A ,~,I ~r br~FA1ifN J I ~ ~ ~ PARKING LOT 2 TYPICAL SECTION ~ ~ ~ , ~ A NTS X i o w E ~ t _ ~ a 59' 61' 81 ~ ~ 2' 16 5'-185' 24' 18.5' 18 5' 24' 18 5' 7 ~nar p'`~" ~ STALL AISLE STALL 5TAL1 NSLE STALL r- 'E ~ b% > \ ~ T'~af Ml re 11~ M~e Yf 1j £ 1 F„, ~ ~r~ ~l ~Y4 y ~~y'j f O N S-15% 5'1591 5 15 i 5-15x , -w 1 MAX , ~ V rv La I..1 tic , l°~ µ ! ~Y ~a,"11.-,~~' . R- µ 1 ~L~.'.11;'d x9-{~". R A a 0 .,.w WI r SHEET 1, ,~L r~ i F wy,-i~ wow - ;yam:/'`• 4~ 4r t 16 0 =ZrrASFhALT CONCRETE, CL V E7 T~ ftDED CGNOWM CURB MA 2 3/4'-0' CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE pR~ ~ pP a B' 1 1/2'-0* CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE a w M ill I'll a PARKING LOT 1 TYPICAL SECTION OF i N T-s LU VICINITY MAP J'f( ,t:rta ~~'r Fe ~hi.s ``ion- "'a-.~f-;=` - V O N.T.S. Q Q 4 a