ZOA1997-00001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
FILE NO: Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 97-0001
FILE TITLE: Water Resources Overlay District
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Various
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new
section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the
Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will be titled the "Water Resources
Overlay District "
LOCATION: City-wide
APPLICABLE Statewide Goal 5; OAR 660, Division 23; Tigard CD Code 18.30.120;
REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Vol 2, Policies 3.1. 3.2, 3.4, 4.2
ZONE: all
CIT: all CIT FACILITATOR: Available upon request
PHONE NUMBER: (503)
DECISION MAKING BODY
STAFF DECISION
X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 5/19/97 TIME: 7:30
HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00
X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 6/10/97 TIME: 7:30
RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP x LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE x
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER
STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts (503) 639-4171 x336
Ju?-21 -97 09 : 47A P - 01
FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION
r'•
Dr. Gene Davis, President
10875 SW 89th
Tigard, Oregon 97223 USA
Telephone 503-246-5862 Fax 503-977-9343
Email: 76101.176@compuserve.com
July 18, 1997
To: Tigard City Council
Tigard, Oregon Fay 6 Sy-? ?
Attention : -Duane Roberts
Subject : New Rules For Protecting Streams and Wetlands
I was in India from May 2nd through July 12th. Upon my return to Tigard. I found the notice of
the City's intention to create a Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 79-0001 Water Resources
Overlay District. I now respectfully request a continuation of the public hearing until :
1. We can determine how Ash Creek became designated as a fish-bearing stream. I have lived
here since 1966, raised nine children, and had some twenty in foster care, all of whom
roamed the stream freely, and I have never been aware of any kind of fish in that stream
aside from little man-planted creatures that eat mosquitoes larvae, some frogs, and crawdads.
We-request time to -made-.thatidesignation,_what criteria-they used,_and_what
evidence-they have-that Ash-Creek_is_af sh=bearing_streani
2. We came in last year for a zone change for a hotel and were denied it on the basis of the City
Council's wanting a master plan for the whole area. Our properties lie within the
Washington Square Regional Center which is presently being submitted to a master plan to
be determined by City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, Washington County, Metro, ODOT, and
DLCD concerns. On that basis, we request you to continue the public hearing on Ash Creek
until that master plan has been adopted. The recommended persons per acre in the Wash is
sixty (60)or more. I believe that the present density is at about twenty-seven (27) persons
per acre. Thus our area should not be treated as an Oregon State wildlife refuge.
3. We have already mitigated our wetland issues and put more than six and a half(6.5- )acres of
very valuable land into perpetuity. Much of that land was not located on the flood plain and
was unjustly appropriated. Within that mitigation, we had to give up forty feet"of piibe
property along Ash_Creek and_pliant it with reporian vegetation. That left us able to build in
the commercial area up to the creek-side, since it was judged at that time that commercially-
developed land was not appropriate as wetland and stream protective area. We have no less
than twenty-seven-hundred-forty feet(2740')of-creek-Side that would be impacted-by_such_
an ordinance: Multiplied by fifty feet (50'), that represents for us another 137,000 square feet
or 3.1 acres.
4. We also have tax lot 2800 on Greenburg road that would become totally unusable and tax lot
1103 on Spruce Street which was recently sub-divided and would also become unusable.
Without serious mitigation due to its non-conforming use.
Sincerely,
•
•
Gene Davis
D:\GALEN\ZOA FA3i.Dc)C
•
. ,
! I • .
. ' I
. i ... .
,
EXIST.OFFICE 1 7( E,xis-r.RESIDENTIAL
-----1- 1\)
i 1
, •
-----_
---•----.....-- - ---,--, . - . -=-•...-.-._,.,,-•.,.---,•,..:_:::=______.__.L____ _____-__„, (..c3
0 W:._-- -_L_----1WC 1 EV -- •--------7--...=--•-____--------- ,: ----- ----,
-- -, -.. .......-..........-..............___
____.......... ._...._ I li ::. r 11::1 il I, tS
,
I . .
li 1; , ,1
I:. I ,..
i „II
'1 ::.. • :: • j--Peciestiart Path
!;;I tz, I CO
, • 1
EXIST.OFFICE I .
111 ,:::, .
j --
1 I.,
• 12111-41 .,,l ".. ,/".. ...--___—...4
1
V \ / • .::
hp,
li trs Fr. .,.,..
•„
(4 ,.. _ \
114 IN N ,... . 4t.
/ ,:l.,,,;,,„:,000,- (f)\.
if* -...... \i',,l'.", — Xrit) E IST RESIDE,
•,
., :14 .,:_.!,_-_,!,,,,;4„;,,,.,,,,,, ,,„ ......______......________
.., . ii .• __ ..:::----
L1 ,.„....„
.......... \ tsonts"I' •
-.* „ :..-.-,,,,_.„..::::::::......:::::::-.__=4::::"1660,,m-------v—,„ ____._ ...________,----..---' , :', • k per,,,)%g`.. .......acti-
„„..
SPRUCE STREET
013AS4o ;\ / '
„'„, ';,...,,,., 4•.r.,,,,..,
'■ i 1. . 1 1
'■ 0 1
• EXIST.RESIDENTIAL
MINT TEAM .. :.. ..,,,:,.. - ___ •
., ..
. • • .\ .
'potent MC, OWIM• •.‘
Akt.. i \il la :\\
,...... ........ ...„ 1 1
•
. .. .....
.774us .. < 8.W. THORNS i
Iliteds, PC ... \ ..... t,. f
s . • I i X i
1
. . . 4 . ‘ .
' .----V'-__________.......... ._ 411)
. 1-
& tomer, Ine.. .
..
. Cauultants . —.—.—......,..—_—.----
.
. .
lase. . .
. . .
Centred**.
• .. ‘`. EXIST.HABITAT AREA
.. N.,‘,,7.,,,.,,,.,
•■ • .
.,
, . „,
.
. .
.,, .
. 17
S.,„ 0
„ . N
. nor , tiAIKIARY LAND USE DCk-QR AM \,..
-. .
, AS
Ju'i -21 -97 09:48A •
• P . 03
1 .,,,,, Fidelity National Title Co. of Oregon
!lit
The sketch below is mode solely for the purpose of assisting in Iocoting said premises and the Con►pony assumes
no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions and location ascertained by actual survey.
•
i•
N •
■
Pt • w
• /
/
/. ,?
/ A..
SEC of AP
is 1 Sim ...."7
774
r r 7 R.?
r 4V 1� - c
.00
- - - - P •.�
•
n I IS 1 SOCA +Q 4.11P7 1
• I 2400 SuPPIENEMTs, �� ••
o S .1l.0 . MU Nat .I•AG
•
IV• •,•r` �i
X 43' TCS 11.10S1 ' d• f 40 0 I a
ICi 14•11; i
SEE NAP
1' :�� ` ..At
1s , sseC , t `•• 1 �'S
�� �� i �. tta•,tIII a r ..•AI I // !! 1 �•• Y 77-......,firT1+t1 M,••s) J:` ts. . /\ .i..'`��\ e `Y� I .190
I / / . A • . U 4t i
�„1__�/• )nom �_ y' o•w ••� ` s •t •.••
IC„`�” c �7 ra i.'_ " 1� sNr� lot�iyt•l.eD C Ki°.w►Y �.r wn
A1U_i. s ` • • 1 ...s_ -�•••• •%•.•+..+�..� 1t`e%7v 14%Awi H•rrl�s.. r A —����wtT�'lt��
. .`,. .P' 1 ,. •= •.. 1)01 •'170► 100 r t101 ir
:i /:\ Sr M lIK _ t..0 .II.C. �; .y.
fic T 1202 t - 0
1tsc.a)1 p
tot Ac. tto
/ _.• .r s �y e : r
.°',�'t•1 nog 4 ..�• . .r
/ ..•; • 500 ,s ett" jilt p ir.lt ITO r r .-,..
11p.C. 6 ttt 1.1401 al .• -ICi iii1 /'� ` 1p,
SEC Ma► / • •»� r iT. Ict 11,4111 `1 V t
Is 1 ssce / — '— — —e / - , .TN.- i
•• •f/ 1201 •e••11
z •. •l•I . r• a a 'r 1200 1300 .1�I+ao Koo .-•
O �/ al.r f,;
G Lr ;. 11 F` - I r_%
KIM' r Lor
�'t1 r Ai... . i J/i ■ • •,.. / JOC rii SCrlVe�i 1.4::1/:1102 �. •\`. S ; n ro.0/ /..►.0 •' .as.eC •ter t' t•
JUT-21 -97 09 : 48A 410 • P . 04
F
fi�i
W
APPROXMIIATX =KIT 01 TEX
100-YZAR FLOOD PLA.1201
TAX LOT 1300 FENCE 0
•
3.s ACRES �
TAX LOT 1103
C- .719 SC.
1 -HOUSE
CL.
ifi
JI.1)Y80ZZiy►TZ ASH
CAB� CSN:' tLIIiB / ` -) 15.00 LL.
•
HOUSE
• 106.26• i.i.
A.R.EA ADDED TO TAX LOT 1300 SPRUCE ST.
�s.00 O
TAX 1S135 AD - >-.
U
PLOT PLAN CASE No.
REISSUED DECISION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
EXHIBIT MAP MIS 95-0001
• AK ,
A
ICITY OF TIGARD
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ( OREGON
STATE OF OREGON ) ,
County of Washington • ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon.
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
City of Tigard Planning Director
Tigard Planning Commission
_ Tigard Hearings Officer
X Tigard City Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was
mailed to each named p�erson(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked
Exhibit "B", on the3'r— day of A , 1997; said PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE as hereto attached, was p5ted onnan appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day
of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the 3r`'' day of j4it-lca___ ,
1997, postage prepaid.
Prepar=e: Notice /
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 7 day of , 19X7
aikej". ,...1P.Cdi/L.../
-•.•, OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBL ' O f'OREGQN
'`'` DIANE M JELDERKS //
-�-f a My Commission Ex. res: `j 7 iii
N01- --- TARY PUBLIC-OREGON
®,', COMMISSION NO 046142
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999
• ,PUBLIC HEARING I EXHIBIT
NOTICE
hIhl't 1I�
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, July 22. 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE
TOWN HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD,
OREGON. THE HEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON
THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT
A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect
significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will
be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District". NOTE: This hearing is continued from the
June 10, 1997, City Council meeting.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, RULES OF PROCEDURE
ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET
FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
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) 639-4171, EXT. 323
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF), NO LESS THAN
ONE (1) WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO, OR AT, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS. AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE HEARING BODY WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT
PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND
WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARING BODY 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 AFTER
April 18. 1997, 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 HEARING BODY WILL BE BASED UPON
THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARINGS, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA
LISTED.
•
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE
.ERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, 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 PER PAGE, OR
THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT
RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Duane Roberts. AT (503) 639-
4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
•
EXHIBIT 6
JACK POLA.NS GREG CARR
16000 SW QUEEN VICTORIA 8217 SW HEMLOCK
KING CITY, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97223
DAN DOLAN BARB FORREST
1919 NW 19TH AVE 16672 SW 89TH PL
PORTLAND, OR 97209 TIGARD, OR 97224
R. JOE KASTEN GORDON S. MARTIN
9885 SW VENTURA CT 12265 SW 72ND AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
JOHN SKOURTES JOHN DUNCAN
17010 SW WEIR 7060 SW PALMER WAY
BEAVERTON, OR 97005 BEAVERTON, OR 97007
GLEN HADDOCK
10495 SW WALNUT
TIGARD, OR 97223
•
•
•
CITY OF TIGARD
- FAX TRANSMITTAL- OREGON
PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
DATE: May 5, 1997
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday. June 10. 1997 at 7:30 PM at
the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., 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 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to
raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to
respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land
Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning
Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT
A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect
significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will
be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District".
TT PUBLISH . May 29. 1997
- FAX TRANSMITTAL-
• PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
DATE: April 28, 1997
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
The following application will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday. May 19.
1997. at 7:30 P.M.. at the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both
public oral and written testimony are invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in
accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of
the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the
close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request,
precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may
be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling
639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA).97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT
A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect
significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will
be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District".
TT PUBLISH May 8. 1997
. • ••
1C3TOYROEFGOTINGARD 1
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon, and
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
City of Tigard Planning Director
X Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard Hearings Officer
X Tigard City Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the2I k 2
day of//-jori 1997; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate
bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on theaX'r2day of illori',L
1997, postage prepaid.
/
../ice , / , .,__L./ ..d
Pre s ared Notice '
( ,1 .
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 19!7 4&.$)
AL / / 0 ,, i, /( �., OFFICIAL SE ( � L
*-7.'a DIANE M JELDERKS
*� " NOTARV PUBLIC OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC .J.RE /�...,� �,,,,q
Y COMM COMMISSION NOOa6ta2 My Commission Ex, -s: _g/i/
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 ✓
•PUBLIC• HEARING • E�:H �'�',_,_
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, May 19. 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, June 10. 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN
HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE
FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT
A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect
significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will
be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District".
THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES
OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, RULES OF PROCEDURE
ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET
FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
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) 639-4171, EXT. 323
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF), NO LESS THAN
ONE (1)WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO, OR AT, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS. AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE HEARING BODY WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT
PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND
WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARING BODY 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 AFTER
April 18. 1997, 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 HEARING BODY WILL BE BASED UPON
THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARINGS, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA
LISTED.
•
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUEDERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOMEINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE.OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, 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 PER PAGE, OR
THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT
RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Duane Roberts. AT (503) 639-
4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
• • • Ecrtii
Tualatin Riverkeepers Tigard Chapter Assoc. of NW Steelheaders
Attn: Sue Marshall, President Attn: Jerry Hofer, President
16295 SW 85th Ave. 14815 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97224-5569 Tigard, OR 97224
Fans of Fanno Creek, do Dave Drescher Division of State Lands
Metro Regional Ceter Attn: Janet Morlan , Wetlands Program Leader
600 NE Grand Ave. 775 Summer Street,NE
Portland, Oregon 97232-2736 Salem, OR 97310-1337
Friends of Summer Creek
Attn: Douglas Gravatt
11380 SW Erste Place
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Wetlands Conservancy
Attn: Rosemary Furfey, President
PO Box 1195
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
•
CITY OF TIGARD
NEW RULES FOR PROTECTING STREAMS AND WETLANDS
As the owner of potentially affected property, this letter is to inform you that the City is considering
the adoption of new regulations to protect stream corridors and wetlands (collectively called "water
resources"). These new regulations will be considered at two public hearings, each scheduled to be
held at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
May 19th, 7:30 PM Tigard Planning Commission
June 10th, 7:30 PM Tigard City Council
•
These new regulations were developed to satisfy state-established planning rules for important
wetlands and stream corridors. The rules require that local governments map and protect these
resources.
The proposed City regulations call for the protection of fish bearing streams and significant
wetlands and the establishment of building setbacks or undisturbed buffer areas. Where wetlands
are located within the setback area, the buffer expands or balloons to incorporate the wetlands. For
the Tualatin River, the proposed setback is 75 feet from the top of the bank. For Fanno Creek;
North Fork of Ash Creek, and Ball Creek, the proposed setback is 50 feet. The recommended
setback for Summer Creek has not been set. The setback for development from all streams and
wetlands under existing city regulations is 25 feet.
The ordinance provides an exemption for existing residential development. If you live in a
house where the side or rear yard has been cleared of streamside vegetation and planted in
lawns,your property is automatically exempt from the new regulations. An exception to this
is that a new structure normally could not be built within the setback area. Other provisions
allowing for flexibility are included in the ordinance.
If you have any questions or need more information about the proposed regulations, please call
Duane Roberts, 639-4171.
i/Irpin/dr/wet.pro
• • .
2S103AB-00300 2S112BA-04700
RIV - RR -
2S112BA-03400 2S112BA-01400
2S 42CC-00-s0 2S102CC-00100
13500 'AC IC CORP 13500 PACIFIC CORP
BY CAP ADVISORS BY CAP ADVISORS
38345 T- MILE ROAD SUITE 17 38345 W TEN MILE RD, STE 170
FAR NGTON ILLS,MI 48335 FARMINGTON HILLS,MI 48335
1S125DD-00900 1 S125DD-01000
AALBERG,JAMES C&JANET L AALBERG,J S C AND
6695 SW VENTURA PLACE JANET
PORTLAND,OR 97223 66 SW VENTURA PL
ORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 135AC-00100 2S1 02 DD-02900
ABRAMS,DAVID AKAMIAN, ROBERT A&CAROL L
6205 SW CARMAN DR 8383 SW DEEANN CT
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97224
1 S125CC-01501 2S102AC-01800
ALEXANDER,LORRETTA S&THOMAS ALLISON, KENNETH V&LA VELLE
8223 SW HEMLOCK ST Go GILSDORF, ROBERT M&LESLI
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PO BOX 61772
VANCOUVER,WA 98666
25102AB-01900 2S112AC-02400
ALLRED,DOUGLAS R ALPHA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
5820 SW CHESTNUT 14725 SW 72ND
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97224
25102DA-00500 2S112CA-02000
AMBER INVESTMENT CO ANDERSEN, DAVID 0/JANE F
5555 SW 107TH 7695 SW GENTLEWOODS DRIVE
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S134DD-01100 1S125CB-01000
ANDERSON,GERALD L ANDERSON,GUSTAVO LOIS F
CHARLOTTE A 9135 SW 80TH AVE
11645 SW TIEDEMAN RD PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
•
•
2S102CA-00210 2S103DC-00400
ANDERSON,HAROLD P ANDERSON, RAY D JR&MARILYN G
SUZANN 13665 SW 110TH AVE
13235 SW ASH DRIVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-00700 2S103AB-03200
ANDERTON,JAMES GORDON& ANZELLOTTI,RALPH L&
ANDERTON,BRENDA K HALL LINDA
12545 SW 124TH AVE 11942 SW 113TH PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134CB-03000 1S135AA-00102
ARAVE,QUINN D BYRLE ASH CREEK APARTMENTS
12270 SW SUMMER CREST DR OREGON LTD
TIGARD,OR 97223 10025 SW 85TH
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135CA-90000 2S103BB-05000
ASH CREEK PARK CONDO ASHENFELTER,CHARLES G
UNIT OWNERS BEVERLY A
BY E AND V DEVELOPEMENT CO 12360 SW KATHERINE ST
4550 SW LOMBARD AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BA-90000 2S102AB-01902
ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF ATLAS LAND COMPANY
BONITA FIRS VILLAGE CONDOMINIU 9380 SW TIGARD
BY STERLING PROPERTY SERVICES TIGARD,OR 97223
11515 SW DURHAM RD
1S125DD-02600 2S102DB-00202
ATTIA,FARAG A&PEGGY C ATWOOD,JIM
6885 SW VENTURA DR 33 SW THIRD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97204
1S125DD-04300 1S135BD-01400
AUSE,NEAL UHOLLY M BAGAN,JOHN P JR
9815 SW VENTURA CT 10910 SW GREENBURG RD
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DA-01901 2S102DB-07700
BAGLIEN,DONALD M AND RITA A BAKER,RALPH B&LYNN B
10825 SW DERRY DELL COURT 9267 SW HILL ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BA-00125 2S102BA-01400
BAKER,STEPHEN L AND YVONNE BALL, ROBERT D
12040 SW 116TH • WEISE, IRA AND SHERRY
TIGARD,OR 97223 WEISE, DAVID ET AL
2255 NW JOHNSON STE#1
2S102DD-00902 1 S125DD-03100
BANTA,MICHAEL CHARLES SR&RU BARRON,GORDON A JR&JOAN L
8878 SW EDGEWOOD ST 27015 SW LADD HILL RD
TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140
• •
2S113BD-00200 2S104AA-10600
BARTLETT,E ANIRGINIA BARTLOW, MURRAY B&DALENE J
16575 SW UPR BOONES FY RD 23235 SW MOUNTAIN HOME RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 SHERWOOD,OR 97140
1S134DC-05900 1S125CC-02100
BASTIN,JAMES A AND BASYE,GWEN
SEIFERT-BASTIN,TERRY 8008 SW ELMWOOD
11860 SW 113TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S136DA-00100 2S102CB-02100
BAY 606 CORPORATION BEAM,GRACE E TRUSTEE
BY EVERGREEN TIMBERLANDS CORP 13300 SW PACIFIC HWY
400 NORTHCREEK,SUITE 700 TIGARD,OR 97223
3715 NORTHSIDE PARKWAY
2S103AB-03800 2S112BB-01800
BECKLEY,PATRICK E&DIANE M BECKMAN, FRANCES
12053 SW 113TH PL 8255 SW COLONY CREEK CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S1 34CD-01000 2S 115A0-02303
BEELER,DAN P/FAY A BEGAN,ROBERT G AND CAROL L
11735 SW KATHERINE ST 16795 SW 113TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S 104AA-90000 1 S 134DC-01500
BELLWOOD RRACE CONDOMINIUMS BENASSU,JOHN
OWNE. OF UNITS 11755 SW 114TH PL
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 134DD-01400 1 S 134CD-00600
BENSON,STINA E V AND BENZ,WILLIAM J
BENSON,EDDIE S V AND 11855 SW KATHERINE ST
BENSON,JANE TIGARD,OR 97223
11755 SW TIEDEMAN AVE
15136CA-05600 1S134CC-01000
BERGEY,BRUCE BERNARD, BRADLEY S/JENNIFER L
7700 SW RIVER RD BY WASHINGTON FEDERAL
HILLSBORO,OR 97123 PO BOX 23367
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DB-00800 2S102CB-03302
BERNKLAU,JAMES W DIANNA BERTOLINO, RONALD G AND
13325 SW 110TH VAN LOM,JOSEPH M
TIGARD,OR 97223 1304 NW 120TH PLACE
PORTLAND,OR 97229
2S103DC-00100 1 S134CD-07400
BETICH,JOHN T&CALLAHAN,CEE BETSCHART, KENNETH ALAN&
13535 SW 110TH AVE KRISTIN KAYE
TIGARD,OR 97223 11680 SW TIGARD DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1S134CB-03600 25103BB-05400
BETTON,KAY L BEUTZ, RALPH J TRUSTEE
GRILLEY,SHARON 12170 SW 124TH
12480 SW SUMER CREST DR TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135CC-02400 1S1 35AC-04400
BIEDERMAN, BRIAN E&BEVERLY J BILLINGS,ZAIDA B
10480 SW MEADOW NOW HANSON
TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 266
YAMHILL,OR 97148
1 S125CC-01901 2S102DD-05800
BISHOP,TIMOTHY A AND TRACEY L BLACKSTONE, NORA
8100 SW ELMWOOD 18695 SE UPPER ISLAND DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 DAYTON,OR 97114
2S102BC-02100 2S102BC-02000
BLAKELY,JERRY C BLANCHARD,CARL V JR AND
BLAKELY,COLLEEN A DOROTHY J
10720 SW FONNER ST 10690 SW FONNER
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125DC-02000 2S112BD-00100
BONHAM,JOHN G&JOYCE M BONITA HOLDINGS, INC
7045 SW VENTURA DR 4252 MUSQUEAM DR
PORTLAND,OR 97223 VANCOUVER,BC CANADA V6N
2S103BB-05200 2S102DB-00301
BONNER,WILLIAM J BOULEVARD TERRACE
12120 SW 124TH JOHNSON,JEFF E AND LORA M
TIGARD,OR 97223 520 SW 6TH AVE SUITE 400
PORTLAND,OR 97204
2S112CD-00700 2S113BD-00100
BOUMAN, DONNA L BOWLES,GERTRUDE S TRUSTEE
15940 SW 76TH AVE 16605 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224
2S112DC-01600 1S125DD-02500
BOWLES,JOHN MARGARET BOYER,THOMAS L&BARBARA J
8986 SW ARAPAHO RD 6905 SW VENTURA DR
TUALATIN,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S115A0-02600 2S102CA-00215
BRAND-BROADWAY ASSOCIATES& BRATTAIN,RICK D AND BETH M
KARNO,NORTON S 13185 SW ASH DRIVE
16255 VENTURA BLVD SUITE 1200 TIGARD,OR 97223
ENCINO,CA 91436
2S103BB-02100 1 S133DB-05000
BRAY,RICHARD A JEAN L BREITBARTH,NIKKI A
12195 SW 124TH 13123 SW WINTERLAKE CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
•
2S103AD-01000 1S125CD-01401
BRICE,LORILY AND BRICKLEY, BRIAN DONALD
SIMONS,SAM C 7830 SW ELMWOOD ST
10665 SW PATHFINDER WAY TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BB-04100 2510100-01400
BROSSEAU,WALLACE BROWN,MILTON 0
8345 SW BONITA RD 301 NW MURRAY RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97229
1 S134CC-02900 1 S135DB-07800
BROWNELL,MICHAEL J AND BRYAN,TROY R&BRENDA D
PAMELA L 9115 SW NORTH DAKOTA
11945 SW 122ND CT TIGARD,OR 97223 -
TIGARD,OR 97224
1S125DD-02700 1S134AD-08600
BUI,CHUC VAN&LIEM DUY BURDICK, RICHARD S&SUZANNE
6115 NE FREMONT 10553 SW WINDSOR CT
PORTLAND,OR 97213 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102DB-00200 2S102DB-00203
BURNHAM BUSINESS&STORAGE LLC BUSSEY,LO AND
9500 SW BARBUR BLVD STE 300 ANDER , ROGER A TRUSTEES
PORTLAND,OR 97219 BY RRIS&STEVENS REALTOR
0SW6TH#400
2S102DB-00204 1S135AA-02400
BUSSEY,LOIS J AND CAIN,JAMES L
ANDERSON, ROGER A TRUSTEES 17350 SW SCHOLLS SHERWOOD RD
BY NORRIS&STEVENS REALTOR SHERWOOD,OR 97140
520 SW 6TH#400
2S102DC-01500 2S1 11 AD-05800
CALDWELL, KIMBERLY D CAMPBELL, MICHAEL LYNN
14040 SW FERN HELEN KAY
TIGARD,OR 97224 25655 SW GRAHAMS FERRY RD
SHERWOOD,OR 97140
2S 102CB-02600 2S 112AC-00700
CAPONE,ANTHONY M CARLSON,CLARENCE A ET AL
13056 SW PACIFIC HWY do PUGET CORP OF WASHINGTON
TIGARD,OR 97223 7440 SW BONITA RD
PORTLAND,OR 97224
2S103DB-01300 1 S126DD-01700
CARLSON,HOWARD T CARNIG,J PH C
JANE S MOC , ERALD G
13475 SW 110TH AVE 8 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223 ORTLAND,OR 97223
1S126DD-01991
•
2S115AA-00900
CARNIG,JOSEPH C AND CARR, BERNARD AND
MOCK,GERALD G LABBY, ROBERT TRUSTEES ET AL
8900 SW HALL BLVD 633 NW 19TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97209
• •
1S125CC-02500 1S125DD-04200
CARR,GREGORY E&MARGARET L CARTER, DEN AND KAY W
8217 SW HEMLOCK 9835 ENTURA CT
PORTLAND,OR 97223 ARD,OR 97223
1S125DD-04100 2S114BC-02900
CARTER, KAY AND DENNIS E CASHMAN, DANIEL J&GAYLIE
9835 SW VENTURA COURT 16662 SW RIVERWOOD PLACE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S134CC-02100 2S104AB-08900
CASTELOW,CHARLIE T AND CATALANO,GARY S&DIANA L
MICKEY G 12418 SW 131ST AVE
12315 SW KATHERINE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-07900 1S125DC-00600
CHAMBERLAIN,JOSEPH G AND CHAMBERLIN,ALLEN LINLEY
ARLENE V 9777 SW 74TH
15770 NE EILERS RD TIGARD,OR 97223
AURORA,OR 97002
2S115AD-00500 2S103BB-13200
CHAMBERLIN,GRANT A CHANDLER, STEPHEN L AND
WANETA M CHERRYL A
16720 SW 108TH AVE 12270 SW ANN CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S134DD-01800 2S103AB-03700
CHAPUT,MARCEL J CHARBONNEAU,JOSEPH P&
NANCY A VICKI R
11935 SW TIEDEMAN AVE 12079 SW 113TH PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135AA-01800 1S133DB-05300
CHAVEZ,HELEN W CHEW, FREDDIE AND
8407 SW LOCUST THEAN,JASMINE
PORTLAND,OR 97223 11223 SW WINTERLAKE DR
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S111AD-14400 1S133DD-16500
CHIAPUZIO, DOUGLAS S/BARBARA A CHIN, LAWRENCE D&ELAINE F
14921 SW 91ST AVE 11994 SW 129TH
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CC-01500 1S125CD-07100
CHRISTIANSON,ALLEN J CHURCH,MICHAEL W&BARBARA J
8220 SW ELMWOOD 7440 SW 35TH
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97219
2510 D-00810 2S103BB- 64 0
CITY ARD CITY OF TI RD
13125 HALL BLVD 13125 SW BLVD
TI RD, R 97223 TIGARD,O 7223
• •
2S102AC-0' 03 2S103B -063 0
CITY nF IGARD CITY OF I ARD
1312- HALL BLVD 13125 SW ALL BLVD
T -ARD,QR 97223 TIGARD, R 97223
2S115 -0 600 2S104 -04 00
CITY 0 IGARD CITY 0 TI ARD
13125 ALL BLVD 13125 S ALL BLVD
TIGA ,OR 97223 TIGARD 97223
2S104 D-0 01 2S103DC-00500
CITY 0 GARD CLARK,KEVIN W AND SUSAN H
13125 HALL BLVD 13705 SW 110TH AVE
TIGA ,O 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DB-00900 1 S125DD-03300
CLARK,SCOTT E&TRACY N CLINICAL CONSULTANTS,INC
13355 SW 110TH AVE ATTN:JANE TIMERLIN
TIGARD,OR 97223 6660 SW VENTURA BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103AB-00403 1S1 34AD-05300
CLOUD,CLAUDIA G COATES,GARY D&MELANIE J
11285 SW WALNUT 10821 SW 108TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
•
1S134AD-09400 2S102BB-01000
COBRAIN, DAVID W AND COCHRANE,CHRISTINE M
LATHROP,JOYCE do PEARSON,HENRY 0 AND
10765 SW 106TH DONNA M
TIGARD,OR 97223 10085 SW JOHNSON STREET
2S10100-01201 2S 0100-0 02
COE MANUFACTURING CO,THE CO A UFACTURING COMPANY
P 0 BOX 520 PO BO 520
PAINESVILLE,OH 44077 PAIN VI ,OH 44077
1S133CA-00300 2S112BD-00200
COE,GARY R COELLO,GEORGE J
11115 SW 135TH AVENUE MILDRED M
PORTLAND,OR 97223 14760 SW 76TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CC-01701 1S1 CC- 600
COHEN,JUDITH COHE DITH E
8220 SW ELMWOOD 8220 S LMWOOD
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORT N , R 97223
2S102DD-00900 2S112BB-15200
COLLING,CHARLES W COLONY CREEK ESTATES NO.6,
13835 SW HALL BLVD OWNERS OF LOTS 122-125
TIGARD,OR 97223 12454 SW EDGEWATER CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
25111 CA-01400 1 S 134AD-09300
COLTON, RODNEY P&LILY T CONAWAY,GUY
9645 SW SUMMERFIELD DR 10779 SW 106TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 134DC-06100 1 S 125CD-01500
CONZELMANN,ARNOLD M III COOK, KENNETH 0&SHIRLEY M
11900 SW 113TH 7910 SW ELMWOOD
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S134DA-03300 25102BC-05300
COOKSON,WILLIAM V COOLEY,CRAIG L
BETTY L 5693 VICTORIA CT
10520 SW NORTH DAKOTA LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134AD-09200 2S114BA-13400
COOLEY,NORMAN A COPPER CREEK LOT OWNERS
10787 SW 106TH AVE 15300 SW 116TH AVENUE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S111AC-05500 2S112BD-01500
CORNETT,JOSEPH E JR&TAMMY L CORNUTT,HOWARD L SR&HOWARD
14900 SW 92ND AVE 11720 SW LYNN ST
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CC-02301 2S101BB-01201
COSSAR, IAN A COSTCO W %-ESALE CORPORATION
8125 SW HEMLOCK ST ATTN: - ISE TAX DEPT 111
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PO ="oX 97077
RKLAND,WA 98083
1S136CD-02200 2S101BA-00200
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION COSTCO WHO SALE CORPORATION
ATTN: EXCISE TAX DEPT 111 ATTN: EX E TAX DEPT 111
PO BOX 97077 PO B 97077
KIRKLAND,WA 98083 KLAND,WA 98083
2S102DC-02400 2S104AC-08700
CRANE,TERRY E CRAWFORD,SCOTT,M AND
WILLODEAN BROBERG,KAREN L
9155 SW MC DONALD 12446 SW 131ST AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S1 26DD-01600 1S1 34CC-00800
CRAYTOR,JAMES&RICHARD CREEK, DONALD W
16997 SE BLANTON 12190 SW MERESTONE CT
MILWAUKIE,OR 97267 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S115AD-02500 2S104AD-01400
CREWSE,ROBERT G&KARLYNE M CRONHOLM, SCOTT M
10578 SW TUALATIN DR 12705 SW WALNUT
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
•
2S103DB-04700 2S102DD-03200
CROOK,RICHARD E/NANCY J CROSS,MALCOLM A JR&MARCIA L
11145 SW NOVARE PL 8317 SW CHAR CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S135AD-01300 1S135AD-01200
CROUCH,THELMA C ESTATE CROUCH,T A C ESTATE
Go DAVIS, EUGENE L&VIVIAN do DA UGENE L AND VIVIAN
BY ROBERT SAIZ;CPA B OBERT SAIZ,CPA
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220 2753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
1S127DC-00501 1S125CC-01800
CROW-SPIEKER-HOSFORD NO 93 DAQULANTE,CHARYL R
PO BOX 5909 18895 SW INDIAN SPRINGS RD
PORTLAND,OR 97228 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035
1 S 135AD-01103 1 S 135AD-01400
DAVIS,EUGENE L DAVIS,EUGE &VIVIAN M
BY ROBERT SAIZ,CPA BY ROB SAIZ,CPA
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220 127 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
TIGARD,OR 97224 IGARD,OR 97224
1 S 125DD-03000 2S 102DD-03300
DAVIS,GERALD E AND ANN E DAVIS,NANCY C
6805 SW VENTURA 16869 SW 65TH AVE#113
TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035
1S134DA-00100 2S111AD-00400
DBSI PACIFIC INCOME& DENNY,JOSEPH T&MAY
GROWTH FUND-II 8595 SW PINEBROOK ST
1070 N CURTIS RD#270 TIGARD,OR 97224
BOISE,ID 83706
1 S 134 DD-01200 1S1 34DC-06500
DILSAVER,DANIEL E AND DISPENZA,CECILIA A
SHIRLEY Z 11460 SW DAWN COURT
11675 SW TIEDEMAN TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 102AC-00700 2S 104AC-08500
DOLAN&CO LLC DOMOGALLA,DAVID PAUL AND
BY FLORENCE T DOLAN LYNDA ROSE
4025 SE BROOKLYN 12520 SW 131ST AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97202 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S104AB-09200 1 S125CB-02400
DOMZALSKI,ROBERT J AND VERNA DONNER, DARRELL WAYNE&
12354 SW 131ST AVE DONNIER, DEBBIE JEAN
TIGARD,OR 97223 9425 SW 82ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-01500 1S135BD-00900
DONOVAN,LEONARD C RUTH L DORR,GEORGE/ANNA MARIE TRUSTE
12480 SW BROOK CT DORR,JOHN D&
TIGARD,OR 97223 DORR, PATRICK M
9925 SW 77TH
• •
2S 103AB-03600 2S 111 AD-06201
DOYLE,PETER C JR DUBOIS,RONALD L
12098 SW 113TH PL 6260 SW CHERRY HILL DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005
2S112BA-01300 2S113AB-00800
DULING,JAMES E AND DUNCAN,JOHN A AND
THEODORA S JANICE LEE
14320 SW 80TH PLACE 16055 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 - TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AC-03800 2S11 0-02 00
DUNFORD, DARRELL A&BERTHA M DURHA , ITY OF
do JATA CORP PO BOX 3483
4485 NW WALLOWA CT TIGA , 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97229
2S113BD-00300 2S11 CB-0 700
DURHAM,CITY OF DURH CITY OF
17160 SW UPR BOONES FY RD PO BO 3483
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGA ,O 97223
1S135CA-02800 1S125DD-02200
E&V DEVELOPMENT CO EBERT,SHERYL A&
13095 SW HENRY EBERT, DEBORAH
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 6965 SW VENTURA DR
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S136CA-05700 1S134CD-06100
EBSEN, DAVID M AND NANCY G ECHAURI,MIGUEL JR
3610 SW PASADENA ST KATHARINE
PORTLAND,OR 97219 11685 SW SUMMERCREST DR
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102DA-00690 1S125DD-01100
EIKREM,A ELERT,JAMES D&LINDA H
PO BOX 82824 6665 SW VENTURA PLACE
PORTLAND,OR 97282 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BA-01190 1S125CD-0400
ELKINS,ALVIN S& ELLIOTT IS A TRUSTEE
ELKINS,ERNEST TRUSTEES 767 ELMWOOD
6700 SW 105TH STE 309 ARD,OR 97223
BEAVERTON,OR 97005
1S125CD-03901 1S125C 07 00
ELLIOTT,LOIS A TRUSTEE ELMWOO ARK OWNERS OF LOTS
7675 SW ELMWOOD
TIGARD,OR 97223
25115AA-00700 2S115AA-0100
ELTON,MICHAEL D ELTON, -AEL D
17311 SW CANYON DR 9498 (BARBUR BLVD
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 SUI " #305
4RTLAND,OR 97219
• •
2S116 -011 0 2S115AA-01200
ELTON, IC AEL D ELTON,MICHAEL D
9498 SW BUR BLVD 9498 SW BARBUR BLVD
SUITE#30 SUITE#305
PORTLAN ,O 97219 PORTLAND,OR 97219
1 S 135AD-01101 25 103DB-01000
EPLER,CLIFFORD F&KAYE V ERNST,CHARLES E&ANNA C
8845 SW SPRUCE STREET 13385 SW 110TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 103BB-07600 1 S 135AD-01303
EVANS,DALE F JOANN EVERITT,JAMES E&DIANNA L
12502 SW 123RD AVE 8900 SW OAK ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S '2DD-00200 2' •2DD-'.100
F W NVES ENT COMPANY F W ESTMENT COMPANY
BY CO y•NUFACTURING COMPANY BY C. ANUFACTURING COMPANY
609 B ' ST 609 SANK
P• 52o PO :OX 520
25102DA-00600 2S10• 60-01 60
F W F INVESTMENT COMPANY F W F I V- TMENT COMPANY
BY COE MANUFACTURING COMPANY BY COE - 'NUFACTURING COMPANY
609 BANK ST 609 BA K S
PO BOX 520 PO Be 520
1 S 134AD-05800 2S 102AC-00201
FAGAN,WILLIAM R AND LESLEE A FANNO CREEK ASSOCIATES
10705 SW PONDEROSA PL 9895 SE SUNNYSIDE RD,STE P
TIGARD,OR 97223 CLACKAMAS,OR 97015
2S103DA-01900 2S102DB-07600
FARRIER,DEE W FATLAND,BILL S/MARY SUSAN
VIOLET M 9259 SW HILL STREET
10845 SW DERRY DELL COURT TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 125CC-04100 1 S 125CC-01700
FERNWOOD DEVELOPMENT INC FINDLAY,JEFFREY S&GENALEE
30182 SW LADD HILL RD 8209 SW HEMLOCK ST
SHERWOOD,OR 97140 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102CB-03400 2S102AB-02000
FINKE,ALEX AND LOTTE I FINKE,ALE D LOTTI AND
PO BOX 23562 HANS C STIAN
PORTLAND,OR 97223 PO 23562
ARD,OR 97223
2S102DD-03700 2S103DC-01100
FINLEY PARK,OWNERS OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF
LOTS 12-15&17-18 TIGARD,THE
12454 SW EDGEWATER CT 11075 SW GAARDE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1S125CB-02201 1 S133DD-16600
FLAMAN, MICHAEL J AND LINDA M FLORES,ANTONIO I JR&CECILLI
8280 SW CEDARCREST ST 11976 SW 129TH PL
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S111AA-04100 1S136CB-04100
FLOWERS,JAMES R FOGG, PATRICK G&CHERYL R
8935 SW EDGEWOOD ST 8365 SW STEVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-01700 1S135AC-02800
FOLEY,THOMAS P&JULIA M FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION
12479 SW BROOK CT do ROBERT SAIZ,CPA
TIGARD,OR 97223 12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
TIGARD,OR 97224
1S135AC-04900 1S134DC-01600
FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION FORNER,THOMAS D/DIANE P
do ROBERT SAIZ,CPA 11775 SW 114TH PLACE
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220 TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97224
1S125CB-01400 2S103DB-05000
FORSYTH,PATRICIA SUE AND FOSTER,RANDAL T AND
FORSYTH,WARREN T TAMARA S
2450 PARADISE DR 11165 SW NOVARE PL
TIBURON,CA 94920 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 115AB-00900 2S 103 DB-05200
FOSTER,ROBERT B AND FOUTS, DAVID'N&LAURA ANN
KATHERINE E 11185 SW NOVARE CT
16565 SW 113TH TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103AC-01600 1 S134DC-06000
FOX,LINDA M FRANKEN,JULIE L
11130 SW FONNER 11880 SW 113TH PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103AD-02600 2S104AA-10500
FROST, LORNA FUHS, MARK BURTON
10800 SW PATHFINDER WAY 12165 SW 128TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S114BC-04000 2S112CC-00200
FURRER, PATRICK J&DEBRA K GAGE, DOROTHY DARLENE
10414 SW BONANZA WAY GAGE, M A ABRECHT,M G
TIGARD,OR 97224 8000 SW 54TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97219
1 S 134CC-01300 2S 102CA-00217
GALLAHER,EDWARD J GANOE,L M
12140 SW MERESTONE CT 13165 SW ASH DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
2S104AA-00104 2S102DC-01300
GARDNER,ROBERT J&SUSAN L GARIBALDI,ALBERT R&PATRICIA
28672 WALNUT GROVE 8920 SW EDGEWOOD ST
MISISON VIEJO,CA 92692 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DB-01200 2S103DC-00300
GARNER,ROBERT E GARRETT, RULON V AND
LILA J GARRETT, FAY
13445 SW 110TH 13625 SW 110TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112CA-01500 1 S125CB-04300
GARVEY,KIRK W&LAURA R GARY REED DEVELOPMENT INC
7745 SW GENTLE WOODS DR 4420 SW POMONA
TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97219
2S10100-00701 2S10100-006
GAZELEY, H WILLIAM GAZELEY ARRY M&THELMA T
PO BOX 230414 GAZE Y,HARRY W&PATRICIA J
TIGARD,OR 97281 PO OX 230414
ARD,OR 97281
2S102CA-00212 25102DB-00100
GEHRING FAMILY TRUST GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. OF
13215 SW ASH DRIVE THE NORTHWEST, INC
TIGARD,OR 97223 P 0 BOX 1003
EVERETT,WA 98201
1 S134AC-03600 1 S135AC-04300
GENTRY,TODD C&LAURA J GEORGE,SHIRLEY AND ALFRED
10730 SW MARY PLACE GEORGE, HELEN
TIGARD,OR 97223 P 0 BOX 23181
TIGARD,OR 97281
2S112AA-00300 1S133DB-06700
GERBER,J R JR J F ETAL GERKING,MICHAEL W&GREGORY G
Go GERBER LEGENDARY BLADES 11149 SW ESCHMAN WAY
14200 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
•
1 S133DB-05400 2S112CA-01600
GIOIA,CARL V AND KATHLEEN A GOFF,JOHN A
11201 SW WINTER LAKE DRIVE 7735 SW GENTLE WOODS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103DC-06300 1 S125CD-01700
GOLDEN,STEVE K&CH GOODDING,JOHN W TRUSTEE
BY COUN FUNDING CORP 7925 SW HEMLOCK ST
T PT PORTLAND,OR 97223
11210 SW FAIRHAVEN
1S134CC-01400 1 S134CC-04300
GOOLEY,DAVID J&TERESA L GORDON, NANCY M
4625 SW 42ND PLACE 12318 SW WINTERS LAKE DR
PORTLAND,OR 97221 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1 S136CB-00700 2S103BB-07700
GRAHAM,DON G AND GRAHAM,STEPHEN D&KAREN M
BROSSIA, PAUL F 12430 SW 124TH AVE
11260 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102AB-01800 1S1 •CB-03801
GREEN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT GREE' A IEDICATION TO THE
10585 SW WALNUT AVE PUBLIC
TIGARD,OR 97223 , '•000
1 S125CB-02300 1 S134AD-05900
GREISEL, LARRY B GUNDERSON,MARK A&DENISE M
318 17TH AVE 10765 SW PONDEROSA PL
SEATTLE,WA 98122 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S134CD-01100 2S103DB-08300
HAAS,ARTHUR R NANCY HACKBARTH,RONALD E AND
11665 SW KATHERINE ST JANICE
TIGARD,OR 97223 11140 SW MORGEN COURT
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S125CC-01300 1 S134CD-06300
HALL 33 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP HALSTEAD,JEFFERY L&SARAH M
BY THE DALTON CO 11690 SW SUMMERCREST DR
8465A SW HEMLOCK TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S111AD-06300 2S113:A-00400
HAMBACH,CATHALEEN HAMBA. , HA'•LD C/MILDRED M&
14815 SW HALL BLVD HAMBAC , AHEL V/SATTLER, SA
TIGARD,OR 97224 BROWN,L•'. NE
7735 SW 'A URH• • RD
2S103BB-12600 2S 102AC-01101
HAMERMAN,JAY S/MARY D HAMMOND, DAVID E&CHRISTINE N
12335 SW ANN CT 3015 SW 116TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005
1 S134CD-00900 2S102DD-00901
HAND,S MARK&ROBIN R HANSEN,TWILA D&
11765 SW KATHERINE ST COLLING,CHARLES W
TIGARD,OR 97223 13835 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135BD-00700 1 S135AA-02700
HARING,JACK HARRIS ENTERPRISES INC
2414 BROADWAY#8 2300 SW FIRST AVE
VANCOUVER,WA 98663 SUITE 104
PORTLAND,OR 97201
1 S134AC-02300 2S103DC-06000
HART,MARY RITA HASS, DALE L AND NORMA P
10939 SW BLACK DIAMOND WAY 11215 SW FAIRHAVEN ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
2S115AD-00100 2S112CD-00800
HATTON,FLOYD W&BARBARA W HAVERY,JOHN W MADELON
10512 SW TUALATIN DR 15970 SW 76TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S112CA-09000 1S136CA-02100
HAWORTH,MARK S/DEBBIE S HEDRICK, DAVID P
•
7534 SW ASHFORD ST 7970 SW SPRUCE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134AD-09500 2S102BA-01000
HEISEL, PATRICIA J HELMER,GARRY AND RICHARD C
10753 SW 106TH AVE AND SHULZ,CHARLES
TIGARD,OR 97223 10585 SW WALNUT AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134CD-00800 2S112CA-01300
HENDERSON,MARILYN D HESS,CHARLES A AND
FORMERLY HUDSON COLLEEN M
11795 SW KATHERINE ST 7755 SW GENTLEWOODS DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S102AC-00800 2S104AB-09100
HEUVELHORST,MICHAEL J HICKMAN,VAUGHN S&PATRICIA L
do KADEY,GEORGE S JR 12392 SW 131ST ST
12551 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S114AC-00600 2S 4D0-0030
HICKOX,JOHN HICK• J• N P ET AL
3334 HARRISON HILDICK, •NCY AND
KANSAS CITY,MO 64109 BALLEN I, •RLES A ET AL
8605 S CHINO ST
25115AD-00900 2S112DB-00600
HOCHTRITT,ROBERT 0 HOFFARB Y ALBERT
FREDERICKA L do AD ,CLYDE W AND JOANNE
16790 SW 108TH AVE 14 SW 139TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 GARD,OR 97224
2S 112CA-00200 2S 115AB-01000
HOFFARBER,RAY ALBERT HOGAN,KELLY SCOTT&NANCY LYN
do ADAIR,CLYDE W AND JOANNE 16445 SW 113TH AVE
14655 SW 139TH TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97224
1S135BC-00700 25102DB-05100
HOLCE,THOMAS J TRUSTEE HOLLOWAY, ROGER K/BARBARA J
610 ESTHER STREET SUITE 1000 13310 SW CHELSEA LOOP
VANCOUVER,WA 98660 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BC-03900 2S111AD-00401
HOLLYTREE PROPERTIES, INC HOOD, DONALD J&SHIRLEY M
9055 SW 91ST G-7 8625 SW PINEBROOK ST
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
• •
2S102DA-00501 1S134AD-09600
HOODY CORPORATION HOWARD-KIM INC
PO BOX 100 10900 NE 8TH ST SUITE 900
BEAVERTON,OR 97075 BELLEVUE,WA 98004
1S135AC-04600 2S112DB-00500
HRESTU,PHYLLIS HUBBARD,VIOLA I
FORMERLY ROUCHES ET AL do INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC
1101 N NORTHLAKE WAY#3 15065 SW 74TH AVE
SEATTLE,WA 98103 PORTLAND,OR 97224
2S 103CC-01100 1 S 134CC-03000
HUFFMAN,DAVID S& HUTSELL,GARY&BONNIE R
CRYSTAL F 11960 SW 122ND CT
12025 SW ROSE VISTA DR TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112AC-01700 1 S 125CC-02400
INTERSTATE ROOFING INC J A AND D NEWTON TRUST
15065 SW 74TH AVE 10935 SW SUMMER LAKE DR
PORTLAND,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S102BA-02200 1S136CB-04400
JANSEN,KENNETH C JAPANESE I RNATIONAL BAPTIST
KAREN CHURL C
9975 SW JOHNSON 565 HUMPHREY BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223 RTLAND,OR 97221
1 S136CB-00701 2S111AD-15400
JAPANESE INTERNATIONAL BAPTIST JAUNDALDERIS, ROBERT AND LISA
CHURCH INC 9035 SW REILING
5656 SW HUMPHREY BLVD TIGARD,OR 97224
PORTLAND,OR 97221
1S125DC-00500 1 S134CB-03400
JEFFS,JERRY L AND PAUL I JENSEN,PAUL L&CAROLYN A
9655 SW 74TH 12420 SW SUMMERCREST DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S113BA-00100 1 S134CD-06200
JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST,THE JOHNSON, BEN VERNON&DIANE A
BY CARL H JOHNSON TR 11680 SW SUMMERCREST DR
200 JAMES ST#407 TIGARD,OR 97223
EDMONDS,WA 98020
2S112DB-00800 2S102DD-04800
JOHNSON,ORVAL D& JOHNSON,TIMOTHY W&JEANNETTE
REICHEL,DAVID L 8370 SW ARTHUR CT
15515 SW 74TH TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BB-00831 2S103BC-07400
JONES, IVAN T&RAMONA M JONES,JOHN THOMAS III/DIANE E
6450 SW FISHER 12274 SW LANDSDOWNE IN
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97223
•
1S134CD-06800 1S135BD-00600
JORDAN,DELANE R AND MARLA R JUNGE,PAULINE T
11756 SUMMERCREST PL 504 LAKENSON LOOP
TIGARD,OR 97223 SPRINGFIELD,OR 97478
15135AD-00900 1S135BC-01000
JUVE,ALICE SARAH KADEL,RICHARD A
10655 SW HALL BLVD 10925 SW GREENBURG RD
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 134CD-06900 1 S 134DC-06200
KARBSTEIN,BERND D AND KARNS,ANNA M
PAMELA J 11920 SW 113TH PL
11758 SW SUMMERCREST PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125DD-03600 2S102DB-03200
KASTEN,RICHARD J AND KAUFFMAN,JEWEL D
SHEILAH S 13348 SW CHELSEA LOOP
9885 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AD-01600 15135' -017►'
KAULUWAI CORPORATION KAULUWA 'ORPORATION
2445-A MAKIKI HEIGHTS DRIVE 2445-A M• I HEIGHTS DRIVE
HONOLULU,HI 96822 HONOL U,HI ?6822
1S125CB-02100 1S136CA-02008
KEENEY,PAT L&SHARON L KELSO,LAUREN L
7825 SW BRISTOL CT 10825 SW 78TH AVE
BEAVERTON,OR 97007 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125DD-03500 1 S125DD-0340
KENT, ERIC G KENT, ERI AND
RANDOLPH,GRETCHEN L RAND H,GRETCHEN L
6690 VENTURA DRIVE 669 W VENTURA DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 GARD,OR 97223
15134CD-00700 2S102CA-00213
KILLION,RANDALL L&JUI-MEI H. KING, PAUL M CATHERINE
11825 SW KATHERINE ST 13205 SW ASH DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134DC-01400 2S112CD-00400
KLUEMPKE,PETER JOSEPH AND KNAUSS, HARVEY L
KIMBERLEE ANN 14383 SW MCFARLAND BLVD
11735 SW 114TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 101 BC-00100 2S 112AC-01200
KNEZ,JOHN S SR&JEANNE M KNHS DE. •PMENT CO
8185 SW HUNZIKER RD 262.. MERIDIAN RD
TIGARD,OR 97223 ' I RORA,OR 97002
•
2S112AC-00900 2S104AB-09000
KNHS DEVELOPMENT CO KOLBERG, ROBB A&MARY LOUISE
26262 S MERIDIAN RD 12400 SW 131ST •
AURORA,OR 97002 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134CD-06000 1S125DD-03800
KOPF,RICHARD D VIRGINIA KOSTUR,CHARLES J&DIANNE M
11695 SW SUMMER CREST DR 9865 SW VENTURA CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DB-07201 2S112CA-01800
KRAEMER,STEPHEN&COREEN KREICK,JOHN E AND MARA
11145 SW EDEN CT 7715 SW GENTLEWOODS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S102DD-03100 2S103BB-0830
KRON,CHRISTINE LAKE T CE
8345 SW DEE ANN CT OW RS OF ALL LOTS
TIGARD,OR 97224 97223
2S114A0-01500 2S103DB-07300
LAMB,CHARLES/ZADA A LAMBERT, RONALD E/WILMA C
GRAY,R A/LINDA D 11155 SW EDEN CT
11445 SW TIEDEMAN TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S1 25CD-06900 2S 103BB-04900
LANTZ,MARK A LARKIN,RICHARD V/KATHY
9711 SW LANDAU PL 12350 SW KATHERINE ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BB-00700 2S103AD-02100
LAWTON,MARY JANE LEACH,TOM ALLEN SR&HYE SIN
NOW SKELTON 10950 SW PATHFINDER WAY
10355 SW WALNUT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S1 25CD-01801 2S 102AC-001
LEE,LINDA L LEE,ST EN AND
7895 SW HEMLOCK LEGE , DAVID AND
TIGARD,OR 97223 LO AKER, BARBARA M ET AL
1 28 NE 3RD
1 S135AD-02300 1 S133DB-04900
LEE,VANCE R LEHNOW,JOSEPH E/LESLIE J
10915 SW HALL BLVD 13145 SW WINTERLAKE CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102DD-04700 1 S125CC-02000
LEONARD,DAVID E&ROBYN L LEWIS,AUDREY M
8432 SW ARTHUR CT 8020 SW ELMWOOD
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
• •
1S135BD-01100 2S103BB-08400
LEWIS,GLORIA M& LEWIS,LINDA ANN
LEWIS,GLORIA M TRUSTEE 12415 SW 122ND AVE
7720 SW WESTGATE WAY TIGARD,OR 97223
•
PORTLAND,OR 97225
2S104AC-08400 1S125DB-03900
LEWIS,PEGGY L LOHR,FRANK III
12568 SW 131ST AVE 9635 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S125DD-00500 2S101BD-00300
LORENCE,THOMAS PAUL LOSLI,E HOW TRUSTEE AND
10747 65TH AVE SEABRO ,CAROL ET AL
PORTLAND,OR 97219 BY P FORMANCE CONTRACTING, IN
5 77 CENTER DR
2S101BD-00301 1S136DA-00600
LOSLI,E HOWARD TRUSTEE ET AL LOUIE,HENRY ET AL
do EAST SIDE VAN&STORAGE 3710 SE 49TH
4836 SE POWELL BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97206
PORTLAND,OR 97206
2S102BB-00600 2S112DC-01400
LOWERY,GEORGE M HELEN A LOY CLARK PIPELINE CO, INC
10270 SW KATHERINE ST 3905 SW 141ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005
2S102DC-01304 2S111AD-17200
MABRAY,LARRY G AND DIANA L MALLARD ES HOMEOWNERS ASSN
8890 SW EDGEWOOD ST 148 W 91ST CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 GARD,OR 97223
2S111AD-17300 2S102DD-04900
MALLARD LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSN MALLERY,BARBARA A&
14827 SW 91ST CT MILLER,ROBERT D
TIGARD,OR 97223 8391 SW ARTHUR CT
TIGARD,OR 97224
2S112BD-00400 2S112BD-00300
MALO,ROBERT IOLET MAY MALO, ROB VIOLET M
do CORNU ,JACQUELINE TRUST do CO TT,JACQUELINE TRUST
COR ,HOWARD L CO UTT,HOWARD L JR
20 SW LYNN 1720 SW LYNN
2S112CA-00100 1S125DC-01700
MALO,ROBERT WIL ET AL MANKIN,WILLIAM H&LOIS C
do CORNU CQUELINE TRUST 7105 SW VENTURA DR
CO ,HOWARD L JR TIGARD,OR 97223
720 SW LYNN
2S 111 AD-06202 2S102BD-01502
MANOVILL, DAVID F&SUSANNE MARCIENE TERRACE ASSOCIATES
15314SW81ST 510WAVERLYST
TIGARD,OR 97224 PALO ALTO,CA 94301
• •
2S101BA-00100 2S101BA-00101
MARTIN,GORDON R MARTIN,GORD ET AL
12265 SW 72ND AVE do MARTI , ORDON RICHARD
TIGARD,OR 97223 1226 72ND AVE
T ARD,OR 97223
2S1 i :A-00300 1S125CB-00100
MARTI` GORD• ' S ET AL MATTILA,ERNEST L
Go MART =•RDON R 9045 SW 80TH
12265 S 2 /• PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGA-%,OR 9-•23
1 S 125CD-01400 1 S 134AD-05700
MCCARTHY,PATRICK RAY& MCCORMICK,ROBERT C/JEAN L
PAULA RAE 10710 SW PONDEROSA PLACE
7860 SW ELMWOOD TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S102DD-00903 1 S125DC-01900
MCELEVEY,MICHAEL J AND MCELWAIN,JAMES D/JANET K
ROSS,CATHY 7065 SW VENTURA DR
8880 SW EDGEWOOD TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AD-02501 1S135AD-02500
MCFARLAND,RAYMOND R/RENEE J MCFARLAN YMOND R/RENEE J
6820 SW WINTER CT 6820 INTER CT
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 VERTON,OR 97005
1 S135AD-'•502 2S 103DB-06800
MCFARLAN' RA OND R/RENEE J MCLEOD,MICHAEL J AND
6820 SW WIN►' - CT DALMATIA A
BEAVERTe ,O' 97005 11180 SW EDEN COURT
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112CA-01200 1 S126DD-90000
MERRYMAN,RONALD D/RONDA J METZGE RK CONDO
7765 SW GENTLE WOODS UNIT NERS
TIGARD,OR 97224 B CHRIEVER, F H ET AL
959 SW BARBUR BLVD
1 S134AD-08500 1 S135BD-01300
MEYER, LAURA E MILLER,G V TIER,C G
10544 SW WINDSOR CT SCHA , ROBERT M
TIGARD,OR 97223 BY ILO INN-WASHINGON SQ
600 SW BARNES RD
2S115AD-02300 2S112CA-01900
MILLER,JAY J AND JUDY L MILLER,JERRY A&SUSAN R
PO BOX 23291 7705 SW GENTLEWOODS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S112BB-04000 1S133DB-05200
MILNER,SAL TRUSTEE AND MOGA, MIRCEA&MARIA
WIEK,KI STON AND 11245 SW WINTERLAKE DR
WI , ONALD ET AL TIGARD,OR 97223
20 SW WOODSIDE DR
• •
1 S 125DC-02200 2S 104AD-03801
MONROE,JAMES E MOORE, ELAINE AND GORDON
7005 SW VENTURA DR 13535 SW 121ST AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112AC-00300 1S125DC-02100
MOORE,ROD A ET AL MOORE,STEPHEN E JR&RHONDA L
Go EMPIRE BATTERIES INC 7025 SW VENTURA DR
P 0 BOX 23962 TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S104AB-09300 2S 104AA-11600
MORGAN,BRUNO&ELIADA MORGAN, DANIEL G&MARTHA W
12326 SW 131ST AVE 12435 SW 129TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CC-01400 2S102BA-01200
MORINITI,NICHOLAS N/MARGETTA MORLAN PROPERTIES
8355 SW HEMLOCK ST 5529 SE FOSTER RD
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97206
1 S125DD-03200 1 S134DC-05800
MORLEY,RICHARD A&JOAN L MULLINAX, PATRICIA G
6630 SW VENTURA DR 11840 SW 113TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134AD-05600 1 S 134DC-11000
MURPHY,MICHAEL M MYERS,MARGARET&CLARENCE DEA
10720 SW PONDEROSA PLACE 11881 SW 113TH PL
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135DA-02600 1 S 135AD-04400
NADARAJAH,DEVAYANI NATHAN, ERWIN J
13195 SW PIMLICO TER 8516 SW LUCILLE CT
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 112AC-00400 2S 112AC-00200
NATIONAL SAFETY CO NATIONAL SAFETY CO
BY HARRINGTON IND PLASTICS 17010 SW WEIR RD
14480 YORBA BEAVERTON,OR 97007
CHINO,CA 91710
2S 114BD-04100 2S 112CA-08900
NELSON,KRISTINE M&MICHAEL P NESS,J GREG/TERRY M
16565 SW COPPER CREEK DR 7540 SW ASHFORD ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S134CC-00900 1S134CD-01202
NEWTH,LARRY G AND NEZBEDA, PAUL F&JANICE Y
PATRICIA G 11880 SW 116TH AVE
12180 SW MERESTONE COURT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
2S112BD-01600 1 S134DD-01700
NODLAND,CURTIS D&MARCY JO NOFZIGER, KENNETH RICHARD
15030 SW 79TH 11835 SW TIEDEMANN
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S136DA-00200 1 S135AA-0210
NORTHLAND HOMES INC NORTH HOMES INC
1834 SW 58TH#202 183 58TH#202
PORTLAND,OR 97201 RTLAND,OR 97201
1 S 125CC-01302 2S 102CB-02400
NORTHWEST RETIREMENT NORTHWEST ROASTERS(OREGON)LL
HOUSING INCOME FUND III 899 WEST CYPRESS CREEK RD, STE
8445 SW HEMLOCK ST FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 33309
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S125CD-05000 1 S134CD-07300
O'PHELAN,PATRICK F AND ODELL,BRETT A&KATHLEEN R
ARRUFAT,DEBRA J 11700 SW TIGARD DR
7540 SW ELMWOOD TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S103DC-06400 2S115AD-00600
OGDEN,DANIEL BOYCE&CAROL LY OGLE, PATRICIA M AND
11220 SW FAIRHAVEN MATTHEW
TIGARD,OR 97223 16740 SW 108TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CB-01500 2S 104AD-03700
OLSON DEVELOPMENT CO INC OLSON,KENNETH&ELEANOR F
13141 SW TEUFEL HILL RD 12730 SW WALNUT ST
BEAVERTON,OR 97007 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S104AD-03800 2S102BB-00830
OLSON, NORRIS A OPPEDAL,DOUGLAS W&
13660 SW ASH AVE ALLAN, EILEEN M
TIGARD,OR 97223 10440 SW JOHNSON CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S136DA-00902 1 S127DC-00502
OREGON EDUCATION ASSN OREGON RETIRED PERSONS
6900 SW HAINES PHARMACY, INC
TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 2755
PORTLAND,OR 97208
2S112BD-01800 2S104AC-08600
OREGON,STATE OF DEPT OF VETS ORMBERG, FRANKLIN 0&
Go WOOLEY,RANDALL R C-08421 PALMER-ORMBERG,GRACE H
15080 SW 79TH AVE 12482 SW 131ST AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
25103BB-01600 1 S134DC-03601
OSWALD,JACK D AND OTT,DAL &CAROLEE C TRS
SALLY JOYCE 119 W 116TH
12482 SW BROOK COURT IGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1 S134CD-01201 1S134CB-03500
OTT, DALE M&CAROLEE C TRS OWENS,THOMAS R
11900 SW 116TH BONNIE L
TIGARD,OR 97223 12450 SW SUMMER CREST DR
PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S 102CB-02300 2S 112AC-01100
PACIFIC PROPERTIES PACIFIC REA ASSOCIATES LP
BY MARTIN JOHNSON 15115 EQUOIA PKWY#200-WMI
13200 SW PACIFIC HWY P LAND,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112AC-01000 2S101BC-02501
PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES LP PALMER G LEWIS COMPANY
15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#200-WMI 525 C ST NW
PORTLAND,OR 97224 AUBURN,WA 98001
1S125DD-01200 1S1 -CB-00200
PARMENTER FAMILY TRUST PASCU*-- I STMENT LLC
16939 SW SILER RIDGE LN 10250 S •'TH DAKOTA
BEAVERTON,OR 97007 TIG 'D,OR 9 3
1S134DA-03400 1S135, B-00400
PASCUZZI INVESTMENT LLC PASCU: I,ART R
10250 SW NORTH DAKOTA PASCU • , '•T
TIGARD,OR 97223 10250 S ORHT DAKOTA ST
TIG• D,OR 97223
2S112DB-00700 2S112CA-08700
PASTOR,WILLIAM A PATTON,JAMES B III&JOYCE E
15930 SW 74TH 7556 SW ASHFORD ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S135BC-00900 1S135BD-00800
PAULSON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,T PEARSON, DENNIS L&PHYLLIS G
3040 NE SANDY BLVD 16119 S CLACKAMAS RIVER DR
PORTLAND,OR 97232 OREGON CITY,OR 97045
1 S 135AA-01500 1 S 134DD-01300
PEPPER,MUR R& PERONA,ANA L AND
PEPPER, ES ET AL BOYCE, RONALD J
BY B OF AMERICA OREGON 11737 SW TIEDEMAN
BOX 6400-UNIT#2814 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-08400 1S135BD-00100
PERRIN,KEVIN P PERSIS CORPORATION
SCHENK,DANIEL J PO BOX 3110
7306 SE 28TH AVE HONOLULU,HI 96802
PORTLAND,OR 97202
2S 102CA-00211 1S1 25CC-01303
PESSIA, PERRY JON&PHYLLIS LY PETERSON, SUSAN K
13225 SW ASH DRIVE 8400 SW ELMWOOD
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
• •
1S135AA-02600 2S103DB-01100
PETERSON,THEODORE S AND PHILLIPS,CLINTON J&
DEAN,VIRGINIA J CHAPMAN, RHONDA L
8686 SW OAK 13415 SW 110TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103CC-01400 2S103AD-00809
PICKELL,HELEN C PIERCE,STEPHEN W AND PEGGY C
10475 SW KABLE ST 10970 SW PATHFINDER WAY
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-13100 1S134DD-01600
PILLAR,DENNIS G AND POPE, STEVEN R ALICE E
PATRICIA J 2120 NW 135TH
12240 SW ANN COURT PORTLAND,OR 97229
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S136AD-06300 2S113BA-005
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC PORT GENERAL ELECTRIC C
COMPANY 121 SALMON ST
121 SW SALMON ST RTLAND,OR 97204
PORTLAND,OR 97204
1 S 125CD-01600 1 S 125CC-02303
PORTWOOD,FRANCIS R POULTON, DANE B/JUDITH L
7930 SW ELMWOOD 8095 SW HEMLOCK ST
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S115AD-02400 1 S134CB-03200
PRESCOTT,SCOTT E&KAREN A PRIDE,ELIZA JANE
10556 SW TUALATIN DR 12360 SW SUMMERCREST DR
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 134CB-0 2S 112AC-00800
•
PUBL OR GREENWAY PUGET C f."!RATION OF OREGON
0000 2101 ■,..•-•RED ST WEST
•MA,WA 98466
2S112AC-00600 1 S 125DD-02400
PUGET DIE CASTING CO QUERIN, PHILLIP C&TARI L
2101 MILDRED STREET W 6925 SW VENTURA AVE
TACOMA,WA 98466 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112CA-09100 2S103BB-00800
QUINGE,DARRYL F RAINBOLT,A C AND CAROLYN L
7528 SW ASHFORD ST 12525 SW 124TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102CA-00214 1 S125CB-00900
RANDALL,ALTON 0 VERNA E RAY, EUGENE L AND NORA G
13195 SW ASH DRIVE 9090 SW 82ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S 103B B-08600 1 S 135AD-03700
RECKNOR, RICHARD L AND REDFORD, DELPHIA E
BETSY A HAEFFELE, LOWELL E&JAMES F
12435 SW 122ND 15216 NE 144TH PL •
TIGARD,OR 97223 WOODINVILLE,WA 98072
2S 111 AC-05400 1 S 125CD-04201
REILING,CECIL MARIE REMMICK, DELTON D&MARY M
14880 SW 92ND 7501 SW LANDAU
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 134C B-03300 1 S 134CB-03700
RENNO,RICHARD L PAMELA REYNOLDS,STANLEY T
12390 SW SUMMER CREST DR BONNIE J
TIGARD,OR 97223 12510 SW SUMMER CREST DRIVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S102DB-07500 2S103DB-00700
RICHARD,MARSHA KAY& RICHARDS,ARTHUR G AND
HRYCIW,MICHAEL CYNTHIA
9241 SW HILL ST 13295 SW 110TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134DD-00100 2S102AB-01801
RICHARDS,JAMES E&SHARON S RISBERG, K JOAN TRUSTEE
44 N KENSINGTON ST 4210 IMPERIAL DR
ASTORIA,OR 97103 WEST LINN,OR 97068
2S102DB-00206 2S102DB-00201
RITCHIE,BRUCE E RITCHIE, CE E
PO BOX 19267 PO B 19267
PORTLAND,OR 97219 RTLAND,OR 97219
2S112AC-01300 2S112CD-00900
RIVAS,ERNEST AND ROSE RIVAS, ERNEST ROSE
14905 SW 74TH AVE 16060 SW 76TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134AD-06301 1S1 AD-06202
ROBINSON, TER L TRUST ROBI ON,C ESTER TRUST AND
ROBINS ,WILLIAM R AND ROBINS , ILLIAM R&CONSTANC
CON ANCE A BY FORU ROPERTITES
1 O SW BULL MT RD - 8705 SW NIM S#230
1S134AD-06200 1S134A -06201
ROBINSON,CHESTS ST AND ROBINS N, ESTER TRUST AND
ROBINSON, M R&CONSTANC ROBINSO ILLIAM R&CONSTANC
BY FO PROPERTITES BY FORU OPERTITES
SW NIMBUS#230 8705 S NIM S#230
1S135BC-01100 2S102BA-01100
ROBINSON,E LEE EVELYN L ROGERS,JAMES F AND GRACE M
15375 NW WEST UNION RD 12220 SW GRANT AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97229 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1 S134CD-10500 1 S134DC-06400
ROGERS,JOSEPH J/JENNIFER M ROHRBACH,SHIRLEY A
11730 SW 116TH 11480 SW DAWN COURT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BB-04401 2S102BC-02001
ROSE,JEANIE ROSE,MARTIN D&LEILA L
14252 SW FANNO CREEK LOOP 10540 SW WALNUT ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 125D D-02800 1 S 134AD-07100
ROSS,CAROL ROSS, DAVID E&CHRISTINE C
6845 SW VENTURA DR 10518 SW WINDSOR PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BB-00827 1 S135DB-12600
ROUTT,GARY W ROYAL OA EVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 231093 12096 ASPEN RDIGE DR
TIGARD,OR 97281 RD,OR 97224
2S102CA-00100 2S103DB-04600
ROYAL OAKS DEVELOPMENT CO RUEDA,XAVIER AND SHARON
12096 SW ASPEN RDIGE DR 11135 SW NOVARE CT
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103BB-05300 2S 102CA-00216
RUFF,MICHAEL L AND JOYCE E RUSH, RICHARD L AND LORI B
12150 SW 124TH AVE 13175 SW ASH DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CD-01301 • 2S102DD-03000
RUSSELL,BRIAN G SACHDEVA, NARINDER AND
7795 SW HEMLOCK ST AHUJA,JAGDISH
PORTLAND,OR 97223 8361 SW DEEANN CT
TIGARD,OR 97224
2S112CA-08400 2S102BC-02003
SAKAGUICHI,MAKOTO/JOAN HALL SAKHITAB,HOMA
7574 SW ASHFORD ST 10700 SW FONNER ST
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S134AD-09100 2S112CD-07700
SAMCO,CYNTHIA SANDERS, RODNEY E&KANA M
10793 SW 106TH AVE 15900 SW 76TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103BB-09100 2S111DA-00100
SATHER,ARTHUR C JR&ELLEN D SATTLER,EDWARD J SR AND
12265 SW WALNUT ST LILLIAN E TRUSTEES
TIGARD,OR 97223 15245 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97224
• •
2S102DB-07400 1 S134AD-05200
SAUERBREY,ULRICH J&SUSAN S SAUNDERS, F H AND CONNIE L
9223 SW HILL ST 10805 SW 108TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134DD-00102 2S102DA-00800
SCHAEFER,DONALD M&MILYNN 0 SCHALTZ, RANDY A&MARGARET C
PO BOX 23697 13335 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S101DD-00800 2S111DA-00400
SCHIMMEL,IRWIN SCHMIDT, HENRY L
14020 SW 72ND AVE 15435 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103BB-05100 1S133DB-04300
SCHOBER,JON F AND GRACE M SCHOLLS FER AD LLC
12110 SW 124TH ST BY BOWE NANCIAL SERVICES CO
TIGARD,OR 97223 111 S IFTH AVE
N:WALTER C BOWEN
1S134CC-01700 1S134DD-01 I I0
SCHOOL DI T#23 JT S OOL D TRICT#23-J
13137 PACIFIC HWY WAS i ON AND CLACKAMAS
ARDOR 97223 COUNT ' OREGON
13137 W PA■- IC HWY
1 S 134 DD-00900 2S 103AA-001
SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J SCHOOL STRICT NO 23 J
13137 SW PACIFIC HWY 1313 W PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD,OR 97223 T ARD,OR 97223
2S 103AB-00100 34DC-0300f.
SCHOOL DI ICT NO 23J SCH•: DI RICT NO.23J
13137 PACIFIC HWY WASHING •• COUNTY
TI ARD,OR 97223 13137 PACIFI .WY
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112DC-01500 2S112CA-01700
SCHREINER,ELMER ELLEN SCHROEDER, HANS HEINRICH
15715 SW 74TH AVE 7725 SW GENTLE WOODS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103AD-00811 2S103 -072
SCHULZ,DAVID SCHU D ID AND LINDA M
LINDA M Go GAU , EDWIN B AND
19105 NE HWY 240 LEACH
NEWBERG,OR 97132 1463 SW 13 D AVENUE
25103 p.-08490 2S115AB-00500
SCHULZ, !� ID AND LINDA M SCOTT,ALEX G
Go GAU DWIN B AND 16380 SW 113TH AVE
LEACH" •\ TIGARD,OR 97223
14635 133-■ •VENUE
• • .
2S102BA-00800 1S125DC-00300
SEE-ZER PROPERTIES SENN, ERNEST E ELDA H
26785 SW NEILL RD 9750 SW 74TH AVE
NEWBERG,OR 97132 PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S115C0-01300 2S102CB-02000
SENTINEL VENTURES II CO SETNIKER,JOHN W
666 5TH AVE 27TH FL BARBARA A
NEY YORK,NY 10103 11830 SW GAARDE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S134CC-01200 2S112BD-02400
SHANTZ,GREGORY PAUL SHAYLOR, MARCUS L&VICTORIA L
12150 SW MERESTONE 14925 SW 79TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103BB-03300 •103BB-• 301
SHEMOR DEVELOPMENT CO S •MO DEVELOPMENT CO
BY MR SHEEDY BY - •HEEDY
12500 SW KAREN ST 12501 • KAREN ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIG -D,•- 97223
1S133CA-01000 1S125DD-03700
SHRADER,DALE G TRUSTEE SHREVE,THOMAS A&MARY B
310 3RD AVE NE 9875 SW VENTURA COURT
ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103AD-02400 2S104AA-09400
SIBELIAN, KENNETH E AND SIMA,JULIUS D&LIGIA 0
CECILIA Z 12845 SW KATHERINE ST
10850 SW PATHFINDER WAY TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BB-14500 2S112CA-09200
SINHA,MANISH AND SJOQUIST,W C AND HELENE M
PRASAD,RITU 7522 SW ASHFORD
8302 SW CHAR CT TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97224
2S112AC-01600 2S10100-00700
SKOURTES,JOHN&JACKIE SMITH GERIG WESTERN PROPERTIES
17010 SW WEIR RD 25440 SW NEWLAND RD
BEAVERTON,OR 97007 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070
2S 102BB-00900 2S11 1 AD-15300
SMITH,CHARLES R&DEBRA D SMITH, ELIZABETH L
10065 SW JOHNSON ST 9047 SW REILING ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S 103AB-00406 2S 103 DB-04800
SMITH,GARY C&ANNE H SMITH,GARY G AND
11275 SW WALNUT ST KATHLEEN H
TIGARD,OR 97223 11155 SW NOVARE PL
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
2S 103CC-01200 2S 103CC-01500
SMITH,GENE F MARY E SMITH,HOPE Y
12015 SW ROSE VISTA DR 12005 SW ROSE VISTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BB-14400 2S102BA-00501
SNELLING,ROBERT A SNYDER, DAROLD D SUE A
8288 A&B SW CHAR CT 9742 SW TIGARD ST
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112BA-00400 2S102DD-00400
SNYDER,VERLEAH ARLENE SOLARES HOMES L L C
7775 SW BONITA RD 13556 TWIN CREEKS LANE
TIGARD,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035
2S102DD-01100 2S102AC-01100
SOLIS,EDGAR SORG,OTTO
PO BOX 5537 BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK
ALOHA,OR 97007 TRUST REAL ESTATE T-12
PO BOX 2971
2S 102AC-00202 2S 103BB-07800
SOUTHWEST PORTLAND SPARWASSER, RICHARD C
PARTNERSHIP KAREN M
2121 N COLUMBIA BLVD 12410 SW 124TH
PORTLAND,OR 97217 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S104AA-11700 2S102BC-05400
SPEIGHT,HARRY M JR&ANISSA SPELLMAN,JAMES H/MICHELLE
12445 SW 129TH AVE 12555 SW PATHFINDER CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S101BB-01400 2S112AA-00900
SPIEKER PROPERTIES LP SPIEKER P ERTIES LP
PO BOX 5909 PO B 5909
PORTLAND,OR 97228 TLAND,OR 97228
2S112AA-00400 1S125CC-01900
SPIEKER P ERTIES LP STAPLETON,GARY D AND ALEXIS
PO B 909 10900 SW 76TH PL#1
TLAND,OR 97228 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135AC-04800 2S115AB-00800
STATE OF ORE -FILE 32679 STEEL,LEON N
DEPARTM OF TRANS 16440 SW 113TH AVE
Go D ,GENE L AND VIVIAN TIGARD,OR 97224
TRANSPORTATION BLDG
2S102DB-05000 1 S125DD-02300
STEINER,JOSEPH R&JEANETTE B STELLAR,SHERYL A&ROBERT DAL
13322 SW CHELSEA LP 6565 SW VENTURA DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1S125DD-02900 2S115AB-01200
STEVENS,GREGG R/ANGELA E STEVENS,LARRY D/JULIE F
6825 SW VENTURA DR 16425 SW 113TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S102AC-00200 2S112BA-00200
STEVENS, PAGE N STEWART, D A&SUSAN A
9180 SW BURNHAM ROAD 24001 UTTEVILLE RD
TIGARD,OR 97223 A ORA,OR 97002
2S112BA-00300 1S134AC-03700
STEWART,DAVID A&SUSAN A STEWART,JAMES G
24001 NE BUTTEVILLE RD 10719 SW MARY PLACE
AURORA,OR 97002 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AC-04100 1S136DB-02600
STEWART,JOHN W STEWART, PHYLLIS T AND
PHYLLIS T STEWART TRUST
8980 SW OAK 621 SW ENGLEWOOD DR
PORTLAND,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034
1S125DD-03900 2S114BC-02800
STOIANTSCHEWSKY,SPASS 0& STORINO,TONY&DIONNIE
PALM-STOIANTSCHEWSKY, KATHLEEN 16640 SW RIVERWOOD PL
9855 SW VENTURA CT TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103DC-06200 2S103DB-05100
STREALY,GARY C/ALDEEN N STREICHER,MICHAEL R&PEGGY A
11200 SW FAIRHAVEN 11175 SW NOVARE PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 134AC-03500 1S13400-00101
STRONG,RICHARD C&LORI M STUCH,THOMAS F&SHELL'L
10764 SW MARY PL 10525 SW TIGARD ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S1 'DD-00 %8 2S1 ADD-140s
SUMM=;'IELD SUM - RF ' LD CIVIC
OW '-' OF ALL LOTS ASSOC.-TION
, 97223 1065► SW UMMERFIELD DR
TI e'RD,OR 97224
2S110 -0 00 2S CA-0131e
SUMME IELD NO 6 SUM� ./-NO 7
OWN S 0 LL LOTS OWNE'- ', L LOTS
7223 , /23
2S102CB-03100 2S 103AA-00100
SUSNJARA, MARKO A SWAN, DONALD J&ELIZABETH E
825 NE MULTNOMAH#1001 12060 SW TIEDEMAN
PORTLAND,OR 97232 TIGARD,OR 97223
. •
1 S125CD-01800 2S103DC-06100
TALBOT,CLIFFORD E JR&BARBAR TALLEY,JAMES E AND
7855 SW HEMLOCK DR CHRISTINE L
PORTLAND,OR 97223 11205 SW FAIRHAVEN STREET
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-00307 1S134CD-04100
TAMARYN ASSOCIATES TAN,SUOR/SUNDARA
520 BROADWAY STE 260 11740 SW 121ST AVE
SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BC-05500 2S113BA-00700
TAYLOR,CHARLES E/BILLIE J TAYLOR, ELI ETH B
12575 SW PATHFINDER CT TAYLOR THERINE J
TIGARD,OR 97223 CO- STEES
1 65 SW UPPER BOONES FR RD
1S134CC-02800 2S114D0-001
TERRY,SUSAN BETH THOMAS HN M
11965 SW 122ND CT SALLY
TIGARD,OR 97223 16 SW 85TH AVE
GARD,OR 97223
2S114AD-00100 1 S134CD-07500
THOMAS,JOHN M THOMPSON,GEORGE L
SALLY P ARLENE E
16575 SW 85TH AVE 11630 SW TIGARD DRIVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S111AD-05600 2S102DA-00701
THOMPSON,WM R MILA A TIGARD CHRISTIAN CHURCH
8730 SW PINEBROOK ST 13405 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102CA-00190 2S 102BD-016 1,1
TIGARD COMMUNITY METHODIST TIGARD . MUNITY METHODIST
CHURCH CHU
9845 SW WALNUT 98': SW WALNUT
TIGARD,OR 97223 GARD,OR 97223
•
2S102CB-02301 1S13 BD-0020
TIGARD MEDICAL CENTER TIGA OF
13200 SW PACIFIC HWY 1312 HALL
TIGARD,OR 97223 P BOX 3397
TIGARD,O 97223
1S13'DB-0010 2S102BA-0150
TIGARo,CI ' OF TI c'RD ' OF
13125 S HALL 1312 W HALL
PO Br, 2 397 Pot BO 23397
TI 'RD,O' 97223 a IGARD, - 97223
2S1 AB-04200 1S1 C-0500
TIGA ,CI OF TIGARD,C OF
13125 ALL 13125 ALL
PO BO 397 PO X 23 7
TIG D,O 97223 T ARD,OR 97223
. •
2•112CA- 900 2S1 4BC-05 11
TI C R.,CITY OF TIGA•D ITY OF
131 : SW HALL 131 W HALL
Pe BO 23397 P. BOX•3397
IGARD,S- 97223 TIGARD,O 97223
2S1 BC-0 400 2S •2CA-00 %I
TIGA ITY OF TIGA' I TY OF
1312 HALL 1312 ,■ HALL
PO OX 23397 P. BOX 2'397
GARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
25112••-13'00 2S11•:D-014,:
TIGARD, ' TY OF TIGAR k OF
13125 ' LL 13125 :' HALL
PO 'SX 23397 PO -OX 397
ARD,OR 97 23 GARD,OR 97223
2S 5AA-.:800 2S1 AD-0710
TIGA'II CITY OF TIGAR C OF
1312 HALL 13125 HALL
PO :OX 2 97 PO X 2 97
GARD,OR 97223 ARD,OR 97223
25112BB-12900 1S136D■-00500
TITAN PROPERTIES CORP TOM MO R T- •TRES
PO BOX 6835 DBA TIGA--4 CINEMAS#113
ALOHA,OR 97007 703B-•AD •Y STE 605
V• OUVER, 'A 98660
2S112BB-11300 2S102DA-00900
TOMPULIS,ROBERT W TOWER,LANE B
14256 SW FANNO CREEK LP 13337 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S134CD-10600 1S125DC-01800
TOWERY, LAURIE L TOWNE, KYLE G AND CARALEE
11725 SW 116TH AVE 7085 SW VENTURA DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S115A0-02200 1S135AD-01702
TOYAMA, KUMIKO&TAKAYUKI TOZER,DAVID A II LINDA S
#301 MISHUKU CITY HOUSE 8770 SW THORN ST
MISHUKU 2-27-8 TIGARD,OR 97223
SETAGAYA,TO 154 JAPAN
1S136DB-02603 2S104AD-04500
TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRIGG,VERNON L
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF ORE BERNICE B
4012 SE 17TH AVE 12585 SW WALNUT
PORTLAND,OR 97202 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S114D0-00200 1 127DC-00401
TUALATIN COUNTRY CLUB TU •TIN " LS PARK AND
PO BOX 277 REC • ION DISTRICT
TUALATIN,OR 97062 157s S• WALKER RD
•VERT•• •R 97005
• •
151270100212 1S1 9:-0110,/
TUALATI I PARK AND TUALATI LS PARK AND
RECREATI• DISTRICT RECRE• ON • RICT
15707 S f WA ER RD 1570 W WALKER - •D
BEAV"TON,OR 97005 VERTON,OR 97006
2S103AD-02500 2S101BC-00101
TWINE,JEFFREY T U S NATURAL RESOURCES INC
10820 SW PATHFINDER WAY P 0 BOX 23038
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 136DA-00900 2 e 1 BC-0020 I.
U-HAUL REAL ESTATE CO U.S. T 'i L RESOURCES, INC
ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO :e' '038
PO BOX 29046 ':'TLAND,•c 97223
PHOENIX,AZ 85038
2S113BA-00600 2S114BC-03900
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY URBAN,WILLIAM J&LESLIE
150 N FIRST 10390 SW BONANZA WAY
HILLSBORO,OR 97123 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S1 34DD-01500 2S 103DC-00600
VAN DOORNINCK,WOLTER H VAN KLEEK,JAMES A
6555 SW DALE AVE LANORE J
BEAVERTON,OR 97005 13745 SW 110TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S1 01 BD-00100 2S 115AD-00
VANGORDON,DORIS VOGEL, NNIE
GERLACH,ETHEL E 167 SW 108TH AVE
HUNZIKER, EDWARD R ARD,OR 97224
14430 SW 94TH CT
2S115AD-00700 2S114BD-03400
VOGEL,CONNIE VOSSLER, MARK R&SUSAN U
16760 SW 108TH AVE 9500 SW RIVERWOOD LN
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S 103AD-02300 2S 103DC-00200
WALHOOD,TERRY A WALKER, BETSY NANCY
10880 SW PATHFINDER WAY c/a WALKER,VERNON E/CAROLYNN
TIGARD,OR 97223 13585 SW 110TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S136CD-02000 1 S136CD-043
WAREMART INC WAREM INC
PO BOX 5756 PO 5756
BOISE,ID 83705-0756 ISE,ID 83705-0756
1S125CC-02302 1 5CC-02600
WASHINGTON COUNTY WA INGTON • NTY
ATTN: PROPERTY MGMT BY ME - PARK
150 N 1ST,ROOM B-7 ATTN: . ETTE CARTER
HILLSBORO,OR 97124 84'• SW HE LOCK
•
1S1 'IA-07400 2S113;A-00101
WASHINt 0 OUNTY WASHI TO, OUNTY
FACILITIES MT-ADMIN 155 N 1S■■•VE#350-15
150 N Fl'•T AV-, -M B-7 HILL :•R• OR 97124
HILLS:•RO,OR 9 4
112AB-01801 1' 25DD-1010s
WA' INGT• COUNTY WA IN •N SQUARE ESTATES
FACILI : MGMT-ADMIN LOT c NERS
150 N F S VE,RM B-7 00001
HILL`:ORO,OR :.7124
1S13':C-01200 1S136DA-02400
WASHI TON :•UARE INC WAY W LEE GENERAL CONTRACTOR I
700 FIFT • E STE 2600 5210 SE 26TH ST
SEA , • 98104 PORTLAND,OR 97202
2S102BB-00828 2S112BA-00500
WEAVER,PAULINE T TRUSTEE WEAVER, P NE T TRUSTEE
7865 SW BONITA RD 7865 ONITA RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 ARD,OR 97224
1 S 134 DC-03605 1 S 134CC-02400
WEBSTER,CALVERT H& WEIGART,L BRIAN
PEGGY S 11080 SW ALLEN BLVD STE 100
11895 SW 113TH PL BEAVERTON,OR 97005
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BC-05200 2S103BC-07500
WEIHER,LARRY D&JACQUELYN WEISS, KURT J AND JULIE A
12515 SW PATHFINDER CT 12280 SW LANSDOWNE LN
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S125CC-01000 2S104AA-00102
WESCOTT,RICHARD&JOAN L WE -•NDS C• • ERVANCY, INC,THE
•
Go FREEMAN, LEONARD J&MARIL PO BO •5
8322 SW CHESTNUT ST TU s d•TIN,•- 97062
PORTLAND,OR 97223
2S1 •AB-1251: BC-00
WETLA CONSERVANCY, INC,THE WET • '•. CONSERVANCY, INC,TH
PO :i 11•' P• :OX1195
�ALATIN,OR • .62 TUALATIN,OR 9 1.2
2S112BB-01700 2S103BB-07300
WHITEHEAD,JANICE E WHITWORTH,PERRY R AND BONNIE
8275 SW COLONY CREEK TRUSTEES
TIGARD,OR 97224 12532 SW 123RD
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BA-02000 2S102BA-02103
WICKS, RONALD GAYLE WICKS,RONALD GAYLE&
12345 SW GRANT AVE GATION, KAY E TRUSTEES
TIGARD,OR 97223 9965 SW JOHNSON STREET '
TIGARD,OR 97223
• •
1 S 125DD-00800 1 S 134CC-01100 •
WIENEKE,CARL WILLIAM AND WIESMAN,CHARLES R&BERYL JEA
•
MARILYNN 12160 SW MERESTONE CT
6755 SW VENTURA PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S112AA-01000 2S102DB-03300
WILLIAMS CONTROLS INDUSTRIES, WILLIAMS,DOROTHY ANN
ATTN: DALE J NELSON 13336 SW CHELSEA LOOP
14100 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97224
1S125DD-04000 2S112CD-00100
WILLIAMS,JAMES B AND WILLIAMSON,JOHN D&M MILLICE
PATRICIA D 1505 SE 127TH AVE •
9845 SW VENTURA COURT VANCOUVER,WA 98684 .
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S102BA-00302 2S102BA-00300
WILSHIRE PROPERTIES-2 INC WILSHIRE P ERTIES-2 INC
1776 SW MADISON ST STE 300 1776 ADISON ST STE 300
PORTLAND,OR 97205 TLAND,OR 97205
S102BA-00304 2S114BC-03800
W IRE P •PERTIES-2 INC WILSON,DONALD F III &GRACIEL
•
1776 S ADISON ST STE 300 10372 SW BONANZA WAY
PO: LAND,►: 97205 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S103BA-00126 1 S135AC-04200
WILSON,EUGENE A WILSON,JOHN H
JOSEPHINE R 8960 SW OAK ST
12000 SW 116TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S1028B-00829 2S115AB-00600
WINICK,HOLLY J WOJAHN, ELMER&ROSE
10470 SW JOHNSON CT 16410 SW 113TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1S134CB-03100 1S125CD-07000
WOLD,VALDA WOLSKI,PATRICK R&JULIANNE
12330 SW SUMMERCREST DR 9706 SW LANDAU PL
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S103AD-02200 2S 102BA-02300
WOODRUFF,MICHELE 0 WRIGHT LOVING TRUST
10900 SW PATHFINDER WAY BY KEITH W WRIGHT TRUSTEE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 230115
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AA-03600 2S103BB-07500
WRIGHT,JOHN RICHARD/TRACY ILE WYLDER, DUANE C AND
10575 SW HALL PHYLLIS M
TIGARD,OR 97223 12512 SW 123RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
•
1S134CC-02300 2S114BB-07600
YEATTS, IRVINE H AND YEE, DORIAN D
MARGARET A ERICKSON,KRISTI S
12311 SW KATHY STREET 16267 SW 104TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224
1 S134AD-07200 1 S125CD-01300
YI,HAK KYUN AND KYE JA YOUNG,CARO N&DUDLEY E II
10545 SW WINDSOR PL do ADAM CORD HOPKINS TRUST
TIGARD,OR 97223 ROB SAMUEL HOPKINS TRUST ET
0 1ST INTERSTATE TWR
2S102DC-02500 2S102DD-00300
YOUNG,NANCY L ZANDER,DENELL D
8985 SW MCDONALD CAROL M
TIGARD,OR 97224 13700 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S 103AD-01100
ZHAO,SI YU
&ZHANG,CONG
12750 SW 107TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
• i
Coe Manufacturing
7930 SW Hunzinker Rd
Tigard,OR 97223
Hambach,et al
7735 SW Durham Rd
Tigard,OR 97224
Malo
11720 SW Lynn
Tigard,OR 97223
Robinson
1200 SW Bull Mt Rd
Tigard,OR 97223
Robinson
by Forum Properties
8705 SW Nimbus#230
Tigard,OR 97223
Leach,Ray
14635 SW 133rd Ave. -
Tigard 97223
i/lrpn/dr/wet.lis
1
•
P 335 805 144
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail(See reverse)
CZ
Sent to OF LAND CONS/DEV
zStreet&Number
yr 1175 COURT ST NE
< Post Office,State,&ZIP Code
SALEM, 0' 97110—05q0
41 Postage $ oS •! 10
CZ Certified Fee k O
h Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
V
rn Return Rec:,: 7` 11
Whom&r• ve■-d
o, Return aLc-ow•,*•`,, gym,'
< Date,& ee's A„ : 2
d
o TOTAL-G.re&Fe �g1 FA, , (,),
C') Postmark.',• `O I
Cl)
•
c'' SENDER:
•Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
•Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an
•Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee):
card to you.L2-° I
•Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
E1 Z
permit.
• i • •Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery N I
•The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. .2 i
v 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number d
•
d P 335 805 144
CC
E .
E DEPT. OF LAND CONS. & DEV. 4b.Service Type
c 1175 COURT ST. NE ❑ Registered )Q$ Certified
m SALEM, OR 97310-0590 0 F�cpressMail ❑ Insured c
Si
❑ Return Reiiot for Merchandise ❑ COD ` ,
7.Date of D'elfvrp
of
5 f-- =
„�=-ived By:(Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested
and fee is paid) W
1 ¢ FL-
c 6. rgrta$ue: (Addr A t)
>. X p��Jal
co
PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
•
, • •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon, and
X That I mailed a NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR:
X City of Tigard Planning Director
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard Hearings Officer
Tigard City Council
A copy of the PROPOSED AMENDMENT, 2 Oi Qj 7-UUD I , a copy of which is attached, was
mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, on they`' day of 61/94` ,
1997, postage prepaid.
AO a
Pre•:red Notice Z
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the Stray day of , 19v
f••r.,. OFFICIAL SEAL I JA 'i
$j'J1 D My Commissio - pires: q 7 1
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999
'y NOTICISF PROPOSED AMI41hDMENT
This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing
ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18
See reverse side for submittal requirements
Jurisdiction City of Tigard
Date of Final Hearing June 10, 1997 Local File # ZOA 97-0001
Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD?___Yes xNo 4/25/97 Date
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment
x New Land Use Regulation
Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached."
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to
protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors. which meets the requirements of
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative
rule. This new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District".
Plan Map Change From NA to
Zone Map Change From NA to
Location: city wide Acres Involved: 6.896
Specified change in Density: Current Density NA Proposed Density NA
Applicable Goals: 1, 2, and 5 Is an Exception proposed?__ Yes x No
Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: DSL. Metro. USA
Local Contact: Duane Roberts Phone: 639-4171
Address: City of Tigard. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. Oregon 97008
DLCD File# - Date Rec'd _ #Days Notice _
.r
OUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT
ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18
1. Send this Form and Three(3) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to:
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 Court Street,N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310-0590
2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2),proposed amendments must be received at the Salem
DLCD office at least 45 days before thefinal hearing on the proposal.
3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other
information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text"
means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use
regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate.
4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing
existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch
paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate.
5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed
language of the exception.
If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373-
0050.
•
• •
18.85.00 SECOND DRAFT b.
WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.35.010 Purpose 1
13.85.020 Definitions 2
13.35.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3
Table 18.35(1)Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4
13.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 4
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5
Table 18.35.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6
18.85.060 Application Requirements 7
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9
18.85.080 Development Standards 9
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions 13
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14
18.85.110 Density Transfer 14
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15
13.85.130 Plan Amendment Option 15
18.85.010 Purpose
A. General. The Water Resources (WR) overlay district implements the
policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts
between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian
corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this
chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and
objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development
in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood
storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion;
maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational
and educational values of water resource areas.
B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of
Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of
the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 1
•
•
•
18.85.020 Definitions •
The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference.
A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated
wetlands, and the "riparian setback" area.
i
B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to _
major stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, or the edge of an associated wetland,
whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor V
boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d).
1. The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have
no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required
by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA).
D. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are
devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant -
species, such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions
of the riparian setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not
disturbed.
E. V "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse
impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result
from alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay
district. A mitigation plan must be prepared by experts in fish and wildlife biology,
native plants, and hydrological engineering, and usually re-planting with native plant
species.
F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon . .
Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet •
per second (cfs). .
1. Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north
fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek.
2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has
an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. V
G. "Minor streams" are c t "fish-bearing streams" according to Oregon
Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek,
Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short
tributaries of the Tualatin River.
H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is
incorporated by reference into this chapter.
•
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 2
1. "Top-of-bank" has the same meaning as "bankfull stage" as defined in OAR
141-85-010(2). It is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural
banks of streams and begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical
evidence, the two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to
approximate the bankfull stage.
J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant"
water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River
corridor, all major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This
generalized, composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory
(LWI) prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by
reference. All water resources identified on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian
Corridors Map meet the Division or State Lands (DSL) definition of a "Locally
Significant Wetland."
K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or • •
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for ()•, i .; :►�
life in saturated soil conditions. ,, . ;
1. 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.
2. 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-bank.
3. An "Isolated Wetland' is a significant wetland, all of which is located
outside of the riparian setback.
4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division ' y -
of State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which,
therefore, does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian-
Corridors Map. Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this
chapter, but do require DSL notification under ORS 227.350.
•
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping
A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all
significant water resources, and applicable riparian setback and water quality buffer
areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The
standards and procedures of this chapter: _
1. apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially
within, the WR overlay district;
2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and
3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 3
•
B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops-
of-bank, wetland edges, riparian setbacks and water quality setbacks for the
following significant water resources:
1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor;
2. Major stream riparian corridors;
3. Minor streams; and
4. Isolated wetlands.
C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant
shall be responsible for surveying and mapping the precise location of the top-of-
bank, wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of
application submittal. Table 18.85(1) summaries standard riparian setbacks and
water quality buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR
overlay zone.
Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers
WR STANDARD USA STANDARD
RIPARIAN WATER QUALITY
SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCE TYPE SETBACK' BUFFER2
Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet
Major streams & associated wetlands':`` ' -- •50 feet °:.> 25 feet :'<
Developed subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet
(major streams & associated wetlands)
Minor streams'& adjacent/isolated.wetlands Not applicable 25 feet •
Measured in feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge, whichever is greater.
2 Measured in feet from the minor stream top-of-bank or the wetland edge, whichever is greater.
D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions
and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any
wetland are subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) standards and approval.
The applicant shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any
significant wetland is proposed for development, in accordance with ORS 227.350.
No application for development will be accepted as complete until documentation of
such notification is provided.
E. United Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities
proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards and
approval.
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential
Subdivision Lots
Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards
have been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 4
• •
A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision
lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs.
B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream
Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots,
because:
1. Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and
maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes
of this chapter; and
2. Equal or better protection of the identified major stream resource is
ensured by retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on USA's
maximum water quality buffer.
C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed
subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such
- structures are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated
wetland edge.
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses
A. DSL Approval Required. Development proposed within water resource shall
also be approved by DSL.
B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of
any water resource shall also be approved by the City of Tigard Engineering
Division, which administers USA standards. -
C. City of Tigard Exemption. When performed under the direction of the City
of Tigard Engineering Division, 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 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.
•
D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes
permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR district. A "Yes" indicates
that the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed
conditions in the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary
criteria under Type III standards. A "No" indicates that the use is not permitted. A
use that is not permitted may not be approved through the variance provisions of
this chapter.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
IVPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 5
• •
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List
Regulated Activity & Procedure Type Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
1. Type I Permitted Uses with Mitigation
a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes No
Riparian Setback boundaries
b) . Low impact, passive recreation facilities -
and trails including, but not limited to, Yes No No
viewing shelters, picnic tables, nature
trails and interpretive signs
c) Irrigation pumps Yes Yes No
•
d) Replacement of existing structures with
new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No
additional riparian surface area
e) Removal of non-native vegetation and
replacement with native plant species, • Yes Yes Yes
- no closer than 10' from the top-of-bank
or edge of wetland ' _
f) Removal of vegetation necessary for
hazard prevention (dangerous trees) Yes Yes No
g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No
lawns _
h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes files No
less than 10' in width /w
i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes- No
facilities .
2:.Type II Permitted Uses::with Mitigation Riparian::::: ;:; Minor.Streams .1 M itigation Plan
where no reasonable alternative exists Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Dimensional standard adjustments to Yes Yes Yes
reduce impacts on water resources -
b) Reduction in Riparian Setback boundary Yes • A-I Yes
c) Public facilities that appear on the City's Yes Yes Yes
Public Facilities Plan
d) Local streets and driveways serving
residences and public facilities Yes Yes Yes
e) Drainage facilities Yes No Yes
f) Utility crossings Yes • Yes Yes
g) Underground utilities Yes Yes
h) In-stream and streambank enhancement,
including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes
replacement within 10 feet of the top-of-
bank or edge of wetland -
i) Bridges and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes
3. Type III.- Conditional Uses ... Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
Setback Area Isolated Wetlands • Required?
a) Hardship Variances, su • o variance Yes Yes Yes
provisions of Chapte 18.120 /34
b) Water-related and watei7dependent uses Yes No Yes
not listed above, subject to conditional
use provisions of Chapter 18.130
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 6
-• S
4. Prohibited Uses - unless specifically Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
authorized above Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Removal of native plant species No No Not applicable
b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable
surfaces
c) Grading and placement of fill No No Not applicable
d) Application of herbicides No No Not applicable _
e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or No No Not applicable
other unauthorized materials
f) Creation of a parcel that would be Not applicable
wholly within the WR district or resulting No No
in an unbuildable parcel, as determined
by the director.
98.85.060 Application Requirements
All development applications on lots within, or partially with, the WR overlay district
shall submit the following information, in addition to other information requirements
required by this code.
A. Type I Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the
use will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, and native vegetation
removal, and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional
information where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate
identified impacts from a proposed development, including but not limited to:
1. a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.050.B;
2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.050.C.
B. Type II and Ill Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or
activity is proposed within 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:
1.- 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. -
2. Isolated wetlands.
3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback.
4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer.
5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater.
6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities.
7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory.
8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals.
C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The
required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.B, shall serve as the basis
for refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
IVPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 7
• •
1. The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure.
2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely
outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no
further WR overlay zone requirements apply.
3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback-areas are
limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the
development standards of this chapter. _
D. Type II and Ill Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the
following studies shall be required whenever any Type II or III use is proposed within
the WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local
Wetlands Inventory (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to
the submission of information required for specific types of development, and shall be
prepared by professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt
permit applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as
to why the study is unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter. This
determination must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required
pre-application conference and prior to application submittal.
1. Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the
hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the
proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report
shall also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for
development, and erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a
hazard to life and property, or adversely affect the use or stability of a public
facility or utility. Finally, this report shall include information on the nature,
distribution and strength of existing soils, the adequacy of the site for
development purposes, and an assessment of grading procedures required to
impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon.
2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical
structure or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of
property), drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures
and existing structures which may be affected by the proposed grading
operations, water quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all
cut and fill slopes and proposed drainage channels. Project designs including
but not limited to locations of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form
part of the submission. The grading plan shall also include a construction
phased erosion control plan consistent with the provisions of this code and a
schedule of operations and shall be prepared by a professional engineer
registered in Oregon.
3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative
cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the
proposed development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed areas
(i.e., areas devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or
invasive species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the
riparian setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 8
• •
native plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer,
botanist or arborist with specific knowledge of native plant species, planting
and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability to enhance fish and
wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation.
4. Strearnbank Conditions Report. This report is only necessary if a reduction in
the riparian setback area is proposed. The streambank conditions report shall
consist of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of
vegetative cover, the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and •
the extent to which mitigation measures would be successful in restoring the
stream to its pre-disturbance condition. Measures for improving fish and
wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated, as well as
methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The
streambank conditions report shall include recommendations to assure
compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared
by a wildlife biologist in concert with a hydrological engineer registered in
Oregon. The report shall specify long-term maintenance measures necessary to
carry out the proposed mitigation plan.
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions
A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application based on the provisions of this chapter. The
Approval Authority may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and -
provisions of this chapter.
•
B. Conditions. The required reports shall includ -dss'an standards and
recommendations necessary for the engineer and landscape eXpert-t4 expert-t4 certify that the
standards of this section can be met with appropriate mitigation measures. These
measures, along with staff recommendations, shall be incorporated as conditions into
the final decision approving the proposed development. -
C. Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with
mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section
shall be as stated in Chapter 18.24.
18.85.080 Development Standards
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 18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each
of these standards:in writing.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 9
•
• •
A. Alternatives Considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most
Type II and Ill uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian
setback areas. Therefore, Type II and Ill 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.
B. 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.
1. For Type 11 and Ill uses, the water quality engineer must certify that water
quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the
development proposal.
2. 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 practicable.
C. Construction Materials and Methods. No construction materials or methods
may be used within the riparian setback area that would unnecessarily damage water
quality or native vegetation. -
c
D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground residential structures shall not be
permitted within the WR overlay district, where such land is also within the 100-year i�� `. ,
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 to minimize flood damage, consistent with Chapter 18.84.
E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and
vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent 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.
F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. 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 shall not be left in place
permanently.
2. Work areas on the immediate site shall 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.
4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to
fall or be placed outside the work area.
5. 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.
6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on
a permanent basis.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 10
. .
• •
G. 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 18.85.090, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented.
1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily
disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis.
2. 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 with 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.
3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of •
native plant species designed 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. -
H. 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.
I. On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited
within the WR overlay district;
J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource
site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within
the WR overlay district:
1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during
construction to 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
construction 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 covered 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 unworked 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.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 11
• •
6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exits 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 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 drainageways.
9. Any other relevant provision of the Washington County Erosion Control
Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, 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 or 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 into 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.
L. Type III Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of
Chapter 18.130, Conditional Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below
and 18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type Ill use listed
below may be approved. The applicant for conditional use approval shall:
1. Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the
resource area; and
2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan to show that any loss of riparian values
will be fully compensated through the enhancement program. -
•
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-0224197 4:38 PM-Page 12
• • •
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions
The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major
stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of
structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that
equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through
streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved
portions of the riparian setback area. -
A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a riparian
setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was
substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination
must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.0 that
demonstrates all of the following:
1. Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor area;
2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-
site riparian setback area for the last five years;
3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section
18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species;
4. The riparian area is not entirely within the 100-year floodplain; and
5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent.
C. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the
standards of 18.85.080.B are met, as much as 50 percent of riparian area may be
developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and
subject to the following standards: -
1. The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shall not
be less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian
setback shall not be less than 25 feet.
2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a
33 percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved,
provided that the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining
riparian setback area on a 1:5 basis. The vegetation report identifies
disturbed areas (non-vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with
non-native or invasive plant species such as English ivy or Himalayan
blackberry) and areas dominated by native plant species. Thus, for every
100 square feet of riparian setback area that is developed, at least 150
square feet of the disturbed portion of the remaining riparian setback area
must be re-planted with native plant species. In this manner, up to a one--
third riparian setback reduction may be approved.
3. As much as a 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may be
approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared by
a biologist and a hydrological engineer. The plan must certify that the
streambank mitigation measures will substantially improve fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02R4/97 4:38 PM-Page 13
•
• •
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards
In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to
dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the
Planning Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district.
A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50 percent
adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the
underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the
WR overlay district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse
impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the
potential for slope or flood hazards.
B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be
requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent
to the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional
adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the following criteria are fully satisfied:
1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at
the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback
area or water quality buffer.
2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover,
minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable
land.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,
• including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence
close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native .
landscaping materials, minimizing parking area and garage space. _ ..
4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence
(including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory ;L t-
structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of water
resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer area.
5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach
further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district.
The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate
identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land.
18.85.110 Density Transfer
Density may be transferred from water resource and riparian setback areas as .//.
provided in Section 18.92. 020-030. �- 'G J
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
ryPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 14
• •
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards
Variances to the use provisions of.Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances
from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may
be considered only as a last resort.
A. Type Ill Variance Option. The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances _
from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance
with the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance.
B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in
Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance
to any dimensional provision of this chapter:
1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject
parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created
al LCI the effective date of this chapter. `J
2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the_
Class of a buildable site"or a use that is permitted outright in the underlying
zoning district, and foi which the applicant has submitted a formal application.
3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve
the hardship.
4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the
variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for
increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native
vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
5. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no
significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will
result from approval of this hardship variance, II[these impacts have been
•
mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be
replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation.
18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option
•
Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must
be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would
be to remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall
demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following:
A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social,
Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with
OAR 660-23-040.
1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the
proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 15
i O
resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard
Planning Area.
2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City
Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the
conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the
resource.
3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be
located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter,
and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can
meet the specific needs of the proposed use.
4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife
biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney
all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the
preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis.
5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be
- incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the
Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the
site from the inventory.
B. Determination of 'Insignificance.' In this case, the applicant must
demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable
significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other
comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area.
1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the
City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of
this chapter.
• 2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in
identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or
any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
fi'PS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 16
!�-1 60 L )
+en( CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 11. iff-e-AILE-12-----
, a 5°6\id V Dis ' . ORDINANCE NO. 97-0 c o
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A
NEW SECTION (18.85.00) TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, STREAMS,AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically
to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires local jurisdictions to develop programs to protect
riparian and wetland resources; and
WHEREAS,the"safe harbor"provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule(OAR 660, Division 23) include
criteria that define a course of action for meeting the requirements of Goal 5; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for adding the above Code
Section at a public hearing on May 19, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code section as
shown in Exhibit"A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 22, 1997, to consider the proposed
amendments.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1; 3.2.4; 3.4.1.a; 3.4.2a; and 3.4.2d; and Community
Development Code Section 18.30.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the
following findings:
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted
citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement
Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen Involvement
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance
with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which
summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions
and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been
available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows Community
Development Code Procedure.
ORDINANCE No. 97- 019 -
Page 1
r
• •
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide
Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development
Code requirements in review of this proposal.
3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources is met
because the provisions of the overlay district are consistent with the "safe harbor"
guidelines for riparian corridors and significant wetlands set forth in the Goal 5
administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The
proposed measures implement the provisions of the Goal 5 "safe harbor" program
for resolving conflicts between development and protection of these resources. This
program calls for the protection of fish bearing streams and significant wetlands and
the establishment of mandatory setbacks.
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the
following findings:
1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to
keep the development code current with local needs and recent administrative rule
changes.
2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at
public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process.
3. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy calls for development control of
wetlands and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent administrative
rules to protect these resources.
4. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the overlay prohibits development within areas
designated as significant wetlands and establishes 50 to 75 feet setbacks from the
edges of designated wetland areas.
5. Policy 3.4.1.a is satisfied because the proposal designates significant wetlands
according to the criteria and-Procedures for the identification of significant wetlands
established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant
Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands.
6. Policy 3.4.2.a, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along
stream corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks
from the top of banks and the edges of wetlands associated with stream corridors
and by requiring that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or
enhanced with native vegetation.
ORDINANCE No. 97{ r
Page 2
7. Policy Aid is satisfied because the proposal a
y p p citses Goal 5 rule requirements
pertaining to the preservation of wetlands, includes a determination of which are
ecologically and scientifically significant, and includes citizen participation.
8. Community Development Code Section 18.30, which establishes procedures for
legislative code changes, is satisfied according to the above findings.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By • ' on vote of all ouncil members present after being read by number and
title only, this r)—day of , 1997.
AAA/U. (k.) -ea. -e.J29.a
atherine Wheatley,City Recorder
—y01 d
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this o - day of J, _l/ 19'
ter/
Nicoli, Mayor
Ap•roved as to form:
- a► -
Attorney
Date
i:'citywidebrdinancsf
ORDINANCE No. 97-LAP -
Page 3
- .t,
• e
18.85.00 WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT
18.85.010 Purpose 1
18.85.020 Definitions - 2
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3
Table 18.85(1)Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 4
18.85.050 Permitted,Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5
Table 18.85.050(D):Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6
18.85.060 Application Requirements 7
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9
18.85.080 Development Standards 9
18.85.090 Abutting Lot Area Reduction 13
18.85.100 Riparian Setback Reductions 13
18.85.110 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14
18.85.120 Density Transfer 14
18.85.130 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15
18.85.140 Plan Amendment Option 15
18.85.010 Purpose
A. General. The Water Resources (WR) overlay district implements the
policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between
development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors
identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows
reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards
to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian
corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity;
preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish
and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water
resource areas.
B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5
administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that"significant"
wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 1
•
18.85.020 Definitions
The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference.
A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated wetlands,
and the "riparian setback" area.
B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to major
stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, or the edge of an associated wetland (see
definition under K.2.), whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the
"riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d).
1. The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in accordance
with this chapter.
3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have no
• riparian setback; however, a 25-foot`water quality buffer" is required under
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the
City of Tigard.
C. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are
devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant species,
such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions of the riparian
setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not disturbed.
D. "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse
impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result from
alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay district.
A mitigation plan must be prepared by recognized experts in fish and wildlife biology,
native plants, and hydrological engineering, and (usually) re-planting with native plant
species.
E. - The Tualatin River is mapped as a fish bearing stream by the Oregon
Department of Forestry and has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs.
F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon
Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per
second (cfs).
1. Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north
fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek.
2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a"fish-bearing stream," has an
average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs.
G. "Minor streams" are not"fish-bearing streams"according to Oregon
Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry
Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the
Tualatin River.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 2
• •
H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is
incorporated by reference into this chapter.
I. "Top-of-bank" usually means a clearly recognizable sharp break in the stream
bank. It has the same meaning as "bankfull stage"as defined in OAR 141-85-010(2): It
is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams and
begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical evidence,the two-year
recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to approximate the bankfull stage.
J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant"
water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River corridor, all
major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This generalized,
composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) prepared
by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by reference. All water
resources identified as significant on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map
meet the Division of State Lands (DSL) definition of a"Locally Significant Wetland."
K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions.
1. 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.
2. 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-bank.
3. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located outside
of the riparian setback.
4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division of
State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which, therefore,
does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map.
Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this chapter,but do require
DSL.notification under ORS 227.350.
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping
A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all
significant wetlands and streams, and applicable riparian setback and water quality
buffer areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The
standards and procedures of this chapter:
1. apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially
within, the WR overlay district;
2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and
3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 3
• •
•
B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops-
of-bank, wetland edges, riparian setbacks and water quality buffers for the following
significant water resources:
1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor
2. Major stream riparian corridors; -
3. Minor streams; and
4. Isolated wetlands.
C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant
shall be responsible for surveying and mapping the precise location of the top-of-bank,
wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of application
submittal.
1. The required water quality buffer and riparian setback area shall be retained
in one or more parcels that is separate from abutting buildable lots.
2. Table 18.85(1) summaries standard riparian setbacks and water quality
buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR overlay zone.
3. Adjustments to these boundaries may be approved pursuant to Sections
18.85.140, 18.85.100, 18.85.130 and/or 18.85.140.
Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers
WR STANDARD USA STANDARD
RIPARIAN WATER QUALITY
SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCE TYPE SETBACK' BUFFER
Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet
iMs earls&' `rdaaeetldn wSofe%t 'i . Z riVreenNE
Developed subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet
(major streams & associated wetlands)
Mines aefaa a t ti_ o aediV ad NoTaM cab( 1. 5'.4i.-4:11t0;
' Measured in feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge,whichever is greater.
:Measured in feet from the stream top-of-bank or the wetland edge,whichever is greater.
D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions
and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any wetland
are also subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)standards and approval.
Where there is a difference, the more restrictive regulation shall apply. The applicant
shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any wetland is proposed for
development, in accordance with ORS 227.350. No application for development will be
accepted as complete until documentation of such notification is provided.
E. Unified Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities
proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards and
approval.
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential
Subdivision Lots
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 4
•
• •
Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards have
been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns.
A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision
lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs.
B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands& Stream
Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots, because:
1. Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and
maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes of
this chapter; and
2. Equal protection of the identified major stream resource is ensured by
retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on the USA maximum water
quality buffer.
C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed
subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such structures
are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge.
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited 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.
B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of
any wetland or stream shall also be approved by the City, which administers USA
standards. Compliance with USA/City standards is necessary but not sufficient for
compliance with this chapter.
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.
D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes
• permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR district. A "Yes" indicates that
the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed conditions in
the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary criteria under
Type Ill standards (for descriptions of Type I, II and Ill see 18.85.060). A"No" indicates
that the use is not permitted. A use that is not permitted may not be approved through
the variance provisions of this chapter.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 5
• • ,
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List
Re•ulated Activi & Procedure T • -
, Vci f i'Z, " .t li `i,.:�`mti Z �� ��` ' l C�i ' ►Z"}aitt .i... 1,, • •.t) •a, yi `J.� -1~ .. ......�......_.....`.( '._. ,L �� I r"%{,- • aJ
-.�. :, '-- ' -' `.. 1 c �
a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes No
Ri•arian Setback boundaries
b) Low impact, passive, or water related
recreation facilities and trails including, but Yes No No
not limited to, viewing shelters, picnic
tables, nature trails and inte •retive Si•ns
c Irri•ation •um•s Yes Yes No
d) Replacement of existing structures with
new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No
additional ri•arian surface area
e) Removal of non-native vegetation and
replacement with native plant species, no Yes Yes Yes
closer than 10'from the top-of-bank or
ed•e of wetland
f) Removal of vegetation necessary for
hazard •revention dan•erous trees Yes Yes No
g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No
lawns
h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes No No
less than 10' in width
i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes No
facilities
A 2: :+ 't aunt= • � ;�t «
' - raft:
, a 't M _ i Mitigatio
g , - Requ r
e ?
WS: ,7
a) Adjustments to numeric standards of the Yes Yes Yes
underlying zone necessary to reduce
im•acts on wetlands and streams
• R-•1 t • i R • jr•Fiala Yes Not a••licable Yes
c) Public facilities that appear on the City's Yes Yes Yes
Public Facilities Plan
d) Local streets and driveways serving
residences and •ublic facilities Yes Yes Yes
e Under.round • • ' draina•e facilities Yes Ne-Yes Yes
Utili crossin•s Yes Yes Yes
• Under•round utilities Yes Yes
h) In-stream and streambank enhancement,
including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes
replacement within 10 feet of the top-of-
bank or ed•e of wetland
i Brid•es and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes
y d:nei�/.' 'Y 4'm'-.ate.. +zWir�� 4ta ... "tea.-:w•
:31%-Type l Conditions ,Uses ' 7 :c Riparian`" '' ` `M1 0;Streams1; Mitigation Plan
Set rea, Isolated; __ }H'i`s equ ?r
Hands' s 87 z5
a) Hardship Variances, subject to variance Yes Yes Yes
•rovisions of Cha•ter 18.120
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 6
• •
b) Water-related and water-dependent uses Yes No Yes
not listed above, subject to conditional use
•rovisions of Cha•ter 18.130
1-07fF 9 : �l•' 34 t I
"Vi"rit .yt 1r.
• 4 ! Xj x 3 - _ 1 z ^
L` .
a Removal of native •lant s•ecies No No Not a••licable
b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable
surfaces
c Gradin• and •lacement of fill No No Not a••licable
d A•.lication of herbicides No No. Not a••licable
e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or other No No Not applicable
unauthorized materials
f) Creation of a parcel that would be wholly Not applicable
within the WR district or resulting in an No No
unbuildable parcel, as determined by the
director.
18.85.060 Application Requirements
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.
A. Type I Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the use
will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, native vegetation removal,
and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional information
•
where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate identified impacts
from a proposed development, including but not limited to:
1. a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.060.B;
2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.060.D.
B. Type II and III Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or
activity is proposed within 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:
1. 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.
2. Isolated wetlands.
3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback.
4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer.
5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater.
6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities.
7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory.
8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 7
• •
C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The
required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks and
water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.B, shall serve as the basis for
refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map.
1. The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks and
water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure.
2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely
outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no
further WR overlay zone requirements apply.
3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback areas are
limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the
development standards of this chapter.
D. Type II and III Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the
following studies shall be required whenever any Type II or III use is proposed within the
WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local Wetlands
Inventory'(Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to the submission
of information required for specific types of development, and shall be prepared by
professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt permit
applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as to why the
study is unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter. This determination
must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required pre-application
conference and prior to application submittal.
1. Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the
hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the
proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report shall
also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for development, and
erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a hazard to life and property,
or adversely affect the use or stability of a public facility or utility. Finally, this report
shall include information on the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils,
the adequacy of the site for development purposes,and an assessment of grading
procedures required to impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The
report shall include recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable
provision of this code as well as all applicable provisions of City building
ordinances, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in
Oregon.
2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical structure
or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of property),
drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures and existing
structures which may be affected by the proposed grading operations, water
quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all cut and fill slopes and
proposed drainage channels. Project designs including but not limited to locations
of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams, sediment basins, storage
reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form part of the submission. The
grading plan shall also include a construction phased erosion control plan
consistent with the provisions of this code and a schedule of operations and shall
be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon.
3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative
cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the proposed
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
• WPS-7/23/97-Page 8
• •
development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed areas (i.e., areas
devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or invasive
species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the riparian
setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with native
plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer,
botanist,arborist, or other qualified individual with specific knowledge of native
plant species, planting and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability
to enhance fish and wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation.
4. Streambank Conditions Report. This report is only necessary if a reduction in the
riparian setback area is proposed. The streambank conditions report shall consist
of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of vegetative cover,
the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and the extent to which
mitigation measures would be successful in maximizing fish and wildlife habitat
values while serving the stream's urban hydrological function. Measures for
improving fish and wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated,
as well as methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The -
streambank conditions report shall include recommendations to assure compliance
with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared by a biologist, or ,
other qualified individual in concert with an engineer registered in Oregon, both of
whom must have experience in stream bank restoration. The report shall specify
long-term maintenance measures necessary to carry out the proposed mitigation
plan.
18.85.070 _ Decision Options and Conditions
A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions,
or deny an application based on the provisions of this chapter. The Approval Authority
may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and provisions of this chapter.
B. Conditions. The required reports shall include design standards and
recommendations necessary for the engineer and biologist or other qualified individual to
provide reasonable assurance that the standards of this section can be met with
appropriate mitigation measures. These measures, along with staff recommendations,
shall be incorporated as conditions into the final decision approving the proposed
development.
C. Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with
mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section shall
be as stated in Chapter 18.24.
18.85.080 Development Standards
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
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 9
•
18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each of these
standards in writing.
A. Alternatives Considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most
Type II 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.
B. 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.
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 of the water resource or riparian setback area, as possible, recognizing
the operational needs of the proposed development.
C. 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.
D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground 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 18.84, Sensitive Lands.
E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and
vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent 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.
F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. 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 shall not be left in place
permanently.
2. Work areas on the immediate site shall 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.
4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or
be placed outside the work area.
5. 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.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97 -Page 10
• •
6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on a
permanent basis.
G. 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 18.85.100, a mitigation plan shall be prepared
and implemented.
1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily disturbed
by excavation on a 1:1 basis.
2. 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.
3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of
native plant species designed 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.
H. 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.
I. On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited
within the WR overlay district.
J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource
site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within the
WR overlay district:
1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during
construction to 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 construction 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 covered 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
unworked 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.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 11
111
6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exits 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 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 drainageways.
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 or 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 into 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.
L. Type Ill Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of
Chapter 18.130, Conditional Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below and
18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type III use listed below may
be approved. The applicant for conditional use approval shall:
1. Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the resource
area; and
2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan to show that any loss of riparian values will
be fully compensated through the enhancement program.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 12
• •
18.85.090 Abutting Lot Area Reduction
A. Where no riparian setback reduction is proposed, the minimum lot area of
buildable lots abutting the riparian setback area may be reduced in proportion to the
preserved riparian area outside the required water qualtiy buffer, provided that each
abutting lot shall have a minimum depth of at least 60 feet.
B. The riparian setback area outside the USA water quality buffer shall be retained
as an extension of the parcel created under 18.85.030.C.2
18.85.100 Riparian Setback Reductions
The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major
stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of structures
or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or
better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank
restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the
riparian setback area.
A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a
riparian setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was
substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must
be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.0 that demonstrates
of the following:
1. Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site
• riparian corridor area;
2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site riparian
• corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian
setback area for the last five years;
3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section
18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species;
4. That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and
5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent.
B. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the
standards of 18.85.080.B are met, as much as 50 percent of the riparian area may be
developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and
subject to the following standards:
1. The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shalt not be
less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian
setback shall not be less than 25 feet.
2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a 33
percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved, provided that
the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining riparian setback
area on a 1.5:1 basis. The vegetation report identifies disturbed areas (non-
vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant •
species such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry) and areas dominated by
native plant species. Thus, for every 100 square feet of riparian setback area
that is developed, at least 150 square feet of the disturbed portion of the
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 13
• • ,
remaining riparian setback area must be re-planted with native plant species.
In this manner, up to a one-third riparian setback reduction may be approved.
3. Up to an additional 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may be
approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared by a
biologist and an engineer, both of whom must have experience in stream
bank restoration. The plan must demonstrate that the streambank mitigation
measures will maximize fish and wildlife habitat values and water quality.
18.85.110 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards
In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to
dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the Planning
Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district.
A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50 percent
adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the underlying
zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the WR overlay
district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands,
stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope or flood
hazards.
B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be
requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent to
the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional adjustment to
standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
following criteria are fully satisfied:
1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at the
same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback area or
water quality buffer.
2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover, minimizing
excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable land.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,
including but not limited to multi-story construction,siting of the residence close to
the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native landscaping
materials, minimizing parking area and garage space.
4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence (including
the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory structures, swimming
pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of riparian setback or water quality
buffer area.
5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach
further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district.
The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate
identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land.
18.85.120 Density Transfer
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 14
•
•
• Density may be transferred from water resource and riparian setback areas as provided in
Section 18.92. 020-030.
•
18.85.130 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards
Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances from
measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may be
considered only as a last resort.
A. Type Ill Variance Option.The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances
from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance with
the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance.
B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in
Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance to
any dimensional provision of this chapter
1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject parcel
of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created after the
effective date of this chapter.
2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the loss
of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying zoning
district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application.
3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve the
hardship.
4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the
variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for
increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native
vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
5. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no
significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will result
from approval of this hardship variance, or these impacts have been mitigated to
the greatest extent possible.
6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be
replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation.
18.85.140 - Plan Amendment Option
Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan_amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be
based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to
remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall demonstrate that
such an amendment is justified by either of the following:
A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social,
Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with
OAR 660-23-040.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 15
1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the
proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific resource
site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning
Area.
2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City
Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the
conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource.
3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be
located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and
that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet
the specific needs of the proposed use.
4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife
biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney all
of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the
preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis.
5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated
by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland
and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the site from the
inventory.
B. Determination of "Insignificance." In this case, the applicant must
demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable
significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other
comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area.
1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the
City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of this
chapter.
2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in
identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or any
other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code.
Final Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-7/23/97-Page 16
Wort 17 - O 00
Agenda Item No.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present:Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim
Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis;
and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. City Engineer Gus Duenas and
Building Official David Scott arrived at 7:30 p.m.
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h)to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
> Main Street Monopole
Councilor Rohlf asked if the City could mitigate the appearance of the monopole that would
be placed on Main Street. He held that it would not improve the appearance of the downtown.
He mentioned that the application was currently in the appeal time period from the Hearings
Officer's decision.
Bill Monahan, City Manager, said that the Hearings Officer usually did a thorough job on
the monopole applications. The Council could call up the application for further review but
currently the City Code had no provisions to allow the City to dictate what it would look like.
The Council discussed the exact location of the pole and its utility shack. Mayor Nicoli
concurred with Councilor Rohlfs concern about its appearance. He agreed with pulling the
item up for Council review.
> Home Occupation Permits
Mayor Nicoli explained that he received a call from the Tigard Times asking about the Code
Enforcement Officer sending a 12 year old boy down to City Hall to get a home occupation
permit and to pay the business tax for his enterprise of making dry cookie mix at home and
selling it in the neighborhood. He pointed out that this was not good public relations for the
City.
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, said that staff received a telephone call noting
concern about a flyer received advertising the dry cookie mix and wanting to know if these
people paid the business tax. Apparently the boy's friends had distributed the flyers to a
different neighborhood. She said that business tax ordinance does not say that a child is
exempt.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22. 1997 - PAGE 1
011
Ms. Newton explained that home occupation permits were $30 with a half year prorated
business tax at $27.50. She reported that she clarified for the Times reporter that the business
tax was not new nor an attempt to increase revenue in response to Measures 47 and 50. The
business tax rate has not increased since 1988. Mr. Monahan pointed out that it was not the
boy applying at the counter for the permit but his mother.
Ms. Newton said that any non-profit, religious, or fraternal organization was specifically
exempted in the ordinance from paying the business tax. This included the Girl Scouts and
high school students raising money through car washes. Mr. Monahan said that staff pursues
whatever complaints they received from citizens. They do not go out looking for children
selling products on the street.
> BMX Course at Summerlake Park
Mr. Monahan reported that a group of kids put together a BMX course in an area in
Summerlake Park; they had cleared of a couple of downed trees. Immediately the course
became popular. That popularity increased dramatically when a neighbor told Channel 2
News about this course built by the kids. Channel 2 did a story on it for their Neighborhood
program. When City staff found out about it, staff evaluated the course and determined that
there were liability risks. However, instead of simply shutting the course down, Ed Wegner.
Public Works Director, was trying to fit the course into the Summerlake Park master plan
where it could be operated safely with some restrictions.
> Agenda Review
Mr. Monahan informed the Council that Agenda Item No. 7, tree planting program, was set
over for further review by Planning. He mentioned non-agenda items of the budget
adjustment for the solid waste review and the SW North Dakota Task Force appointments. He
noted some letters earlier distributed by the City Recorder.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
• Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan noted a change to Consent Agenda item 3.2. He asked to pull Item 7 for set
over to August 12. He asked to add non agenda items for the budget adjustment for solid
waste review of the curbside commingled recycling proposal, and for the SW North
Dakota Task Force appointments.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors signed in to speak.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 2
• •
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted the change in the roster for
Community Housing Task Force: Sally Parks, Metro Low Income Housing Association
President, instead of John Groenwald. (Item 3.2)
Councilor Hunt noted corrections to the minutes.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt the Consent Agenda,
3.1 as modified.and 3.2 as adjusted.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 10, 1997
3.2 Approve Appointments to the Community Housing Task Force and Approve the
Issues to Review (Council Charge) for Recommendations to the City Council
3.3 Local Contract Review Board
a. Award Street Sweeping Contract to Midstate Industrial
4. UPDATE: DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO
SUMMERLAKE
Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that the sediment testing at the lake was completed on
July 22 but the report would not be out for another week. He reviewed the preliminary
findings: the sediment was 8 to 10 inches thick with a phosphorous concentration level not
present in the native subsurface below the sediment. The high phosphorous content was likely
due to construction upstream and the nutrients contributed by the nutria and the ducks. The
lake would probably have to be dredged to remove the sediment at a ballpark estimate cost of
$150,000. Staff would return with the USA recommendations, options, and cost estimates in
September.
Councilor Rohlf asked why they needed USA recommendations if the lake was a City lake.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that USA controlled all storm water quality in the County. He has
talked with Bill Gaffey who indicated that USA would work with the City on this issue. Mr.
Duenas said that staff knew that the USA recommendations would be insufficient but they saw
USA as a source of free expertise and advice on available options.
Van Camp, 12481 SW Edgewater Court, asked a series of questions regarding the testing,
the phosphorous, and the dredging operation. Mr. Duenas explained that while phosphorous
was a naturally occurring chemical, the high concentrations in the lake were coming from
somewhere else. The testing was done in two spots in the lake. He reviewed the likely
process for dredging the lake and removing the sediment, pointing out that they could gain 10
years of good lake condition through this process. Staff based the $150.000 cost estimate on
their knowledge of dredging and material removal cost based on cubic yardage.
Mayor Nicoli asked if it was feasible to lower the lake even more in the center to extend the
lake's life. Mr. Duenas said that it was feasible to do so. He mentioned that USA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22. 1997 - PAGE 3
• •
recommended dredging the center of the lake to provide a flow way for water during the
summer. Mr. Camp spoke for dredging the edges of the lake, contending that the sediment
would be higher there than in the center. Mr. Duenas said that they would look at all options.
Mayor Nicoli asked the neighbors present if there would be a problem with the City posting
the park to not feed the animals. A woman commented that the park was posted but one sign
read "Do Feed the Ducks." The Council discussed the probability that posting the park would
reduce but not eliminate duck feeding. Mayor Nicoli suggested noticing the immediate
neighborhood and putting an article in Cityscape.
A man who lived on the lake reported his observations that duck feeding has fallen off
considerably, now mostly occurring in the spring with the non-migratory fowl. Another man
said that they chased off the kids who were fixing the "Do Feed the Ducks" sign. He said that
the neighbors who lived on the lake would be happy to help however they could. Mayor
Nicoli said that the Code Enforcement Officer could talk to those whom neighbors reported as
routinely violating the signs and ask them to stop.
Mr. Camp submitted letters to the City Recorder from people who could not attend tonight's
meeting. Another man submitted information on floating dredging operations that he found
on the Internet.
The Council discussed distributing the sediment test report to those interested (including those
signed up tonight) as soon as it became available. Mayor Nicoli assured the citizens that the
ducks and nutria would be reduced solely by not feeding them; no hunting would be allowed.
The Council put this issue on the September 23 agenda.
Greg Collier, 12469 SW Edgewater Court, asked if the discussion on September 23
included the report results and the staff recommended options. Mr. Duenas clarified that the
options and recommendations to City Council would be discussed on September 23. Staff
would have the report results and staff report available 10 days before that meeting.
5 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 10, 1997
COUNCIL MEETING) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ZOA 97-001)
WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT - A request to amend the Tigard
Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and
riparian corridors,which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the
"safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. The new section will be titled
the "Water Resources Overlay District."
a. Continue Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the continuation of the hearing..
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
c. Staff Report: Community Development Department
Mr. Hendryx noted that Council continued this hearing from June 10 at the request of the
property owners. He pointed out the letter submitted to Council by Dr. Davis.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 4
• •
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, referenced the report presented by the consultant at
the last meeting. He said that the Division of State Lands (DSL) said that it was a good
ordinance. They did request some minor modifications highlighting DSL's role in
regulating wetlands.
Mayor Nicoli asked what an individual property owner would have to do to meet Goal 5 if
the City did not adopt this ordinance. Greg Winterowd, Winterowd & Associates.
explained that a property owner wanting to develop a vacant lot had to meet Tigard's
current regulations and work with DSL to make sure that all appropriate wetlands permits
were obtained. He said that the advantages to the ordinance were greater certainty on the
setbacks and DSL's sign off on the ordinance. He stated that developed property (all
houses in existing subdivisions) were exempted from the special setback.
Mr. Winterowd explained that the City had to go through this process because it was in
periodic review and required by the State through the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) to bring its code into compliance with statewide
Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources.) The City could do this either through a "safe
harbor" ordinance or the ESEE site specific analysis process. In addition, the ordinance
provided a clear and objective way to resolve conflicts in preserving stream corridors and
allowing development. He said that he did not see the current City regulations as clear as
the "safe harbor" ordinance.
Mayor Nicoli asked for a review of all the exceptions in the ordinance. Mr. Winterowd
said that this ordinance was an attempt for"one size fits all" in meeting the prescriptive
standard and complying with state requirements. He reviewed the five levels of flexibility
included in the ordinance.
Councilor Rohlf asked how many miles of streams were in Tigard and what percentage
would be exempted out. Mr. Roberts estimated 10 miles. Mr. Winterowd explained the
different stream classifications: significant, non-significant, fishbearing, and non-
fishbearing. He pointed out that the designation of a stream as fishbearing or non-
fishbearing came solely from the Department of Forestry maps. Councilor Rohlf
commented that it sounded like most streams in the City would fall within the exemptions.
d. Public Testimony
.John Skourtes, Beaverton, said that he has owned property in Tigard for 30 years. He
spoke against public agencies passing another layer of controls on flood plains, streams,
and wetlands. He questioned passing a law filled with exemptions. He argued that the
Code currently contained enough regulations to protect the streams and wetlands. He
mentioned the Metro greenspace money and suggested waiting to see what Metro did with
that money before passing this ordinance. He spoke for buying undeveloped land.
Mr. Skourtes pointed out that there was little industrial land left in Tigard. He said that the
exceptions were aimed at residential properties because residents could vote while
industrial property owners could not. since most did not live in the city. He suggested
tabling the ordinance for a year. He said that he spoke for the other commercial property
owners on 74th Avenue.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22. 1997 - PAGE 5
• •
Mr. Skourtes mentioned that USA put in a main sewer line through Fanno Creek 15 years
ago. Instead of fixing the creek up, they "gerrymandered" around it. He said that eight
years ago the previous City Manager disbanded the committee of business property owners
he had called together to reach consensus on the 100 year flood plain/wetlands trade offs.
After a year of meetings, they could not reach consensus.
Mr. Skourtes contended that the ordinance was unnecessary and that LCDC would not
arrest Tigard officials. He reiterated his suggestion to table the ordinance.
Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89th, concurred with Mr. Skourtes' comments. He stated that.
based on his experience of living near Ash Creek since 1966, he was certain that it was not
a fishbearing creek, whatever the state designation. He asked to table the ordinance until
they verified the designation of Ash Creek. He cited his willingness last year to comply
with the City's request for him to hold off on building a hotel next to Ash Creek until the
master plan for the Washington Square Regional Center was done. He asked the City to
hold off on this ordinance until after that master plan was completed.
Dr. Davis reviewed his mitigation of his property. He mentioned the agreement that there
would be no setbacks for the commercial area but significant setbacks for the mitigated
area. He gave up 6.5 acres of land already. He said that he called the consultant who
helped him with the mitigation, and the consultant said that Dr. Davis' property should
automatically be grandfathered in because he had already done the mitigation. He asked if
his land was grandfathered in or would he lose more acreage every year until the only
thing allowed on his property was a single residential home.
Dr. Davis contended that it was not fair to zone his land automatically without a hearing
after the years he has spent mitigating his property. He suggested having different rules
for different zones. He argued that the extensive flooding in Tigard over the past two
years was increased because the retention basin requirements in the City did not allow the
water to run off to the Tualatin River quickly. The result was that the Tualatin crested 12
hours after the Willamette. He noted the many beaver dams on Ash Creek that retained a
great deal of water. He spoke for cleaning out the creeks as a means of reducing flooding.
Dr. Davis recommended looking for a practical solution to the flooding problems. He said
that he believed that he had a right to have his property grandfathered in. He asked that the
ordinance be delayed. He reiterated that Ash Creek was not a fishbearing stream.
Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72", said that he confirmed Mr. Roberts' information at the
last meeting that there were no significant creeks in the Triangle requiring the 50 foot
setback. He said that any kind of DSL permits in effect now were grandfathered in.
e. Council Questions
Mayor Nicoli asked what the City's options were if they did nothing. Mr. Roberts said
that they had to do something because they were under state mandate either to adopt a
"safe harbor" ordinance or do a ESEE site specific analysis. This was the remaining item
of their periodic review. Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel. explained that if the City did
nothing, they opened themselves up to LCDC imposing an enforcement order because the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22. 1997 - PAGE 6
• •
City was not demonstrating reasonable progress. He said that the most likely enforcement
order would require the City to do an ESEE analysis for every property in every
application.
Mr. Skourtes contended that the ordinance said that the City had two years after Metro
adopted the 2040 plan. Mayor Nicoli commented that this had nothing to do with the 2040
plan. Mr. Hendryx concurred. He mentioned that the City had to conform to the
Functional Plan criteria within two years but the Functional Plan did not include Goal 5
standards. Currently Metro was looking at a model ordinance for jurisdictions to use in
drafting their own.
Mr. Roberts mentioned that the City did accept a $12,000 state grant to complete.the
planning for wetlands. This included a commitment to adopt an ordinance. If the City
failed to do so, they would have to return the $12,000. Mayor Nicoli asked how much
longer did the City have before they had to resolve this with LCDC. Mr. Roberts said that
he did not know the final deadline.
Councilor Scheckla noted that the two areas of concern raised were 74th Avenue along
Fanno Creek, and Dr. Davis' property along Ash Creek. He asked if there was any relief
they could give them under this policy. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the property owners
had the option stated in the ordinance to do an ESEE analysis on their property to develop
specific standards. Either the City could do the study or the property owners could do the
study.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a way to find out if the policy actually hurt these
property owners. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the two options that the City had in complying
with Goal 5: the expensive and detailed site specific ESEE analysis or the "cookbook"
approach of the "safe harbor" ordinance. The Council directed staff to do the "safe
harbor" ordinance. However this ordinance did have provisions to allow the property
owner to do the ESEE analysis himself.
Mr. Roberts pointed out that, in addition to objections from developers that the regulations
were too strict, staff received objections from environmental groups that the regulations
were not strict enough. He cited the argument staff has heard from Fans of Fanno Creek
that Summer Creek is actually a fishbearing stream, not a non-fishbearing stream as
designated by the state.
Councilor Scheckla asked if this ordinance had sufficient flexibility to address the
situations raised tonight. Mr. Winterowd commented that the reason to adopt an ordinance
full of loopholes was to get the flexibility to tailor it to specific properties. He reported
that he met with Dr. Davis prior to this meeting and concluded that the ordinance imposed
virtually no additional requirements on his property. Since his property was pasture, not
pristine creek, he could reduce his fishbearing stream setback to 25 feet with stream
enhancements.
Mr. Winterowd confirmed that the state did designate Ash Creek as a fishbearing stream,
although Dr. Davis might be correct that it had no fish in it. He reiterated that the last
level of flexibility in the ordinance was a property owner doing an ESEE analysis of his
property. This was the same thing that LCDC could require the City to do through an
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 7
• •
enforcement order. He commented that a special area plan (such as the Washington
Square Regional Center) was an ideal time to fold in an environmental element that looked
at the economic consequences of these regulations.
Mr. Roberts noted that the ordinance provided an exception for recreational uses that
would apply to bikepaths. He said that the Metro greenspaces money available was not
adequate to purchase all the flood plain along Fanno Creek, even if they had willing
sellers. He explained that they chose not to formulate their own definitions of
"fishbearing" because of the difficulty and controversy of doing so. They simply accepted
the state classifications.
Mr. Hendryx asked what process would the City go through if the state could be persuaded
to redesignate Ash Creek as non-fishbearing. Mr. Winterowd said they would need to
amend the ordinance map to show it as non-fishbearing. All regulations would change
accordingly. Mr. Roberts pointed out that environmental groups were introducing fish into
streams all the time.
Councilor Scheckla asked if Mr. Winterowd has run into this situation in other
jurisdictions. Mr. Winterowd explained that Tigard was doing the very first "safe harbor"
ordinance in the state. Most other jurisdictions were not caught in Tigard's bind of having
to finish the periodic review.
Councilor Scheckla asked how they would know what guidelines to go by if they had the
first ordinance. Mr. Ramis said that while there were not any precedents, it was known
what LCDC did to cities that failed to comply with periodic review. LCDC would issue an
enforcement order to force compliance if things dragged on too long.
Mr. Winterowd commented that the new state administrative rule was much clearer than
the old one. He reviewed his experience in Goal 5 issues. He said that he was certain that
Tigard had a good sound ordinance that would work. Mr. Ramis reiterated that the City
needed to take some action relatively quickly to implement Goal 5, whether it was
adopting this ordinance, a modified version of it, or something else.
Mr. Roberts read the modifications to the ordinance suggested by DSL:
• Addition to page 3, section J, third paragraph: All water or resources identified as
significant on the wetlands map;
• Addition of new section D on page 4: "In addition to the restrictions and
requirements of this.section. all proposed development activities within any wetland
are also subject to Oregon Division of State Lands standards and approval. ii"here
there is a difference, the more restrictive regulation shall apply. The applicant shall
be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any wetland is proposed far
development in accordance with ORS 57.350. No application for development will he
accepted as complete until documentation of such notification is provided.
• Addition to page 5, 18.85.050(c)(2): Stream and wetlands restoration enhancement
programs;
• Correction to page 11, section G: 18.85.090 should read 18.85.100.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 8
_ • 0
f. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
g. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-06
Councilor Hunt commented that the Council went with the "safe harbor" option over the
ESEE analysis to save money and manpower. He said that his experience on the Cook
Park Task Force showed him how extreme the opinions were on environmental issues. He
agreed that trying to write their own standards based on the ESEE analysis could leave
them open to lawsuits and other problems. He asked for verification that his
understanding of the testimony tonight was correct. The people objecting could still go
through the ESEE analysis if they chose to. The only difference was if the City wrote the
ESEE standards, the City did the work and footed the bill. If the City went to the "safe
harbor" ordinance, the property owners did the work and footed the bill.
Mr. Ramis and Mr. Hendryx advised that Councilor Hunt was correct in his differentiating
between "safe harbor" and ESEE process. Councilor Hunt said that he did not see that
they were depriving the property owners of anything. He expressed his support of the
ordinance as presented.
Councilor Rohlf said that this ordinance did enough exempting that clearly it would not do
anything to seriously protect the riparian areas in the City. He contended that this
ordinance did not achieve the environmental goal, it only complied with the state statute.
He said that the quality of the consultant's work was excellent but the ordinance did not
meet the spirit of Goal 5. He mentioned Mr. Dolan's suggestion at a previous meeting to
use volunteerism to educate the citizens living along the creeks to do something to
mitigate along the creek pathway. He suggested looking at stream corridors for the tree
planting program. He said that he could not support the ordinance.
Councilor Scheckla said that while he was not happy with this, he did see that they had to
do something. He expressed his concern at being the first jurisdiction to adopt this type of
ordinance, and therefore not knowing the possible flaws. He asked to take into
consideration the situations of those who testified tonight so that the City did not harm
where it thought it was trying to help.
Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Hunt's statements.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No.
97-06.
The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-06. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 1885.00 TO RESOLVE
CONFLICTS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 9
. •
Councilor Rohlf asked to direct staff to explore the options of planting trees along stream
corridors.
Motion was approved by majority roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli.
Councilors Hunt. and Scheckla voted "yes;" Councilor Rohlf voted "no.")
6. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ATFALATI AGREEMENT
Mr. Monahan reviewed the history of the Atfalati agreement. He said that this draft included
the insurance provisions as recommended by the City Attorney, including leaving out the hold
harmless provision. He pointed out the insurance papers of the Tigard Little League and
Soccer Club attached to the packet. The City Attorney has reviewed them against the draft
language and found them acceptable. He noted the change of the date of first payment from
June 1 to August 1. He explained that if Council adopted this agreement tonight, the other
signers would have to return to their boards for authorization, as this draft has not been
approved by the other groups.
Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if one of the groups refused to sign. Mr. Monahan
said that staff would bring the agreement back to Council if any changes were made. If there
was a flat out refusal to sign, then there was no agreement.
Mr. Monahan noted an issue raised to him by Dave Nicoli on the City requiring insurance
from the soccer club and Little League but not from other organized groups. He said that after
discussions with the City Attorney, staff concluded that they wanted insurance from these
groups because they had a bigger investment in the fields than the occasional user did. They
would be working with the City to develop the property, and they already had insurance. He
suggested looking into requiring insurance for users who scheduled regular use of the facility.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the Atfalati
agreement as drafted.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
7. UPDATE: TREE PLANTING PROGRAM
This item was set over to August 12.
8. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - FIRSTPOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Monahan reported that the City had standard franchise agreements with anyone who used
their public rights of way. Firstpoint Communications would install fiber optic cable in their
streets and then lease that capacity to a competitive access provider. He mentioned the current
franchise the City had with Electric Light, a lessee of fiber optic cable capacity, who paid a
5% franchise fee from the revenue that they generated. He explained that in the Firstpoint
Communications agreement, the company would pay the City a 1% franchise fee with the
lessee of their cable capacity paying a 5% franchise fee.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 10
• •
Councilor Scheckla asked how this differed from TCI. Mr. Monahan said that Firstpoint
Communication had different users than TCI. They served high tech firms or businesses who
needed secure data lines with uninterrupted flow.
Kevin Kohnstamm, Firstpoint Communications, 210 SW Morrison Street, Portland,
reviewed the competition in the telecommunications field resulting from the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. While US West and GTE owned most of the poles and
wires in this area, companies like Firstpoint were changing that situation by installing fiber
optic cables in city streets or hanging them from existing poles. He said that Firstpoint hoped
its network in Tigard would grow in the future. They provided to businesses (and eventually
to residents) a competitive alternative to existing telecom providers.
Councilor Scheckla asked several questions on the route and installation of the cable. Mr.
Kohnstamm explained that while at present they did lay the cables along the railroad tracks,
this ordinance would allow them to lay cables in the streets or to hang them from existing
telephone poles. However the ordinance strongly encouraged undergrounding. He pointed out
that the City Code required restoration of a city street cut into by utilities to equal or better
condition than it was when they started.
Mr. Kohnstamm agreed with Councilor Scheckla's observation that those repairs often held up
only for a couple of years. He mentioned that cities have put moratoriums on cuts in new
street, allowing cuts only on older streets which would be resurfaced in the near future
anyway. He said that they have enjoyed a productive relationship with Wayne LoveTev.
Councilor Scheckla asked if Firstpoint would compete with TCI. Mr. Kohnstamm said that to
the extent that TCI got into the data transport business, they would compete. However TCI
was currently cable TV only, which Firstpoint did not deal with.
Mr. Kohnstamm pointed out the temporary nature of this ordinance. He mentioned that they
hoped to enter into a long term agreement with Tigard at some point. He cited the Hillsboro
ordinance as a good example of a long term ordinance agreement.
Mr. Ramis pointed out that this ordinance did acknowledge that it was a temporary ordinance.
The last paragraph provided that when the City developed a master telecommunications
ordinance, this document would terminate and this user would become subject to the master
ordinance.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-07.
The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-07. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO FIRSTPOINT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO CONDUCT A
COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD
AND TO PLACE, ERECT, LAY, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE IN, ON, OVER. AND
UNDER THE STREETS. ALLEYS, ROADS. AND PUBLIC PLACES. POLES. WIRES.
AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES WITHIN THE CITY
OF TIGARD.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 11
•
• •
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli.
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
9. DISCUSS COUNCIL GOALS - STAFF WORKPLAN
Mr. Monahan presented the one page document developed by Cathy Wheatley that formatted
the Council goals into a matrix showing when action steps would be taken and Council reports
presented. He said that staff proposed returning with periodic status reports. He explained that
the detailed steps for meeting the goals listed on the master sheet were in the departmental
work plans. These were still under development but would be made available to Council
when completed.
Mr. Monahan explained that staff intended to bring one Council goal forward at a time to
verify the direction staff was taken and to get approval for the action plan and timeframe.
Councilor Rohlf noted the dual use of"o" as a matrix symbol for both"ongoing goals- and
"reports to Council." He suggested using different symbols for clarity's sake.
The Council agreed by consensus that the formatting was acceptable.
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
> Resolution No. 97-29
Mr. Monahan presented the $15,000 budget adjustment requested by the Solid Waste
Efficiency Task Force last week to fund a consultant to review the feasibility of a commingled
recyclable program. Councilor Rohlf asked if the resolution should include that Council
wanted staff to try to get some of the money back from Metro and the County. Mr. Monahan
suggested adding the sentence "whereas the Task Force and Council have directed staff to
seek offsetting funds from Metro and Washington County in an amount up to $15,000.-
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 97-29
as modified.
The City Recorder read the resolution by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-29, A RESOLUTION APPROVING 1997-98 BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT NO. 1 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SOLID WASTE REVIEW OF
COMMINGLED RECYCLING PROPOSAL.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli.
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
> SW North Dakota Task Force
Councilor Rohlf commented that he would like to find another person to represent the 121'`
side of SW North Dakota. Staff noted that a roster of Task Force members was presented to
Council.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 12
0 , •
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the list of the nine
members for the SW North Dakota Task Force, and authorizing Councilor Rohlf to add
an additional member.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:32 p.m.
ii ((LL4 . Li'L.0 t.Ci'h_ Z.Cc
Attest: /' Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Cr-
"t/
,M or, tty of Tigard
li-- II
Date: -4L 9 0f.5 t - C1.-J l G��/-7
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 22. 1997 - PAGE 13
c,� Z-2-:r
• 0
AGENDA ITEM NO. -• ' 5
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
Name, Address and Phone NT-o. - i.1(�rrt.k /j I Name, Add and Phone No. a�
J In (li )` tO
( f Gt0 `� /o - 1.43-ft-L-4.4 vT
1— - N-a• 4„34'-7/s-7
Name, Address and Phone No. ^ 3a. . Name, A/d�dress and •. 9
l n
v r , ' 3 F04+le-. an q ?-2 O9
Name, Address and Phone No. - Name, Address and Phone No.
16671_ _S L/4 2q pc
r► Ly-A OR_ 9' 7-2_:)....y .
Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address ansi Pine No.
IC. �eKAS 4
Qggc; S. Go, vkR G-: 21/4—668
T.; Aed , 02/ 47223
Name, Address and Phone No. apse, Address and Phone Nq.
Crordc.,_ S. M.6r'10,...
( 12_ .6 .. 5c� '7 3..,.i..cA. AUC
•
Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.
Jvlk, S1 c..&-1e/ l po5
• - (7v e -S — Gvei2
- . - 3 ewE.-%�z- 01
Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.
7vv1
7 oca-o S. • c6.vv.ev- (..-)a.,(
Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.
. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.
.. � .
AGENDA TEEM#
FOR AGENDA OF 7/22/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
215IVr£DWtAr-A -
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE C-ei eheilsiue.Plan Amendment(ZOA 97-001)Water Resources Overlay District
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council approve amendments to the Community Development Code pertaining to the
protection of riparian and wetland resource areas?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance amending the Community Development Code.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is a continuation of a hearing held on June 10, 1997. Council decided to continue the hearing after some of
the individuals who had signed up to testify left before the start of the hearing, which occurred at approximately
10:30 PM.
All nine persons who signed up to testify have been notified of the new hearing date.
A copy of the proposed code section and adopting ordinance are attached. The code section has been revised
slightly. The revisions include changing the references to "USA/City" standards to "USA" standards to indicate
the origin of the standards and to avoid confusion with the new overlay district standards, which also are city
standards. The revisions also include changing 18.85.080.B.1 from ". . . water quality in the affected water
resource will not be diminished as a result of the development proposal" to "any adverse water quality impacts
of the development proposal will be minimized consistent with best management practices."
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Modify particular provisions of the ordinance or exempt particular geographic areas.
FISCAL NOTES
The safe harbor ordinance is designed to reduce the cost and time for local governments to complete Goal 5.
i:bitywide\sum:wet.o12
•
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
•
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A
NEW SECTION (18.85.00) TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically
to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires local jurisdictions to develop programs to protect
riparian and wetland resources; and
WHEREAS, the"safe harbor"provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule(OAR 660,Division 23) include
criteria that define a course of action for meeting the requirements of Goal 5; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for adding the above Code
Section at a public hearing on May 19, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code section as
shown in Exhibit"A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 22, 1997, to consider the proposed
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1; 3.2.4; 3.4.1.a; 3.4.2a; and 3.4.2d; and Community
Development Code Section 18.30.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the
following findings:
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted
citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement
Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen Involvement
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance
with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which
summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions
and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been
available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows Community
Development Code Procedure.
ORDINANCE No. 97-
Page 1
• •
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide
Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development
Code requirements in review of this proposal.
3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources is met
because the provisions of the overlay district are consistent with the "safe harbor"
guidelines for riparian corridors and significant wetlands set forth in the Goal 5
administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The
proposed measures implement the provisions of the Goal 5 "safe harbor" program
for resolving conflicts between development and protection of these resources. This
program calls for the protection of fish bearing streams and significant wetlands and
the establishment of mandatory setbacks.
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the
following findings:
1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to
keep the development code current with local needs and recent administrative rule
changes.
2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at
public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process.
3. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy calls for development control of
wetlands and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent administrative
rules to protect these resources.
4. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the overlay prohibits development within areas
designated as significant wetlands and establishes 50 to 75 feet setbacks from the
edges of designated wetland areas.
• 5. Policy 3.4.1.a is satisfied because the proposal designates significant wetlands
according to the criteria and procedures for the identification of significant wetlands
established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant
Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands.
6. Policy 3.4.2.a, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along
stream corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks
from the top of banks and the edges of wetlands associated with stream corridors
and by requiring that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or
enhanced with native vegetation.
ORDINANCE No. 97-
Page 2
7. Policy ikd is satisfied because the proposal asses Goal 5 rule requirements
pertaining to the preservation of wetlands, includes a determination of which are
ecologically and scientifically significant, and includes citizen participation.
8. Community Development Code Section 18.30, which establishes procedures for
legislative code changes, is satisfied according to the above findings.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only, this day of , 1997.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1997.
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
i:\citywide\ordinanc.sf •
ORDINANCE No. 97-
Page 3
q -7-0601
Agenda Item No. 3. 1 ,
Meeting of 1 022 "
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt
> Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx;
Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Public
Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
> Discussion: City Facilities, Space Needs
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, mentioned that the Council direction previously
had been for staff to look at Option 1, siting the library offsite and completing the police
expansion. She referenced the minutes from the March 19, 1997 and November 25, 1996
meetings as well as her memo to Council. She said that staff did discuss expanding the use of
the water building for public works.
Ms.Newton reviewed the changes that have occurred since the March 19 meeting. The County
Library Advisory Board has decided to table the discussion of the WCCLS levy until September
and make a decision in October as to whether or not they will go out for an election. Tri-Met
was looking more seriously at providing improved service to suburban areas through their
Choices for Livability program which could impact parking. Also the Employee Commuter
Options (ECO) rule mandated a reduction of 30% in employee vehicle trips (3%a year over 10
years). She pointed out that if they increased the demand for the services at City Hall while
reducing employee parking, they in effect did not reduce the need for parking.
Ms.Newton noted that if they put a second floor over the police department, that would
accommodate the police space needs to the 20 year horizon. She said that Scenario B of the two
staffing projection scenarios, the one that included additional personnel for the urban services,
was the projection staff was using. She reported that the Amber Foods property has been leased
to another tenant, as the City could not make a commitment until the outcome of Measure 47
was known.
Mr. Monahan explained that the new tenant lease was for five years. However the property
owner was building an new office building to house the bus company offices which he would
not do unless he were interested in a long term lease arrangement with the bus company. He
said they could discuss this further in Executive Session if the Council so desired.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 1 -
/./ • 4111
Ms. Newton reported that staff has approached the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) to get
permission to use more of the building. The Tigard Water District indicated a preference to
house Public Works in the building over other departments.
Ms. Newton mentioned that at the March 19 meeting, Police Chief Goodpaster indicted that he
would prefer to wait on the police expansion until the Measure 47 issues were clarified. She
reported that Mrs. Schramnm has not yet decided to lease her building to a tenant but neither did
she want to sell it.
Ms. Newton reviewed the options before the Council. She said that staff still recommended
Option 1. She commented that she has discussed the parking needs for the library with Kathy
Davis, City Librarian, and they concluded that this site would have parking problems if it
continued to hold the library, the police, and all the other city facilities. If they moved the
library to a different site, it provided flexibility for the police expansion and eliminated the
parking crunch.
Ms.Newton asked if it was still the Council consensus to proceed with Option 1 as the basic
plan to work from. If so, staff would develop several alternatives under this option to complete
the police expansion and relocate the library to a different site.
Councilor Hunt asked about moving the library to the public works site near Interfaith. Ms.
Newton said that staff investigated that option, and concluded that that property plus an adjacent
property not presently owned by the City would provide sufficient room to house the library.
Mr. Monahan pointed out that more analysis of the site would need to be done in order to design
building and parking placements in compliance with current codes.
Ms. Newton reviewed the alternatives for relocation of other departments, if they went with
Option 1. With renovation, either the Community Development and Engineering Departments
could move into the library space or the police department. Another possibility was building a
second story over the police department and moving the courts up there. There was adequate
room to put Public Works in the Water Building. The Niche was also a factor in relocation
discussions.
Councilor Hunt spoke to moving quickly with Option 1. He pointed out that an opportune time _
to go out with another bond was at the time when the other bonds were expiring (which was
happening fairly soon).
Mayor Nicoli suggested exploring keeping the library on site (as part of Option 1) if they could
get additional parking. Once they have looked at the options for both moving the library offsite
and keeping it onsite, then they should get public input. Councilor Hunt suggested involving the
Library Board in the discussion.
Councilor Moore commented that they needed to find out whether or not they could afford the
library bond. Ms. Newton said that the WCCLS levy was going to be $36.8 million with
Tigard's share at$4.569 million. This would have been a county wide 30 cents per$1000 levy
for five years, 15 cents per$1000 for 10 years. Tigard's share would be the same.
The Council discussed how much space the library would need over the 20 year planning
horizon. Ms. Newton said that the WCCLS levy would have provided a 38,800 square foot
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 2 -
• • •
building, an increase of 26,000 square feet over the present library space of 12,780 square feet.
Mayor Nicoli commented that they would probably need an acre and a half to accommodate
both the building and parking. He suggested looking at the public works yard. Ms. Newton said
that the cost for a plan to renovate the library into office space would cost between $2500 to
$5000.
Councilor Hunt requested a staff recommendation on which was the most cost effective way to
go. Mayor Nicoli suggested picking the election date that they wanted to go out with a bond for,
and then working the schedule backwards to develop their timeline and options. He spoke for a
November general election. Councilor Hunt pointed out that they should go with the 1998
general election, or else they would have to get a 50%voter turnout. Councilor Moore
commented that getting a bond measure on a ballot in one and a half years was an aggressive
program.
Mr. Monahan suggested that a staff committee work with the City Librarian and the Library
Board. Staff would let them know that the Council was interested in funding a consultant to
assist with exploring the options of a library either on or offsite. He pointed out that bringing
the Library Board into the discussion up front would aid in the election campaign later on.
Councilor Hunt concurred but requested police participation also, including the Police Advisory
Board. Mayor Nicoli requested committee discussion within the context of the 20 year planning
horizon.
Councilor Moore pointed out that this library bond might compete with the proposed second
road bond. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think the voters weighed the two together. He
spoke to starting the process for a bond now.
Mr. Monahan asked if Council wanted to fold the present police renovation into this option or,
after the committee discussion on Option 1, free up the police project to move ahead. The
Council discussed the question. Councilor Hunt suggested getting the opinion of the committee.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned the alternatives of doing the police expansion now and seeing how
long that met the space needs or waiting and building a bigger facility later. Councilor Moore
expressed concern that doing the expansion now would only put them where they should be with
no future growth. Ms. Newton said that Chief Goodpaster has indicated that both the expansion
and the remodel should hold them for 10 to 12 years.
> Agenda Review
Mr. Monahan noted the non-Agenda item of the Community Development Block Grant for the
91st Avenue sidewalk improvements. The City was offering$400 in cash and $22,800 of in
kind services to receive $116,870.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported the first application for a limited
land use decision that the City has received in the two years since they established the expedited
review process mandated by state statute. He explained that the director's decision could be
appealed only to the Hearings Referee; the Council could not call it up.
Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, reviewed the four criteria for a limited land use decision, noting
that they were very straightforward, and that the applicant was entitled to very quick processing
from the City She pointed out that hearings were actually prohibited unless there was an appeal.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 3
•
• S
She said that reasons why applicants did not go with this process more often included the high
fee (recovery of true costs)and the limitation of the appeals to LUBA. Mr. Monahan mentioned
that the Council could prompt someone with standing to appeal a limited land use decision to
the Hearings Referee.
Ms. Newton mentioned the surprise at the South CIT meeting that they did not receive the
typical notice. However when staff explained that they were following established procedure,
the CIT accepted it but asked for more information on the expedited review process.
Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Farmer's Market. Ms. Newton said that she
would put an update in the newsletter after her meeting with the Chamber Board.
Mr. Monahan mentioned Consent Agenda Item 3.3, in which the Chamber requested that the
City staff member who sat on the Board change from a voting member to an ex officio member.
This was a result of reworking their charter. Ms. Newton commented that sometimes it has been
awkward voting on the Board as a City representative. The resolution delegated the authority to
appoint the staff member to the City Manager.
Mr. Monahan noted the new library sign put up by the Friends of the Library two weeks ago.
Councilor Hunt asked to take the Tigard Water District name off the Water Building sign. Mr.
Monahan said that he would discuss this with the IWB.
> Study Session adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
I
1. BUSINESS MEETING
• Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan noted the addition of the Community Development Block Grant Agreement
#9142, the Tigard/91 st Avenue sidewalk improvements.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, spoke against either the City or
ARD indemnifying themselves in the draft agreement currently under negotiation. He asked if
indemnification meant that the insurance company was the only one who paid a claim and that
the City and ARD were not responsible. He asked if the City would purchase the Lamb-Gray
property whether or not ARD was signatory to the agreement.
Mr. Monahan said that the draft agreement was scheduled for a future agenda once staff has
reviewed the insurance coverage. He explained that Council directed staff to proceed with the
purchase of the Lamb-Gray property regardless of whether ARD came in as a partner on the
project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE LO, 1997 -PAGE 4
• •
Terry Smith, 114810 SW 92nd Ave., asked the Council to consider calling up MLP 97-0002
(Downing-Shaw partition) for review once it was through the Planning Commission hearing
process.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Scheckla,seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt the Consent
Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: May 13 and 20, 1997
3.2 Receive and File:
a. City Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
33 Authorize City Manager to Appoint a City Representative to the Tigard Chamber
of Commerce Board as an Ex-Offico Member-Resolution No. 97-24
3.4 Approve Waiver of Sign Permit Fee for Friends of the Tigard Library
4. COOK PARK MASTER PLAN- RECOMMENDATION BY THE COOK PARK
TASK FORCE
• Staff Report
Councilor Hunt presented the report of the Cook Park Task Force. He noted anonymous flyers
recently distributed in the City that contained discrepancies between the facts and what the
flyers said. He stated that it was the Task Force, not the Mayor, who decided what direction
the community would go in regards to the expansion of Cook Park. He said that while the
Mayor's brother did sit on the Task Force as the Soccer Club representative, he did not own
any of the sports clubs and did not stand to gain financially from the expansion of the park.
Neither did the Mayor, any staff member or any Task Force member. Councilor Hunt stated
his opinion that the flyers were a cheap and underhanded tactic.
Councilor Hunt reviewed the location of the properties on the map, including the park, the
Lamb-Gray property,and the dairy farm owned partly by USA. He explained that Mr. Gray
had paid for a study to lay out baseball fields on his property, and had received state
environmental approval to mitigate the wetlands, which he did.
Councilor Hunt reviewed the history of the Cook Park Task Force. He approached the
Council two years ago to suggest purchasing the Gray property to increase the parking in
Cook Park, since it would only get worse. The Mayor appointed a Task Force, with Council
approval, consisting of himself and Councilor Hunt as City representatives, Dave Nicoli and
Gary Stevens as sports representatives, and John Cook as Member-at Large. Later Brian
Wegner and Mark Vossler came on as environmental representatives. The Council authorized
hiring a consultant to work with the Task Force to design the use of the property, and the City
hired Murase & Associates (who had a long history working with Tigard and Cook Park).
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 -PAGE 5
Councilor Hunt said that the Task Force meetings with the consultant ran from June 1996 to
May 1997. They included input from the CITs and other interested parties. He stated that
while they did not followed all the suggestions given, the Task Force did listen to everyone
prior to making their decisions.
Councilor Hunt said that around May 1996 USA purchased the dairy process and informed the
City that they were interested in selling the City part of the property. While the sports leagues
eagerly anticipated putting in many ballfields on that property, the Task Force discovered that
the environmental restrictions precluded putting in ballfields in order to preserve the wetlands.
However the City was now negotiating with USA to buy a different portion of the property for
development as passive recreation, not organized sports recreation. This property could include
a wetlands interpretative center,trails, playgrounds, and a picnic shelter.
Councilor Hunt stated that the Task Force agreed to install a fence between the wetlands and
the active play fields to prevent accidental incursions into the wetlands. They established a 25
foot minimum buffer between the wetlands and the fence. He mentioned criticism received by
the Task Force that the 25 foot buffer was insufficient protection for the wetlands.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that presently there was a drainage ditch into the Tualatin River
dug in between the City property and the dairy property. Bill Park from the Division of State
Lands toured the property and has agreed that the City was adequately protecting the wetlands.
Moreover the drainage ditch was man-made and not a natural wetlands . On the advice of the
consultants, the Task Force recommended filling the ditch in and providing drainage to
improve the water flow into the wetlands.
Councilor Hunt expressed his appreciation for the interest shown by the public in this project.
He asked that tonight's discussion focus on the facts of the situation, not on misrepresentations,
and to keep personalities out of it. He thanked the Task Force for all their work and
willingness to compromise to reach the best solution for the most people. He noted that Brian
Wegner continued to have a concern that the 25 foot wetland buffer was insufficient, even after
the Task Force reached consensus on that issue. He said that he made no apologies for the
Task Force's work. The recommendations protected the environment,increased the facilities
for youth, doubled the parking area, and provided a bandstand.
Councilor Hunt mentioned that there had been considerable discussion on where the money
would come from to do this expansion and to buy the Lamb-Gray property. He said that one
source was the Parks system development charges (SDCs). The City had a large SDC reserve
dedicated to parks development. In addition they might be able to use Metro Greenspace
money in combination with City money for trail development and interpretive areas.
Discussions were ongoing with the sports leagues, and they would probably pay for the
ballfields and other facilities related directly to their use.
Mr. Hendryx noted concerns raised by citizens. These included
• Phasing in the interpretative centers earlier than currently recommended;
- The City could not build on the USA property until they acquired it, and USA could not
sell it until the long term lease with the dairy farmer was over.
• Integrating this plan in with the City's overall Parks Master Plan;
- The City was developing a Parks Master Plan process to demonstrate how parks SDC
would be expended (in accordance with SDC regulations). The staff has taken the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 6
•
overall concept for the public involvement process to the CITs,and next month would
hire a consultant to work the process.
Mr. Hendryx introduced the primary consultants, Bob Murase and Steve Cook of Murase &
Associates. -
Mr. Murase reviewed the work his firm has done for the City in the past, including the original
master plan for Cook Park in 1989. He noted that the recommendations before the Council were
the consensus of the Task Force.
Mr. Cook listed the secondary consultants used on the project. These included Kittleson&
Associates(transportation), Kempe & Associated (civil engineers), Fishman Environmental
Services (wetlands), and D.A. Hogan& Associates (sports fields).
Mr. Cook said that he would focus on the 27 acre expansion area added on to the current 52
acres of Cook Park. Issues and suggested improvements included:
• New and improved signage and a monument to mark the entrance to the park with additional
signage on Durham Road;
• A gate to control access during the off season, flooding,or evening hours as needed
• Expansion of the currently scheduled pedestrian and bikeway improvements on 92"°
Avenue, keeping in mind the wetlands on either side of 92nd
• No alterations to the existing parking of 184 spaces;
• Additional restrooms, allowance for storage and a concession stand near the existing control
gate;
• Additional restrooms to serve the active playfields and the interpretative trails;
• Extension of the existing paved pathway to go along the river and the wetlands edge for a
multi-modal pathway as part of the regional trail system;
• All other paths would be gravel or woodchip, meandering through the area;
• A interpretative center gazebo overlooking the wetlands;
• Interpretative plaques along the trails;
• Additional picnic shelters near the wetlands and near the knoll by the boat ramp;
• A small bandstand for intimate evening concerts in the Mary Woodward maple grove;
• 287 additional parking spaces to address the neighborhood parking concerns;
• The lot adjacent to 92"d would be paved but the other two would be gravel to mitigate the
environmental impact by allowing infiltration of storm water;
• The sports fields will have underdrainage of a sand base with turf on top but with water
captured by the bioswales to separate it from the water draining to the wetlands;
• Additional parking near the existing baseball diamonds.
• Public Comment
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the public comment procedures for the evening.
OPPONENTS
> Mary Driscoll, 16235 SW Copper Creek Drive, stated that she has regularly attended the
South CIT and the Task Force meetings for one and a half years. She expressed concern that
the wetlands buffer should be at least 50 feet, preferably 100 feet. She suggested adding only
100 new parking spaces instead of the proposed 354. Other concerns included the probability
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 -PAGE 7
•
•
of increased crime in the area and the lack of planning for an additional police presence in the
area, traffic, noise, and pollution. She asked that the trail improvements be built during Phase
1 of the construction. She pointed out that this area flooded regularly, and funding would be
needed for repairs.
Mayor Nicoli asked the Task Force members who wished to comment to do so at this time.
> Brian Wegner,Tualatin Riverkeepers and South CIT representative, expressed his
appreciation that the Thomas dairy property owned by USA was still wetlands. He noted the
opportunities available for comment when USA considered what to do with that property. He
mentioned that Metro was interested in a greenspace area close to the river, and the possibility
of a connecting trail to Durham Park.
> Gary Stevens,Tigard Little League representative, expressed his concern with the
comments made concerning Mayor Nicoli and his brother. He said that two years ago, Mayor
Nicoli came to the Little League to ask what the City could do for the youth of Tigard. That
was the first time in the 22 years he has lived in Tigard that a Mayor asked what the City could
do for them. He said that he and Dave Nicoli, who happened to the Soccer Club president at
the time, have had a dream of finding additional space for playing fields for youth. He
commented that he did not think that Tigard had the same problems with youth that other
communities did, primarily due to the strong support of the community,the Council,the City
staff, and the strong youth organizations in Tigard.
Mr. Stevens noted that the youth organizations could not afford land that sold for$140,000 an
acre, as the Sattler property had done. He mentioned the conversations the Nicolis had with
Mr. Gray regarding his plans for ballfields on his property. He emphasized that Mr. Gray
mitigated the original wetland-the pond-and developed the wetlands existing today. These
wetlands did not exist 10 years ago. They discussed developing the property as an expansion
of Cook Park to benefit both the youth and the community of Tigard.
Mr. Stevens commented that Councilor Hunt stated up front that this plan would not progress
if it was strictly for the youth or recreation groups within Tigard. It needed to benefit the
whole community. He said that both he and Mr.Nicoli had hoped for more usable space for
ballfields but the environmental concerns raised by Brian and Mark reduced it to less than half
of what they had wanted to get. He pointed out that the USA property could benefit the entire
community through a passive recreation area and an elevated wetlands viewing area. He
commended all the Task Force members for their diligent efforts.
> Dave Nicoli, ARD President, Soccer Club representative, said that it took some doing to
get him to realize that they could not get all the ballfields they wanted because of the wetlands.
However now he supported the plan, including the wetlands, as the best use of the property for
youth and adults. He noted that the Soccer Club has grown from 1100 kids to 1800 kinds in
the past six years. Their need for additional space prompted this planning effort. He
mentioned that this was the last open area in Tigard for community events, such as fireworks
on the Fourth of July and the Balloon Festival.
> Mark Vossler, environmental representative, commented that this plan was the result of
hours of work and heated debates and information gathering to get it to this point. He said that
they worked hard to balance the variety of interests. He said that he had begun with the idea
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 8
•
that there had to be places in Tigard more suited to ballfields than this natural area but upon
investigation realized that affordable open space in Tigard was in short supply. This was a
compromise to get the maximal use for the whole community out of this park land. This was
not anyone's dream park but it was a workable compromise in the interests of the entire
community.
The public testimony of the opponents continued.
> Don Manghelli, 16415 SW 93`d, applauded the work of the Task Force in juxtaposing the
various interests so well. He expressed concern about the lack of certainty in the plan, and
some of the discrepancies that he saw on the map. He asked where the signs were to go. He
said that while he liked the general concept, he would like more than a 25 foot buffer on parts
of the wetlands where possible. He expressed concern that the ball clubs were spearheading
this effort yet did not have clearly defined balifields to know where the buffer could be greater
than 25 feet.
> Rob Forrest, 16672 SW 89`d Place, spoke to the issue of sufficient setbacks for the wetlands
on the Lamb-Gray property. He contended that the 25 foot setback was grossly inadequate
and environmentally irresponsible. He noted that the newly formed sports organization would
have to inject money into this project yet he has not seen any defined maintenance agreement
or information relative to that agreement. He held that this money would come primarily from
tournaments which would have a significant impact on traffic because of the number of people
who would come. He expressed hope that this issue could be worked on, as it was not
addressed at all in the Master Plan.
Mr. Forrest contended that the proposed number of parking spaces was oversized. He asked
for consideration in protecting the wildlife habitat and to send back the Master Plan for
repairs. He said that he was not against having soccer fields in the park but wanted a balance
between wildlife, people, cars, and sports fields.
> Chris Counts, 9600 Riverwood Lane, said that he moved from Hamlet Street because of the
traffic and noise. He lived in,Riverwood because he valued peace, quiet, and parks. He
recommended that the Council delay adoption of the Cook Park Master Plan until completion
of a new city wide parks plan. He noted the 1987 park plan map showing park deficient
neighborhoods in Tigard. He questioned moving ahead with the expansion of Cook Park
without addressing the neighborhood needs identified in 1987. He said that a balanced park
system community wide was a principle of parks planning, and a fundamental flaw in the
Cook Park Master Plan.
Mr. Counts expressed concern that there were more environmental concerns present than were
being addressed. He commended the Task Force for on their excellent job in resolving
controversies but spoke for a minimum 50 foot wetland buffer. He said that the hydrology of
the area has not been adequately discussed, including the impact of impervious surfaces and
bioswales during a flood event. He noted the loss of wildlife to noise and parking. He stated
that the best balance was to address the needs of the neighborhoods without parks.
> Deborah DeWit Marchant, 10080 SW Pick's Court, mentioned that she and her family
have enjoyed Cook Park for 11 years. She said that she did not disagree with the bulk of the
Master Plan- it needed to serve many people in the community. She expressed sympathy for
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 9
• •
the sports people in having such a poor place to put their fields. It had the wetland restrictions,
it flooded regularly, and it had no expansion room. She expressed concern for the wildlife
habitat and spoke for a larger buffer than 25 feet.
> Robert Melvin, 10395 Bonanza Way,expressed concern about the wildlife and its habitat.
He said that most wild animals and birds had a flight distance greater than 25 feet. Loose balls
from the playfields would alarm them. He asked for the 100 foot buffer to protect the wildlife
habitat as recommended by several South CIT members. He asked that path construction
(only 3%of the expansion budget) be moved up from Phase 2 Priority 3 to Phase 1 Priority 1.
He pointed out that many people used those trails year round, including when the ballfields
could not be used because of flooding. He contended that it made economic and
environmental sense to build the trails at the same time as the equipment was on site to build
Phase 1 of the three sports fields.
> Mary Ann Melvin, 10395 Bonanza Way, said that her family also enjoyed walking in Cook
Park. She expressed concern that the park would be transformed from a local community park
into a regional park with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits to the citizens of Tigard
who would be paying for it. She asked that the proposed Master Plan be reexamined and
scaled back to reflect the realities of a local community park.
> Mark Lennars, 16675 SW 89th Place, said that he supported the improvements to Cook Park
and appreciated the work done to date. He held that a 25 foot buffer was insufficient, citing
the condition of the wetlands adjacent to the soccer fields on the west side of the park to the
condition of the wetlands on the east side of the park. He asked that the buffer be extended to
a minimum of 50 feet. He said that he had been concerned about the involvement of the
Mayor's brother and was glad that issue had been addressed tonight.
Mr. Lennars said that he saw the expansion, not as an expansion of the park, but as the
building of a sports complex with probably a park. He mentioned that six months ago a City
employee told a group of school children at the park that their new soccer fields would be
located here but when confronted said that it was just a possibility.. He asked the Council to
work to make the expansion a true expansion of the park and not a sports complex. He said
that he would support a reasonable plan.
> Sue Kasson, 16570 SW 93rd, said that she was a member of the Citizen Visioning Committee
trying to set a vision for Tigard in twenty years. She spoke to the importance of balance. She
asked that the Council not vote tonight until the issues raised this evening have been discussed
further and balanced more.
> Michael Cleghorn, 9360 S Julia Place, expressed his concern that the decision has already
been made. He said that there were too many probabilities in the plan,and that he would like
to see something definite before a vote was taken. He said that the number of parking spaces
encouraged a regional park rather than a community park. He spoke to preserving the
wetlands with a 100 foot setback. He asked who would pay for the damage restoration needed
after flooding. He said that he saw two problems: the process that this has gone through was
separate from the planning of the park, and a number of citizens were alienated.
> Sue Marshall, 15941 SW Inverrie, spoke on behalf of the Tualatin Riverkeepers. She
commented that Cook Park was important to the Riverkeepers as the most widely used public
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 10
•
• •
access to the Tualatin. They were mostly pleased with the outcome of the planning process,
supporting in particular the commitment not to fill in the wetlands, the interconnecting trails,
and the interpretative stations. She expressed their concern that the 25 foot buffers were
inadequate, and suggested a 50 foot minimum. She pointed out that the Safe Harbor ordinance
called for a 75 foot setback for wetlands associated with the Tualatin River, which these were.
Ms. Marshall mentioned two species on the Sensitive Species list that lived in the park: the
pilliated woodpecker and the bufflehead. She asked that paving be kept to a minimum as this
was a flood plain. Impervious surfaces reduced the capacity for flood storage and surface
water filtering. She said that the plan should encourage park& walk and bike riding to enter
the park with upland parking alternatives. She expressed concern at the potential impinging of
the wetlands on either side of 92nd if it were expanded to three lanes with curbs and sidewalks.
Ms. Marshall said that the proposed Master Plan was a good attempt at addressing the varied
uses of the community park. She said that they believed that the constituency supported the
value of conserving wildlife habitat, the opportunity for passive recreation in a natural setting,
and opportunities for kids to play sports without displacing wildlife. She said that the
Riverkeepers supported amending the proposed Cook Park Master plan to allow at least a 50
foot wetland buffer and a reduction in the number of parking spaces.
> Barb Forrest, 16672 SW 89th Place, spoke to the Cook Park expansion as ideally suited for a
nature study park and not suitable as playing fields. She asked why they wanted to take a
coveted natural area and alter it. She said that she has followed this process from the
beginning, and seen new faces at meetings appalled at the thought of using the area for
ballfields and parking lots. She held that the overwhelming majority of those attending the
CIT meetings objected to the plan and its revisions. She commented that she wrote the
Council and did not receive a reply. She asked for putting in ballfields in a responsible
fashion, saving the bushes and trees and including adequate buffers.
> Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, expressed concern about the
traffic, auto pollution, and security at the park. He said that he asked Chief Goodpaster if the
Council had requested in writing assigning a police officer to the park during the day but Chief
Goodpaster had not received such a request. He asked for another public hearing.
PROPONETS
> John Anderson, 14468 SW Scarlett Place, Secretary of ARD and the Tigard-Tualatin-
Sherwood United Soccer Club, and co-chair of the Tigard Tualatin School District fields
Advisory Council, spoke to another impact beyond the wetlands, animals, and environment-
the impact on the children. He said that this expansion was designed to provide adequate
outdoor facilities for the children of the community. The future loss to the community was
incalculable. He spoke to acting in the best interests of the community and voting for the
Cook Park expansion.
> Amanda Asher, 15795 SW Serena Court, soccer and softball player,spoke to the need for
more ballfields for the kids to play on. She noted that cities smaller than Tigard managed to
build more fields than Tigard has. She commented on the need for additional parking also.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10,4997 - PAGE 11
• •
> Frannie Lucas, 12335 SW Mary Street, soccer and softball player,concurred with the need
for more fields. She said that their goals and dreams of life started on those fields, and that
they need to build more fields.
> Craig Dirksen,9131 SW Hill Street, said that his family also has enjoyed Cook Park. He
pointed out that park space in Tigard has expanded at a much lower level than the population.
He mentioned his volunteer and civic activities as evidence of his love for the City. He
contended that the City needed this expansion, and that the vast majority of citizens in Tigard
favored it.
> Pat Wolf,8910 SW Reilly, mentioned his participation on youth sports organization boards.
He said that this plan began to correct some of the deficiencies mentioned by Mr. Dirksen. He
pointed out that recreation development and activities in communities surrounding Tigard,
including the Tualatin Hills Parks& Recreation District, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, and
Canby. He doubted that the sports fields would be visible from the river paths, and therefore
the buffers were adequate. He commended the Task Force for all the work they did in putting
together a plan that was reasonable for everyone.
> Jeff Devry, 14500 SW Hall, Little League Vice President, said that Tigard was out of space
for kids to play sports on. They have done everything they can to renovate existing or
abandoned fields but they had more kids than space. He said that during the season every field
in the community was in play. This expansion would help serve the kids in a better manner.
He said,with regards to traffic and noise issues,that he believed that the sports people have
been good neighbors, moving in and out of games with as little trouble as possible. He said
that the last time Cook Park flooded, the leagues rebuilt the baseball fields with donations and
volunteer labor. The leagues did all the maintenance and repair work on the fields made
available to them.
> Tim Duncan, 10830 SW Kingsbury Lane, suggested taking into consideration who would
do the actual construction and their reputation as builders. He mentioned that sometimes
construction workers did not follow the rules as closely as they should. He pointed out that
the wetlands did not follow the boundaries set by man. While they could use nature to help set
the boundaries, berms implied the boundaries. He said that 25 feet was not enough.
> Valerie Westlund, 14800 SW ??? Drive, noted that the Task Force included representatives
from both sides of the issue. The Task Force members apparently felt that this was a good
compromise to get all the groups to work together. She mentioned that the environmental
representative on the Task Force felt that the 25 foot buffer was a good compromise. She
pointed out that this natural area was not"natural"at all but created by Mr. Gray within the
recent past. She mentioned the rumors that the schools were taking away the fields from
soccer and baseball which meant that they would have to turn away more and more children.
She asked for adoption of the plan as presented.
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Hendryx said that all letters received by staff were forwarded to the Council and the Task
Force. Staff did not reply to the individual letters but incorporated them into the process.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 12 -
• S
Mr. Cook said that as part of the plan they proposed enhancement of the buffers for the
existing wetlands north of the soccer fields and improvements to the natural flow of the
wetlands. He said that the number of additional parking spaces was 287. These parking
spaces would accommodate not only the sports fields but the interpretive areas and the picnic
areas. He mentioned that additional picnic shelter, 35 additional picnic tables, and other
amenities. He said that he hoped the benefit to the community at large was not lost in the
focus on the sports fields.
Mayor Nicoli noted that the plan prepared by the consultants was a master plan, not a detailed
construction plan. Mr. Cook concurred. He explained that a master plan was a guiding tool
that put forth the general conditions and features for parks and other planning projects. It did
not include details of specific design. Those would be developed in the next phase of design
development. The two other phases were construction documents and project construction.
Mr. Murase commended the City for developing a city wide Parks Master Plan. He explained
that a neighborhood park was normally five acres or smaller in size and did not include
ballfields or parking lots. Neighborhood parks were for tot lots, and a multi purpose open field
for neighborhood use, not community use. Cook Park had a different situation and
programmatic use.
Mayor Nicoli thanked the consultants for their work, mentioning the appreciation of the Task
Force for Mr. Cook's dedication and composure.
• Council Consideration: Motion Approving the Master Plan for the Expansion of Cook
Park
In response to questions from Councilor Moore, Mr. Hendryx said that the USA water quality
standards used a 25 foot buffer. Staff was double checking what the DSL buffer imposed on
developments was. He pointed out that the 25 foot buffer was the minimum distance
recommended by the Task Force. The Task Force also recommended enlarging the buffer
were possible. It was possible that the buffers would increase once the ballfields were laid
out. He mentioned that there would be a subsequent review process.
Councilor Rohlf asked why the Task Force chose a 25 foot buffer instead of the 50 foot buffer
as a compromise point, given the strong feelings expressed tonight. Mayor Nicoli said that it
was a balancing act. The environmental consultants actually recommended removing some
poor quality wetlands on the Lamb-Gray property and enhancing some lands with better
potential on the dairy property. Those areas would have 100 to 300 foot buffers, and in some
cases no public access at all.
Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of a 50 foot buffer would be on the fields. Mayor
Nicoli said that they did not know yet as the leagues have not done the final field layout. The
Task Force realized that the buffer would vary from in depth around the fields from 25 feet to
100 feet.
Councilor Rohlf asked what would have happened to this property had the City not bought it.
Mr. Hendryx said that without looking at the Development Code,his best guess was that only
a limited series of uses would have been allowed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 13
• •
Councilor Rohlf asked why they needed paved parking. Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force
did discuss not paving the entire area but decided to pave the high traffic driveways and
parking used on a daily basis. Much of the proposed parking was intended as overflow
parking only and would be left as gravel.
Councilor Hunt asked if gravel parking lots had any ADA implications. Ed Wegner, Public
Works Director, said no,that the park had sufficient hard surface parking now to
accommodate the ADA accessibility requirements, although they might have to put in some
concrete sidewalks and ramps to access the fields. He concurred that they had ample parking
in the off season.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the fields would be destroyed every year because of flooding. Mayor
Nicoli said that there was a risk in building in the flood plain but it was minimal. He
confirmed that the baseball league rebuilt their fields after the 1996 flood. The City may have
done some work on the soccer fields.
Councilor Hunt suggested looking into designing the gazebo and bandstand to float during
flooding.
Councilor Rohlf said that he sensed frustration from people at not having a voice on the Task
Force. Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force did include representatives from the
neighborhood who also brought the environmental position to the table. He said that they had
a public meeting, and reviewed all comments collected, many of which were reiterated
tonight. He said that they did make some changes based on those comments, and that he was
comfortable with the comments made this evening.
Councilor Hunt said that he was also comfortable with the input heard tonight. He concurred
that Brian Wegner, Tualatin Riverkeepers President, did have input into the plan. He said that
he thought that the reason that some people felt that they were not heard was because the Task
Force chose to do something different than they wanted done. That did not mean that they
were not heard.
Councilor Rohlf reiterated his concern with setting the buffer to a 25 foot minimum instead of
a 50 foot minimum. He asked if doing so would destroy the ability to lay out the fields as
desire. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that this was the Master Plan. They had not wanted to get into
the exact layout of the fields without an exact plan for the parking areas. Once they knew
where the parking areas would be, then they could layout the fields and determine the buffer
widths. Dictating a 50 foot minimum buffer could significantly reduce the number of fields.
The Task Force decided to require a minimum 25 foot buffer only when needed to preserve a
field and to work towards a larger boundary.
Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought the point about later tonight adopting a set of
standards requiring a 75 foot buffer was valid. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that
ordinance was directed towards other considerations. He pointed out that while the wetlands
did not have straight line boundaries, the fields did. One field corner might have a 25 foot
buffer and another a 100 foot buffer. That issue would be determined during the layout. The
Task Force took the minimum required by law and understood that most of the boundaries
would be more than 25 feet.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 14
• .
Councilor Rohlf said that he could understand the citizens' concerns with the minimum.
Mayor Nicoli suggested stating that the Council would like to see an average of 50 feet but
would allow for a specific field to go inside that boundary. He said that he was comfortable
knowing that the average width would be more than the 25 feet. 25 feet was the exception, not
the rule.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the citizens would agree to the rest of the project if they put in a
50 foot minimum buffer. Several audience members said no.
Councilor Scheckla said that he saw the problem as a desire on the part of the neighbors to
treat this park as their own neighborhood park and to keep it for their personal use. He noted
the many housing developments built in Tigard during his lifetime. He said that there was no
park in this area when he grew up; they had to go to Oregon City or Portland to play ball.
People moved here because they liked the community and the conveniences but now that they
were here, they did not want to share their park. He spoke for creating places for young
people to play and stay out of trouble.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that the Task Force recommended a fence at the edge of the 25
foot buffer, something not required by law. From a practical standpoint, ballfields did not go
tight along the fences. Therefore effectively there would be more than a 25 foot buffer.
Mayor Nicoli commented that in the beginning of this process the leagues had hoped to have
twice as much space since there was plenty of room in the uplands. However in response to
the concerns of the environmentalists, the sports people cut their expectations in half and
tripled the requests of the environmentalists. The majority of the dairy property and the
Lamb-Gray property would be passive recreation use and prohibited public access. He
contended that the Task Force was very fair in its concern for the environment with the master _
plan landing heavily on the side of the environmentalists.
Mayor Nicoli commented that as a resident of Tigard he stood to gain with fields or wetlands.
He reiterated that the Task Force did listen to people and responded to them. He said that he
was comfortable with the 25 foot minimum and review of the issue during the construction
documents phase. He recommended that the Council adopt the document without changes.
Councilor Moore said that he heard from both sides of this issue, since two Task Force
members lived across the street from him. He said that he based his decision on the mission
statement of the Master Plan: "to improve the park to serve the greatest number of citizens
with the least impact in the inherent nature, character, and resources of the existing park and
adjacent expansion areas." He said that the question was what was the best service to the
37,000 people living in Tigard. He expressed concern about the buffer but said that he was
willing to wait for the field layout.
Councilor Moore said that he thought that the Task Force developed a well balanced
document. He mentioned that the Council has looked into purchasing land for additional
parks in the City but found that no parcels big enough were left. He mentioned that space has
been a problem for the sports clubs for at least 10 years and this was their answer. He
expressed his support of the Master Plan while waiting for the detailed plans prior to making a
decision about the fields.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 15
• •
Councilor Rohlf commented that Councilor Hunt has been a supporter of parks and pedestrian
friendly areas throughout the City since he has known him. He said that the Mayor came with
an interesting concept of leveraging their park dollars to have more parks in the City. They
did so in the purchase of the Cook Park expansion property .
Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the sports clubs came to the table offering dollars towards
this project in order to acquire land for more fields. The environmentalists came with no
additional money at all, something that had concerned him at the time. However both the
Mayor and Councilor Hunt supported adding the environmental representatives to the Task
Force. He expressed his surprise that more land went for wetlands than for the kids who
needed more fields. He concurred that all fields were in play during the season. Tigard's
growth would not stop, and they needed places for the children to play.
Councilor Rohlf said that he thought sports deterred crime and gave the kids something useful
and constructive to do. He said that he wished they could find a better place to put the fields
but there weren't any other places so the leagues would have to settle for second best. He
commented that while this might make a better wetlands park, there was no other place for the
children to play. This plan met both needs.
Councilor Rohlf expressed his concern about the buffer. He said that while he would like to
put in language regarding the buffer and gravel parking lots, he thought those details would
work out during the process.
Councilor Rohlf expressed his dismay at the personal attacks by the public on the Mayor and
his brother. He said that he thought Mayor Nicoli was the best Mayor Tigard has seen. He
knew personally that the Mayor took much time away from his business to volunteer for the
City. While he did not know the Mayor's brother, he respected his dedication to the youth of
the City. He noted the deliberate work by the City to develop programs to help keep kids out
of trouble. This park plan was in step with that work.
Councilor Rohlf said that all sides were listened to during the process. He expressed his anger
that those who disagreed with the position taken by the Task Force resorted to personal attacks
on the Mayor and his brother. He said that while he did not support the plan as fully as
Councilor Moore -he felt it needed some tweaking -he would vote for it.
Councilor Hunt concurred that viscous personal attacks were inappropriate behavior. If
anything was to be attacked, it should be what the Task Force did and why they did it. He
mentioned that one of his goals as a Councilor has been to work with youth. He noted his
efforts to get more officers in the schools, to get more picnic facilities and areas for children in
Cook Park, and to get the stoplight at Durham and 79th for a safer crossing for the children.
Councilor Hunt said that he fully supported the Master Plan. He commented that it preserved
the ballfields for the children while also keeping interpretative areas and pathways.
Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Moore, to receive and approve the
master plan for the extension of Cook Park developed by the Mayor and the Task Force.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 16
S
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:11 p.m.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
> The Council considered Agenda Items No. 7 and 8 at this time.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE)-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
(ZOA 97-001) WATER RESROUCES OVERLAY DISTRICT -A request to amend
the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant
wetlands and riparian corridors,which meets the requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule.
The new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District."
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges:None
c. Staff Report
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner,reviewed the Council's decision to comply with Goal 5
through the"Safe Harbor"method. This involved the City adopting state established
protection standards, significant wetlands definitions, and stream classifications system. He
mentioned Mark Roberts and Greg Winterowd of Winterowd & Associates, the
consultants hired to develop the Safe Harbor ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed
the ordinance and unanimously recommended approval. At the request of the CITs, staff
notified all potential interest groups and the 560 potentially affected property owners.
Mr. Roberts commented that this was the first Safe Harbor ordinance in the state close to
completion. Staff had some minor revisions to the ordinance recommended by the Planning
Commission. He mentioned a suggestion he had received to hold this over to July 8. He said
that there was no legal reason why they could not do so but adopting it tonight would give
staff the necessary timeframe to complete a grant application by June 30. He said that he did
not think a week's delay was significant for the grant.application but he has not been able to
reach anyone at the state.
Mr. Roberts noted that the state has never done the field verification of the wetlands inventory
that the City turned into them two years ago. He asked to change the ordinance adoption date
to 45 days from this evening because of this problem with the state not having adopted their
inventory.
The Council discussed whether or not to continue the hearing. Mayor Nicoli noted that some
people could not stay this late and it would be a courtesy to listen to those here tonight and to
hold it over to allow additional testimony.
d. Public Testimony
> Joe Kasten, 9885 SW Ventura Court, stated that in his particular case, the regulation
requiring a 50 foot setback from Ash Creek would take away one third of the property he
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 17
•
acquired 13 years ago. He mentioned the takings and compensation issue, stating that in his
opinion this regulation diminished the property value because it restricted what he could do
with his property. He pointed out that it was interesting that the Council set a 25 foot setback
for public property but a 50 to 75 foot setback for private property.
> Dan Dolan,4524 NE Davis,Portland, noted the desire to protect wetlands and streams but
questioned whether another layer of government was necessary to do so. He concurred that
property value would be diminished by a 50 to 75 foot setback. He contended that once this
ordinance made a property unbuildable, the property owner would be at the mercy of the City.
He questioned the meaning of"reasonable conditions"(page 5, draft). He said that there was
no provision to pay property owners for the reduction in value and loss of utility of their land.
He cited the Fifth Amendment's provision regarding compensation for takings. He argued
that Goal 5 was an unfunded mandate. He stated that if it was the City's intention to create
greenway, then property owners were due compensation. He stated that he did not believe the
ordinance went far enough in protecting the rights of the individual.
> Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72°d Avenue, stated for the record that he was a proponent for
protecting streams and rivers because that was in the best interests of the City, both now and in
the future. He said that he did not think that the 560 landowners affected by this ordinance
should bear the brunt of it financially. He spoke for compensation to property owners forced
to protect streams abutting their properties. He said that the tree ordinance was a similar
situation, in which private property owners bore the financial cost of protecting trees.
Mr. Martin asked if his property was included under the ordinance. He mentioned that he has
spent$100,000 for an engineer's report to justify to the Division of State Lands his request to
move the stream running through the middle of his property and to mitigate the wetlands. Mr.
Roberts explained that the stream on Mr. Martin's property was a drainage way and not
considered a significant stream corridor. -
> Greg Winterowd,Winterowd Planning Services, emphasized that they built as much
flexibility into this ordinance as they possibly could. He noted the mandated standard of a 25
foot buffer from fishbearing streams (in addition to the USA buffer of 25 feet) and a 75 foot
buffer from the Tualatin River. He reviewed the levels of adjustment allowed under this
standard.
The first level was the exemption of every developed subdivision in the city. This was spelled
out in the ordinance to avoid affecting people's backyards. The second level was that the
standards of the underlying zone could be adjusted administratively with notice. Mr.
Winterowd mentioned the flexibility built into the administrative rule. The third level was the
allowance of a reduction of up to 50% of the required riparian setback for areas that have been
disturbed, and were no longer pristine natural areas. The fourth level was a hardship variance
under the administrative rule. The fifth level was density transfers.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that Tigard had greenway park all along the Tualatin River so the 75
foot standard really did not affect anyone. However these adjustments would come into play
for the 50 foot setback from Fanno Creek.
Mr. Winterowd pointed out that an application had to go up through the levels in order to get
the adjustments. He said that this ordinance did not require the dedication of land, and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 18
411 S .
therefore did not take any land, though it require the protection of the streams and wetlands,
much as the Development Code required building setbacks.
Mr. Winterowd explained that in addition the City or a property owner could take a stream or
wetland out of the Safe Harbor category and do a separate ESEE analysis on it. If the Council
decided on full preservation of the natural resource, they would have to do a plan amendment.
He noted that while there was a city wide inventory of stream corridors and wetland, the City
chose to go with the Safe Harbor ordinance in order to avoid the expensive and time-
consuming ESEE analysis for all the properties. He stated that he believed that even if they
had done the ESEE analysis, the City would have ended up with an ordinance very similar to
the one before the Council tonight.
Mr. Winterowd said that this proposal included leaving the 25 foot water quality setback
required by USA as a separate lot,rather than making it a conservation easement, if the
property owner preserved the full setback. This meant that the minimum lot depth of the
buildable lot would be reduced. This avoided the administrative hassle of enforcing
conservation easements.
Councilor Hunt asked if the City would have the same problems and challenges if it had not
done the Safe Harbor option. Mr. Winterowd said that the tradeoff of the Safe Harbor option
had been giving up the flexibility to custom design the ordinance. He said that he suspected
that if the City had gone with the ESEE analysis, they would have more people here arguing
for stronger standards and for lesser standards. He reiterated that this ordinance would
probably not have been much different under that option. He held that the Safe Harbor was a
good compromise.
Councilor Hunt asked if someone could go through the ESEE analysis to get around the
ordinance. Mr. Winterowd said yes, they could. However it was an expensive and difficult
process, and onerous on individual property owners.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern about taking away the value of property that someone had
owned for years, like Mr. Karsten. Ms. Beery pointed out that existing subdivisions were
already grandfathered in. Property owners with approved applications might also be
_ grandfathered in because by law they could not apply new standards to approved applications.
Councilor Hunt asked if it was difficult to define who would be affected by this ordinance, and
if the City might get into trouble because they did not notify someone whose property later
turned out to be affected. Mr. Roberts said that legally they did not have to notify anybody.
They knew that they missed some people because they used the County tax assessment rolls.
However this notification was a voluntary action on the City's part because staff thought it
was a good idea to do so.
Councilor Rohlf explained that this ordinance was in response to a state mandate. He said that
any concerns about adding another layer of government needed to be addressed at the state
level, not the city level.
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to
July 22, 1997.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 19 -
•
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: PLEDGE $9,900 MATCHING FUNDS TO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT TO COMPLETE SENIOR
CENTER EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
a. Staff Report
Mr. Hendryx referenced the background given in the staff report. He noted that the project
was to do the raised gardens. This money would leverage funds 50/50 with the block grant
program.
Councilor Rohif expressed concern with this request not going through the normal budget
process, and with a social agency asking for another$10,000. Mr. Roberts explained that staff
had not known how much money they would need until the bids came in. They went through
the bid process four times on the various portions of this project. The first bid was
outrageously high, they received no bids for the next two requests, and then solicited two bids
the fourth time.
Mr. Monahan said that an option was to not fund the request and to look at scaling back the
work or using volunteer labor. He noted that this project had been in last year's budget.
Councilor Moore commented that $20,000 was a great deal of money to spend on raised
gardens. Mr. Roberts said that these were the handicapped accessible gardens, and strongly
supported by the Senior Center. Councilor Hunt commented that the bids were not out of line
with what landscapers would charge. Mayor Nicoli supported building the gardens.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Mayor Nicoli, to approve the matching funds.
Councilor Moore reiterated his concern with the amount of money to be spent on this project.
He spoke to using volunteer labor and donations to build the gardens. He said that he would
vote against the motion, although he was not against building the gardens. Councilor Hunt
said that they already had raised planters donated from the King City Plaza owners. Councilor
Moore said he would look into the issue.
Councilor Scheckla asked if they were setting a precedent for other people to come back
before the Council to ask for additional funding. Mr. Monahan said that several other groups
have already come back before the Council requesting additional funding.
Mr. Monahan said that staff would put this on next week's agenda. Mayor Nicoli asked to see
the plan drawings.
Councilor Hunt withdrew his motion, and Mayor Nicoli his second.
b. Council Questions
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 20 -
�► •
c. Council Deliberation: Motion to approve the needed matching funds in the amount of
$9,900 to complete the Senior Center exterior improvements
project.
> The Council considered Agenda Item No. 9 at this time.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT- Opportunity for public comment on the proposed use of the fund
for law enforcement equipment, enhancing school security and enhancing community
safety.
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges
c. Staff Report
Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, reported that the Citizens Committee required by this block
grant has identified the eight different areas and four to five subcategories that they could
spend this money in. He noted the list of items proposed for purchase with the grant money.
d. Public Testimony
> Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Court, asked if the"radar trail" listed in the Cook
Park Master Plan could be eliminated and a policeman assigned instead.
Chief Goodpaster said that was not a possibility. He explained that they have formed a Cook
Park Citizen Patrol that would begin patrolling the park the week after the Balloon Festival.
He mentioned the signage issues as the citizens group wanting better signage stating the rules,
regulations, and closing hours of the park as well as advertising the Citizens Patrol project.
e. Council Questions
f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
g. Council Deliberation: Motion authorizing Expenditures on the Proposed Use of Grant
Funds
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf,to authorize expenditures on
the proposed use of grant funds.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.")
8. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING LANGUAGE CONCERNING
"ABANDONED VEHICLES"
a. Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 21
•
• •
Chief Goodpaster noted that the amendment contained one substantive change and several
housekeeping changes suggested by the City Attorney to bring the ordinance up to date. He
mentioned that currently the police department spent a great deal of time tracking abandoned
vehicles as they were moved from place to place in response to notifications. This amendment
allowed the police to tow a car automatically on the third violation(if it met the criteria) with
notice.
b. Council Questions
c. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-04
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt,to adopt Ordinance No. 97-
04.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-04, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDING
CHAPTER 760 ABANDONED VEHICLE.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
> The Council considered Agenda Items No. 5 and 6 at this time.
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Monahan noted the request from the County to return a signed contract for the
Community Development Block Grant program#9142, the 915L Ave. sidewalk improvements,
by June 18. The City would contribute $400 in cash and $22,800 in in kind services in
exchange for$166,800 for a$190,000 project that would benefit Villa La Paz, an affordable
housing project.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to authorize the mayor to sign
the CDBG agreement.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
11. ADJOURNMENT: (-)( -el .e2Licu2 1.04.&.ca32e6
Attest: 1 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
.,
jitr, City of Tigard
:
i: ..:: .thy\ccm\970610.doc
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 22
Agenda Item: 5_3
Hearing D .V• May 19,1997 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE: FILE NAME: WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT
Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97-0001
PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes to amend the Community
Development Code to add a new section, titled "Water
Resources Overlay District", to protect significant wetlands
and riparian corridors
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A
•
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
ZONING
DESIGNATION: N/A
LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5; Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.1a; 1.1.1c; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 3.1.1; 3.2.4; 3.4.1.a; 3.4.2a; and
3.4.2d
•
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments
according to the findings found in Section IV of this report.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 1
III. BACKGROU.ONFORMATION •
Goal 5 is a broad statewide planning goal that covers more than a dozen resources.
These range from riparian corridors and wetlands to cultural areas and historic resources.
Goal 5 and related Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter 660, Divisions 16 and 23)
describe how cities and counties are to plan and zone land to conserve resources listed in -
the goal. Tigard has met the rule for other Goal 5 resources, but has not met the rule for
wetlands and riparian corridors as yet. The purpose of the present ordinance
amendments is to meet the city's obligation to adopt a program that protects these
resources and achieve compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning process for cities and counties:
1. Inventory local occurrences of resources listed in Goal 5 and decide which ones
are important.
2. Identify potential land uses on or near each resource site and any conflicts that -
might result.
3. Analyze economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences of
such conflicting uses.
4. Choose one of three policies toward conflicting uses at each site: prohibit the
conflicting use, allow the use fully, or put some limits on it
5. Adopt measures such as zoning to put that policy into effect.
This five-step Goal 5 process was established by rules adopted in 1982. Revisions were
adopted in 1996. For some resources, stream corridors and wetlands included, the
revisions give local governments a choice between following new, expedited procedures,
or following the standard five-step process.
An important element of the new Goal 5 rules is the "safe harbor" for local governments.
A safe harbor is a special provision that ensures compliance with Goal 5. For riparian
areas and wetlands, a city or county can choose the safe harbor or follow the five-step
process. The standard process gives a local government more flexibility, but also takes
more work and heightens the risk of litigation.
The rule provisions for riparian corridors specify that along a major stream, a local
government may adopt a setback that prohibits development within 50 feet_of the
waterway's bank. If it does that, the local government will automatically comply with Goal
5's requirement for protection of riparian corridors. The government doesn't need to do
any elaborate studies to justify its decision, and its risk of litigation is lessened. If the local
government wants to use something other than a 50-foot setback, it may. But in
developing an alternative to the safe harbor, it would have to complete the standard Goal
5 process, which would take more work. In Tigard's case, it is estimated that it would
require 1,000 hours of staff time to complete the ESEE process for wetlands and riparian
zones.
The rules establish separate provisions for each type of resource listed in Goal 5. Key
provisions for riparian corridors include a definition of "riparian corridor" and a requirement
for local inventories, a "safe harbor" definition, and protection provisions. The protection
provisions include a standard setback for structures and certain land uses. For wetlands,
the rule requires local inventories based on Division of State Land (DSL) rules. It requires
local governments to make decisions in advance about whether wetlands will be
protected. All local governments must coordinate with DSL and the Corps of Engineers
regarding inventories of wetlands and local decisions that affect inventoried wetlands.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 2
The proposed "WaterWesources Overlay District" follows the•
safe harbor i
gu deletes
established by LCDC. It protects fish bearing streams and significant wetlands and
imposes a 75-foot standard setback form the Tualatin River and a 50-foot standard
setback from Fanno, Ball, and Ash Creeks. Where wetlands are located within the
riparian buffer zone, the buffer incorporates or "balloons" around the wetland. These
standard setbacks may be reduced by 50% by restoring or enhancing a degraded buffer.
Other flexibility provisions included in the ordinance are: a_har_dship variance, a reduction
in the underlying zoning dimensions, and a comprehensive amendment process and
ESEE analysis option. The hardship variance addresses a situation where a parcel may
be rendered not buildable by the imposition of the ordinance. If the city imposes
regulations that deny any beneficial use of a property, the city may be subject to a
"takings" claim. This provision provides a strategy to deal with this issue. A reduction in
the underlying zoning regulations, such as setback from the street, provide a reasonable
compensation to land owners for imposing a wider water resource setback, without
affecting the public health or safety. The comprehensive plan amendment and ESEE
process is intended to be difficult to accomplish. It provides a safety value for a limited
number of developments that can show, through an analysis of benefits and liabilities,
that is more important to allow development than to protect a water resource.
Safe harbor does not prescribe a buffer for non-fish bearing streams and isolated
wetlands not located within the floodplain. According to state agency maps, non-fish
bearing streams within Tigard include Ash Creek, North Fork and Summer Creek.
Examples of isolated wetlands include the Wetland Conservancy's Hart wetland and the
Jack Park wetland. The city's existing 25-foot setback would continue to be the standard
of protection applied to these and other non-fish bearing streams and isolated wetlands.
In summary, the present proposal uses the LCDC safe harbor provisions to meet the
city's obligation for riparian corridor and wetlands planning as set forth by LCDC in Goal
5.
IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1; 3.2.4; 3.4.1.a; 3.4.2a; and 3.4.2d; and Community
Development Code Section 18.30.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the
following findings:
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted
citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement
Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen
Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in
compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times
which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code
provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance
drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows
Community Development Code Procedure.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 3
• •
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide
Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development
Code requirements in review of this proposal.
3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic areas, and Natural Resources is met
because the provisions of the overlay district are consistent with the:"safe_harbor
guidelines for riparian'corridors and.significant wetlands set=:forth °in .the-.Goal 5
administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The
proposed measures implement the provisions of the Goal 5 safe harbor program
for resolving conflicts between development and protection of these resources. '
This program calls for the protection of fish bearing streams and significant
wetlands and the establishment of mandatory setbacks.
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on
the following findings:
1. Policies 1:1.1.e and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes
help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent
administrative rule changes.
2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been=reviewed at
public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process.
3. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy. calls for development control of
wetlands and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent administrative
rules to protect these resources.
4. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the overlay prohibits development with areas
designated as significant wetlands and establishes 50 to 75 feet setbacks from the
edges of designated wetland areas.
5. Policy 3.4.1.a is satisfied because the proposal designates significant wetlands
according to the criteria and procedures for the identification of significant wetlands
established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant
Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands.
6. Policy 3.4.2.a, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along stream
corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks from
the top of banks and the edges of wetlands associated with stream corridors and
by requiring that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or enhanced
with native vegetation.
7. Policy 3.4.2.d is satisfied because the proposal addresses Goal 5 rule
requirements pertaining to the preservation of wetlands, includes a determination
of which are ecologically and scientifically significant, and includes citizen
participation.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 4
8. Community D. •pment Code Section 18.30, whi. Otablishes procedures for
legislative code changes, is satisfied according to the above findings.
V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Operations Division has reviewed the proposal and have offered no
comments or objections.
The City of Tigard Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and have offered
the following comments:
Although much improved by not requiring the city to obtain a permit before doing
maintenance, 18.85.050C still requires the "Engineering Division" (should be Department)
to direct city maintenance crews or contractors. I recommend that this be revised so the
city maintenance crews are directed by Public Works and that co ntractors are not
directed by city employees. _; c
C:.
I would also recommend that we confirm Ed Wegner has had an opportunity to review
this.
This also obligates the Engineering Department to provide "Standards and Specifications
for Riparian Area Management".,-'
Note: the proposal has been revised to include the recommended changes.
The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and have offered the
following comments.
18.85.060.D.1 and 2: Soils report needs to comply with all applicable provisions of the
current grading and excavation requirements adopted in the Building Ordinances of the
city or other similar language.
Note: This change will be made as requested.
VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS
Tualatin Riverkeepers; Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Tigard Chapter;
Metropolitan Area Homebuilders; Tigard Chamber of Commerce; Division of State
Lands; Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation; Metro; Oregon
DLCD; ODOT; and members of the East Citizen Involvement Team have all had the
opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no comments or objections.
The East and West CITs in a joint meeting reviewed the proposal and formally
recommended that all potentially affected property owners be notified of the proposal and
of the hearing schedule set for its adoption.
Note: All owners of property with wetlands or stream channels will be sent written notice
of the proposal and hearing schedule, as recommended.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 5
The South CIT has R. (Red the proposal and has offered �. .Tollowin g comments:
1. In determining the classification of streams, maximum flow and velocity should be
considered.
2. How would this proposal apply to the Cook Park wetlands? Would the 25 or 75
foot setback apply to the wetlands in the park?
3. How do city floodplain regulations relate to the proposal?
4. Are fish bearing ponds addressed in the ordinance?
5. Buffers wider than the minimums the state prescribes should be considered.
Note: The two large wetlands located in the lower or riverfront section of Cook Park are
located within 75 feet of the Tualatin River. Therefore, under the proposed ordinance, the
buffer from the outer boundary of these wetlands would be 75 feet. The various park
wetlands located north of these lower wetlands fit the definition of isolated wetlands.
Therefore, a 25 foot buffer would apply. The city floodplain regulations do not relate to
these proposed new regulations. The floodplain and wetland regulations would function
as conjunctive requirements. No fish bearing ponds are identified in the state agency
map sources used to classify Tigard streams.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following
comments:
1. It appears that this proposed code is quite similar to the Metro 2040 Framework
Plan Title 3 and draft model ordinance. With some modifications (primarily
buffer width on "minor streams"), this code could likely be submitted by Tigard to
Metro as substantially in compliance with Title 3 and the model ordinance. Is this
the intent? I would be happy to discuss this further with you; or you may wish to
contact Rosemary Furfey at Metro for more information.
Also, is this proposed code meant to provide substantial compliance with certain
sections of USA's July 1996 Design and Construction Standards (which are required to
be implemented by the Cities)? Or is it in addition to these requirements? It is unclear
to me how these requirements will work together. We may want to discuss the
proposed code more in this regard.
2. In several locations in the proposed code, you refer to the "USA Water Quality
Buffer." As you know, the City of Tigard must adopt and administer equivalent or
more stringent requirements than USA's surface water management codes. It
may be more appropriate, therefore, to reference Tigard's code section that
requires a 25-foot vegetated corridor rather than USA's.
3. Definition section, F & G: Major and Minor streams: It seems inappropriate to
only call Fanno, part of Ash, and Ball Creeks as Major streams. From a water
resources and riparian resources standpoint, Summer, Red Rock, and Dairy Dell
Creek offer similar features and benefits. Recent studies by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and by Kurahashi and Associates (for the Fanno
Creek Watershed Plan) both indicate that fish are present in all these creeks.
Significant wetlands and riparian vegetation, providing filtering, shading, stream
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 6
bank protectic. nd other water quality benefits a.. esent on sections of the
Red Rock, Dairy Dell, and Summer Creek. Also, a teacher at Fowler Middle
School and his students have been actively enhancing Summer Creek and
releasing Steelhead fingerlings into the creek. We encourage you to apply equal
treatment to all these streams.
4. Definitions Section, item H: I believe the City should have already adopted a
native plants list by adopting USA's latest design and construction standards
(July 1996) - you could reference this.
5. Table 18.85(1): Note 2 indicates measurement from the "minor" stream top of
bank - this is not correct - the water quality buffer measurement applies to all
streams.
6. Section 18.85.030, item D: it is Unified not United Sewerage Agency. Also, as
previously indicated, Tigard is actually responsible for applying USA's SWM
standards within the City.
7. Section 18.85.050, item C: I suggest that exemptions 3 (non-native vegetation
removal) and 5 (routine maintenance...) should have associated requirements for
replanting of these areas with native vegetation. r
8. Section 18.85.050, item C vs. Table 18.85.050(D): The Table, under Type II
uses, #h, suggests that enhancement projects must go through a permit process
and that a mitigation plan is required, whereas item C, #2, indicates that stream
restoration and enhancement programs are exempt. Which is the case? What
will be the requirements on a volunteer group that wants to do some native
plantings and/or simple stream bank stabilization projects using plant materials?
I hope this does not mean such a group will have to pay a permit fee, and hire a
consultant in order to perform such a public service.
9. Section 18.85.060, item D, #4. Stream bank Conditions Report: I have several
issues with this requirement. First, there is no "hydrological engineer"
registration in Oregon - you could ask for a "registered professional engineer."
Second, since stream bank conditions assessment is not specifically a specialty
of hydrologic engineers or wildlife biologist, I suggest broadening out the
requirements of who can prepare this report y u should at least allow it to be
prepared by: "a biologists,tlandscape architect, and/or professional engineer."
Third, requiring that a consultant provide measures that "would be successful in
restoring the stream to its pre-disturbance condition" is unrealistic, and in most
cases inappropriate. As development occurs in a watershed, the hydrology
changes, which is going to change the nature of the stream channel - it can't go
back to it's previous condition. The desired condition is one that is in balance
under current hydrologic conditions_(meaning the stream channel can convey its
sediment load, has vegetation on banks and floodplains, has a low flow channel,
and can convey flood flows. Also, streams will naturally meander and do some
bank cutting - this can't be entirely prevented. I'm not convinced it's appropriate
to make an individual responsible for 'fixing' what may be a watershed problem.
10. Section 18.85.070, item B, Conditions: What is a "landscape expert?" I don't
believe you will find many, if any, professionals who will CERTIFY that all the
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 7
standards ca. ee met, especially standards th. a
•
re impacted by offsite
conditions, such as stream bank conditions, fisheries and wildlife.
11. Section 18.85.080, B.1.: What is a "water quality engineer"? There is no such
license. Again, I .don't think many;registered engineers_would certify that the
water.resource swill not;be'diminished. You can ask them to certify that:designs
of facilities, etc.; in these areas\meet specific design criteria - but the designer
does not have control over all site activities and natural conditions that will
impact water resources and water quality. (For a reference of a reasonable
certification requirement - see USA's July 1996 Design and Construction
Standards - Section 3.11.5.e(1) - page 34).
12. Section 18.85.080.J.9: This references an out of date handbook. The current
handbook is "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).
13. Section 18.85.090.C.3: Again, I suggest the mitigation plan be prepared by a
biologist, landscape architect, and/or registered professional engineer. I also
have concerns as previously noted about the certification requirements, given
unknown and uncontrollable (by the applicant) offsite conditions. Also, how do
you or an applicant determine what is "substantially improved" fish and wildlife
habitat and water quality?
Notes: The Metro 2040 draft model ordinance has not been adopted as yet. Adoption
is scheduled to occur in fall 1997. As presently proposed, local jurisdictions will have
two years from the date of adoption to achieve compliance. The intent of the Tigard
ordinance is to use safe harbor to achieve compliance with the state Goal 5 planning
process for wetlands and riparian corridors. Another intent is to meet the deadline for
completion of a DSL planning grant used to fund the preparation of this ordinance.
Although the primary focus is on meeting these state obligations, substantial portions of 2
the Tigard `Water Resources Overlay District" are intended_to mesh with the-draft Metro ,
2040 .model_ordinance. - However, since it is subject to change, no attempt has been
made in the city ordinance to fully line up with the latest available draft version of the
Metro model ordinance.
The 1996 USA Design and Construction Standards previously have been adopted. The
proposed overlay district ordinance will impose requirements conjunctive to these
design standards.
The new state Goal 5 ordinance is somewhat ambiguous in discussing the information
that should be consulted in order to classify streams. The present ordinance relied upon
maps provided by the Oregon Departments of Forestry and Fish and Wildlife. The
ordinance indicates that these maps may be used to inventory streams under the safe
harbor process. In response to the USA and similar comments by others, a broader
review of the various information sources available -on the presence of fish in local
streams will be conducted prior to the public hearing.
With regard to enhancement projects, the intent of the ordinance is to distinguish
between city and volunteer group enhancement projects, on the one hand, and
developer enhancement projects, on the other. Enhancement projects designed to win
a reduction in the buffer width in conjunction with development will require a higher level
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 8
of review than city at It-profit group p rojects. VolunteL oups will not be required
to hire a consultant in order to complete stream restoration and enhancement projects.
This::point'.will_be clarified in "revisions::b the ordinance. The ordinance does not
establish a fee for volunteer or developer projects. Fees are set through a separate
process. In the past, the city's practice has been to encourage and support volunteer
stream corridor restoration efforts.
The other comments relate to terminology. These suggested changes will be
considered and included in a revised ordinance as appropriate.
The Wetlands Conservancy has reviewed the proposal and have offered the following
comments:
I have reviewed the proposed ordinance and while there are always a few things that
have questions on, I find the Ordinance a good piece of work. My one big concern lies
with administration. I hope that the City does not grant too many reductions of the
required setback as provided for in 18.85.090.
I also think that the 3,000 square feet of residential encroachment (18.85.100 B.4) is
excessive. Given the trend toward smaller, narrower lots, 3,000 square feet could wipe
out almost an entire buffer. Buffers along streams and around wetlands are extremely
important for water quality and wildlife protection. When the buffer is diminished to a
bare 25 feet, its function is greatly compromised. Density transfers will also result in
smaller lots in order to recoup the area given over to water area buffers. I am in favor
of reduced front yard requirements in order to permit adequate rear yard setback from a
water area. In my opinion, most front yards are a total waste of valuable urban open
space, anyhow.
Specifically, I have the following suggestions:
18.85.080
B-1 - change "certify" to "state"
B-2 - ...setback area as "practicable" is a big loop-hole. It should be more specific.
C - 2nd line, delete word "unnecessarily." It is also a big loop-hole.
D. - last line "minimize" ...to what specific extent? ....another loop-hole.
E. Line two - change "avoided" to "prohibited."
18.85.090 Section B is missing. Perhaps this is just a typo
C.2 - Line 4 - Shouldn't the 1:5 basis be 1:1.5
C.3 - Line 3 "certify" is impossible. When natural systems are at work, no one can
"certify" anything. They can "state" something, but to certify is to guarantee, which
cannot be done. "Certify" is used elsewhere in this draft.
Note: The rationale for the 3,000 square feet is that this is the city's standard minimum
lot size for single family development. This amount of encroachment may be
appropriate in case's where an entire lot is located within the water resource and buffer
area. This recommended maximum standard may be revised downward at Planning
Commission's discretion. The other proposed changes are editorial and will be
considered for incorporation into a revised version of the proposed ordinance to be
completed prior to the public hearing.
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 9
The Friends of Fa. Creek have reviewed the pro, el and have offered the
following comments:
The city should be aware that a parallel Metro water resource planning process is
underway. The new city regulations will be subject to change after the new Metro
model ordinance is adopted.
The Friends of Summer Creek have reviewed the proposal and have offered the
following comments:
Summer Creek has been documented as countering fish and should be classified as a
fish-bearing stream.
All drainageways with flowing water in summer should be protected with a 10 to 15 foot
setback. These small drainageways are part of the natural system and have an effect
on the thermal pollution of the streams they drain to.
Requiring non-profit groups to obtain permits for natural area restoration projects within
required setback areas is a good idea. However, these requirements should not be
unduly burdensome. They should not involve a fee or require the groups to hire an
engineer to develop or certify their plans.
No other comments have been received.
5/8/97
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DATE
Associate Planner
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 10
. The Friends of Far OCreek have reviewed the prof • and have offered the
• following comments:
The city should be aware that a parallel Metro water resource planning process is
underway. The new city regulations will be subject to change after the new Metro
model ordinance is adopted.
The Friends of Summer Creek have reviewed the proposal and have offered the
following comments:
Summer Creek has been documented as countering fish and should be classified as a
fish-bearing stream.
All drainageways with flowing water in summer should be protected with a 10 to 15 foot
setback. These small drainageways are part of the natural system and have an effect
on the thermal pollution of the streams they drain to.
Requiring non-profit groups to obtain permits for natural area restoration projects within
required setback areas is a good idea. However, these requirements should not be
unduly burdensome. They should not involve a fee or require the groups to hire an
engineer to develop or certify their plans.
No other comments have been received.
-
5/8/97
PREPARED BY: L/buane Roberts DATE
Associate Planner
Staff Report ZOA 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District Page 10
• •
18.85.00 FOURTH DRAFT
WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT
18.35.010 Purpose 1
18.85.020 Definitions 2
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3
Table 18.35(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 5
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6
18.85.060 Application Requirements 7
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9
18.85.080 Development Standards 10
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions 13
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14
18.85.110 Density Transfer 14
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15
18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option 15
18.85.010 Purpose
A. General. The Water Resources (WR) overlay district implements the
policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts
between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian
corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this
chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and
objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development
in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood
storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion;
•
maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational
and educational values of water resource areas.
B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of
Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of
the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected.
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 1
• •
18.85.020 Definitions
The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference.
A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated
wetlands, and the "riparian setback" area.
B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to
major stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, or the edge of an associated wetland
(see definition under K.2.), whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same
as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d).
1 . The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have
no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required
by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA).
C. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are
devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant
species, such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions
of the riparian setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not
disturbed.
D. "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse
impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result
from alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay
district. A mitigation plan must be prepared by recognized experts in fish and wildlife
biology, native plants, and hydrological engineering, and (usually) re-planting with
native plant species.
E. The Tualatin River is mapped as a fish bearing stream by the Oregon
Department of Forestry and has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs.
F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon
Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet
per second (cfs).
1. Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north
fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek.
2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has
an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs.
G. "Minor streams" are not "fish-bearing streams" according to Oregon
Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek,
Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short
tributaries of the Tualatin River.
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-5/7/97 - Page
• •
H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is
incorporated by reference into this chapter.
I. "Top-of-bank" usually means a clearly recognizable sharp break in the stream
bank. It has the same meaning as "bankfull stage" as defined in OAR 141-85-
010(2): It is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of
streams and begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical evidence, the
two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to approximate the
bankfull stage.
J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant"
water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River
corridor, all major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This
generalized, composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory
(LWI) prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by
reference. All water resources identified on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian
Corridors Map meet the Division or State Lands (DSL) definition of a "Locally
Significant Wetland."
K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions.
1 . A "Significant Wetland" is a wetland, or a significant but non-f ish-
bearing stream, which appears on the City of Tigard Wetlands and
Riparian Corridors Map.
2. 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-bank.
3. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located
outside of the riparian setback.
4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division
of State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which,
therefore, does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian
Corridors Map. Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this
chapter, but do require DSL notification under ORS 227.350.
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping
A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all
significant wetlands and streams, and applicable riparian setback and water quality
buffer areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The
standards and procedures of this chapter:
1 . apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially
within, the WR overlay district;
•
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 3
• •
2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and
3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone.
B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops-
of-bank, wetland edges, riparian setbacks and water quality buffers for the following
significant water resources:
1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor;
2. Major stream riparian corridors;
3. Minor streams; and
4. Isolated wetlands.
C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant
shall be responsible for surveying and mapping the precise location of the top-of-
bank, wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of
application submittal. Table 18.85(1) summaries standard riparian setbacks and
water quality buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR
overlay zone.
•
Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers
WR STANDARD USA STANDARD
RIPARIAN WATER QUALITY
SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCE TYPE SETBACK' BUFFER2
Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet
Major streams & associated wetlands 50 feet 25 feet
Developed subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet
(major streams & associated wetlands)
Minor streams & adjacent/isolated wetlands Not applicable 25 feet
Measured in feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge, whichever is greater.
2 Measured in feet from the minor stream top-of-bank or the wetland edge, whichever is greater.
D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions
and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any
wetland are also subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) standards and
approval. Where there is a difference, the more restrictive regulation shall apply.
The applicant shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any
wetland is proposed for development, in accordance with ORS 227.350. No
application for development will be accepted as complete until documentation of such
notification is provided.
E. United Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities
proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards and
approval.
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 4
• •
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential
Subdivision Lots
Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards
have been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns.
A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision
lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs.
B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream
Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots,
because:
1 . Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and
maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes
of this chapter; and
2. Equal protection of the identified major stream resource is ensured by
retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on USA's maximum
water quality buffer.
C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed
•subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such
structures are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated
wetland edge.
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited 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.
B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of
any wetland or stream shall also be approved by the City of Tigard Engineering
Division, which administers USA standards. Compliance with USA is necessary but
nor sufficient for compliance with this chapter.
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 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.
D. • Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes
permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR district. A "Yes" indicates
•
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 5
• •
•
that the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed
conditions in the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary
criteria under Type Ill standards (for descriptions of Type I, II and Ill see 18.85.060).
A "No" indicates that the use is not permitted. A use that is not permitted may not
be approved through the variance provisions of this chapter.
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List
Regulated Activity & Procedure Type
1. Type I Permitted Uses with Mitigation Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
Setback Area . Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes No
Riparian Setback boundaries
b) Low impact, passive, or water related
recreation facilities and trails including, Yes . No No
but not limited to, viewing shelters,
picnic tables, nature trails and
interpretive signs
c) Irrigation pumps Yes Yes No
d) Replacement of existing structures with
new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No .
additional riparian surface area
e) Removal of non-native vegetation and
replacement with native plant species, Yes Yes Yes
no closer than 10' from the top-of-bank
or edge of wetland
f) Removal of vegetation necessary,for
hazard prevention (dangerous trees) - Yes Yes No
g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No
lawns
h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes No No
less than 10' in width
i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes No
facilities
2. Type II Permitted Uses with Mitigation Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
where no reasonable alternative exists Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Adjustments to numeric standards of the Yes Yes Yes
•
underlyinh zone necessary to reduce
impacts on wetlands and streams
b) Reduction in Riparian Setback boundary Yes Not applicable Yes
c) Public facilities that appear on the City's • Yes Yes Yes
Public Facilities Plan
d) Local streets and driveways serving
residences and public facilities Yes Yes Yes
• e) Underground drainage facilities Yes No Yes
f) Utility crossings Yes Yes Yes
g) Underground utilities Yes Yes
h) In-stream and streambank enhancement,
including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes
replacement within 10 feet of the top-of-
bank or edge of wetland •
i) Bridges and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Pace 6
• •
3. Type HI -- Conditional Uses Riparian Minor Streams. Mitigation Plan
Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Hardship Variances, subject to variance Yes Yes Yes
provisions of Chapter 18.120 -
b) Water-related and water-dependent uses Yes No Yes
not listed above, subject to conditional
use provisions of Chapter 18.130
4. Prohibited Uses - unless specifically Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
authorized above Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Removal of native plant species No No Not applicable
b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable
surfaces
c) Grading and placement of fill No No Not applicable
d) Application of herbicides No No Not applicable
e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or No No Not applicable
other unauthorized materials
f) Creation of a parcel that would be Not applicable
wholly within the WR district or resulting No No
in an'unbuildable parcel, as determined
by the director.
•
18.85.060 Application Requirements
All development applications on lots within, or partially with, the WR overlay district
shall submit the following information, in addition to other information requirements
required by this code.
A. Type I Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the
use will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, and native vegetation
removal, and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional
information where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate
identified impacts from a proposed development, including but not limited to:
1 . a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.060.B;
2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.060.D.
B. Type II and III Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or
activity is proposed within 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:
1 . 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.
2. Isolated wetlands.
3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback.
4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer.
5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater.
6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities.
•
- Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 7
• •
7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory.
8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals.
C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The
required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.8, shall serve as the basis
• for refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map.
1 . The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure.
2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely
outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no
further WR overlay zone requirements apply.
•
3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback areas are
limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the
development standards of this chapter.
D. Type II and III Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the
following studies shall be required whenever any Type II or III use is proposed within
the WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local
Wetlands Inventory (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to
the submission of information required for specific types of development, and shall be
prepared by professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt
permit applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as
to why the study is unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter. This
determination must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required
pre-application conference and prior to application submittal.
1 . Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the
hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the
proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report
shall also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for
development, and erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a
hazard to life and property, or adversely affect the use or stability of a public
facility or utility. Finally, this report shall include information on the nature,
distribution and strength of existing soils, the adequacy of the site for
development purposes, and an assessment of grading procedures required to
impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon.
2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical
structure or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of
property), drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures
and existing structures which may be affected by the proposed grading
operations, water quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all
cut and fill slopes and proposed drainage channels. Project designs including
but not limited to locations of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form
part of the submission. The grading plan shall also include a construction
phased erosion control,plan consistent with the provisions of this code and a
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Pane 8
• •
schedule of operations and shall be prepared by a professional engineer
registered in Oregon. ,
3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative
cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the
•
proposed development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed areas
(i.e., areas devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or
invasive species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the
riparian setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with
native plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer,
botanist or arborist with specific knowledge of native plant species, planting
and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability to enhance fish and
wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation.
4. Streambank Conditions Report. This report is only necessary if a reduction in
the riparian setback area is proposed. The streambank conditions report shall
consist of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of
vegetative cover, the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and
the extent to which mitigation measures would be successful in restoring the
stream to its pre-disturbance condition. Measures for improving fish and
wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated, as well as
methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The
streambank conditions report shall include recommendations to assure
compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared
by a wildlife biologist in concert with a hydrological engineer registered in
Oregon. The report shall specify long-term maintenance measures necessary to
carry out the proposed mitigation plan.
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions
A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application based on the provisions of this chapter. The
Approval Authority may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and
provisions of this chapter.
B. Conditions. The required reports shall include design standards and
recommendations necessary for the engineer and landscape expert to certify that the
standards of this section can be met with appropriate mitigation measures. These
measures, along with staff recommendations, shall be incorporated as conditions into
the final decision approving the proposed development.
C. 'Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with
mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section
shall be as stated in Chapter 18.24.
•
Fourth Draft=City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-5;7/97- Pane 9
• •
18.85.080 Development Standards
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 18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each
of these standards in writing.
A. Alternatives Considered. Except,for stream corridor enhancement, most
Type II and Ill uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian
setback areas. Therefore, Type II and Ill 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.
B. 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.
1. For Type II and Ill uses, the water quality engineer must certify that water
•
quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the
development proposal.
2. 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 practicable.
C. Construction Materials and Methods. No construction materials or methods
may be used within the riparian setback area that would unnecessarily damage water
quality or native vegetation.
D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground 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 to minimize flood damage, consistent with Chapter 18.84.
E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and
vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent 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.
F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. 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 shall not be left in place
permanently.
2. Work areas on the immediate site shall 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.
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
;ITS- 5/7'97 - Pace 10
• •
4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to
fall or be placed outside the work area.
5. 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.
6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on
a permanent basis.
G. 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 18.85.090, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented.
1 . The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily
disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis.
2. 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 with 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.
3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of
native plant species designed 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.
•
H. 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.
On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited
within the WR overlay district.
J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within.a water resource
site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within
the WR overlay district:
• 1 . Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during
construction to 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
construction 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 covered 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
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 517;97 - Page I I
• •
be exposed for more than 7 calendar days. All disturbed land areas which
will remain unworked 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 exits 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 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 drainageways.
9. Any other relevant provision of the Washington County Erosion Control
Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, 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 or 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 into 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.
L. Type III Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of
Chapter 18.130, Conditional. Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below
and 18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type III use listed
below may be approved. The applicant for conditional use approval shall:
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 12
• •
1 . Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the
resource area; and
2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan.to show that any loss of riparian values
will be fully compensated through the enhancement program.
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions
The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major
stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of
structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that
equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through
streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved
portions of the riparian setback area.
•
A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a riparian
setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was
substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination
must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.0 that
demonstrates all of the following:
1 . Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor area;
2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-
site riparian setback area for the last five years;
3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section .
18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species;
4. That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and
' 5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent.
C. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the
standards of 18.85.080.B are met, as much as 50 percent of riparian area may be
developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and
subject to the following standards:
1 . The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shall not
be less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian
setback shall not be less than 25 feet.
2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a
33 percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved,
provided that the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining
riparian setback area on a 1:5 basis. The vegetation report identifies
disturbed areas (non-vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with
non-native or invasive plant species such as English ivy or Himalayan
•
blackberry) and areas dominated by native plant species. Thus, for every
100 square feet of riparian setback area that is developed, at least 150
square feet of the disturbed portion of the remaining riparian setback area
must be re-planted with native plant species. In this manner, up to a one-
third riparian setback reduction may be approved.
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-5/7/97 - Pace 13
• .
3. Up to an additional 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may
be approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared
by a biologist and a hydrological engineer. The plan must certify that the
streambank mitigation measures will substantially improve fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality.
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards
In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to
dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the
Planning Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district.
A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up'to a 50 percent
adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the
underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the
WR overlay district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse
impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the
potential for slope or flood hazards.
B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be
requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent
to the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional
adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the following criteria are fully satisfied:
1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at
the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback
area or water quality buffer.
2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover,
minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable
land.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,
including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence
close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native
landscaping materials, minimizing parking area and garage space.
4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence
(including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory
structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of riparian
setback or water quality buffer area.
5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach
further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district.
The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate
identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land.
-Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 14
•
•
18.85.110 Density Transfer
Density may be transferred from water resource and riparian setback areas as
provided in Section 18.92. 020-030.
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards
Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances
from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may
be considered only as a last resort.
A. Type HI Variance Option. The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances
from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance
with the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance.
B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in
Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance
to any dimensional provision of this chapter:
1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject
' parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created
after the effective date of this chapter.
2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the
loss of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying
zoning district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application.
3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve
the hardship.
4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the
variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for
increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native
vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
5. Based review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no
significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will
result from approval of this hardship variance, Di these impacts have been
mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be
replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation.
18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option _
Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must
be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would
be to remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall
demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following:
Fourth Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS- 5/7/97 - Page 15
'r } • •
A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social,
Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with
OAR 660-23-040.
1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the
proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific
-resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard
Planning Area.
2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City
Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the
conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the
resource.
3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be
located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter,
and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can
• meet the specific needs of the proposed use.
4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife
biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney -
all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the
preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis.
5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be
incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the
Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the
site from the inventory.
B. Determination of 'Insignificance.' In this case, the applicant must
demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable
significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other
comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area.
1. - Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the
City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of
this chapter. -
2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in
identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or
any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code.
• •
,18.85.00 SECOND DRAFT
WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT
18.85.010 Purpose 1
18.85.020 Definitions 2
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3
Table 18.85(1)Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4
- 18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 4
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6
18.85.060 Application Requirements 7
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9
18.85.080 Development Standards 9
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions 13
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14
18.85.110 Density Transfer 14
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15
18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option 15
18.85.010 Purpose
A. General. The Water Resources (WR) overlay district implements the
policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts
between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian
corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this
chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and
objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development
in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood
storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion;
maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational
and educational values of water resource areas.
B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of
Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of
the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that
"significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 1
• • t`
i
18.85.020 Definitions
The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference.
A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated
wetlands, and the "riparian setback" area.
B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to `
major stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, or the edge of an associated wetland,
ffi
whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor ! 1L
boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d). 'iC/1
1. The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in
accordance with this chapter.
3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have
no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required
by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA).
D. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are
devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant
species, such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions
of the riparian setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not
disturbed.
E. "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse
impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result
from alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay
district. A mitigation plan must be prepared by experts in fish and wildlife biology,
native plants, and hydrological engineering, and usually re-planting with native plant
species.
F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon
Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet
per second (cfs).
1 . Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north
fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek.
2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has
an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs.
G. "Minor streams" are not "fish-bearing streams" according to Oregon
Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek,
Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short
tributaries of the Tualatin River.
H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is
incorporated by reference into this chapter.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 2
• - •
"Top-of-bank" has the same meaning as "bankfull stage" as defined in OAR
'141-85-010(2). It is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural
banks of streams and begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical
evidence, the two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to
approximate the bankfull stage. -
J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant" /
water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River
corridor, all major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This
generalized, composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory
(LWI) prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by
reference. All water resources identified on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian
Corridors Map meet the Division or State Lands (DSL) definition of a "Locally
Significant Wetland."
K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or C)
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under ���°
normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for ,)1 1 L 3),"
life in saturated soil conditions.
1. 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.
2. 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-bank.
3. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located
outside of the riparian setback.
4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division
of State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which,
therefore, does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian ; U
Corridors Map. Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this „
chapter, but do require DSL notification under ORS 227.350.
•
18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping
A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all
significant water resources, and applicable riparian setback and water quality buffer
areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The
standards and procedures of this chapter:
1 . apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially
within, the WR overlay district;
2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and
3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 3
• •
•
B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops-
of-bank, wetland edges, riparian setbacks and water quality setbacks for the
following significant water resources:
1-. The Tualatin River riparian corridor;
2. Major stream riparian corridors;
3. Minor streams; and
4. Isolated wetlands.
C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant
shall be responsible for surveying and mapping the precise location of the top-of-
bank, wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of
application submittal. Table 18.85(1) summaries standard riparian setbacks and
water quality buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR
overlay zone.
Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers
WR STANDARD USA STANDARD
RIPARIAN WATER QUALITY
SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCE TYPE SETBACK BUFFER2
Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet
Major-ttrearelS:::-Wasociated.:wetlands`` ' :> :>`<''
Developed subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet
(major streams & associated wetlands)
Minor streams & adjacentrsolated wetlands:: .Not:applicable::;: 25 feet
Measured in feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge, whichever is greater.
2 Measured in feet from the minor stream top-of-bank or the wetland edge, whichever is greater.
D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions
and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any
wetland are subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) standards and approval.
• rx(P` The applicant shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any•
yill ` ` ' significant wetland is proposed for development, in accordance with ORS 227.350.
Ocv
No application for development will be accepted as complete until documentation of
such notification is provided.
E. United Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities
proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards and
approval.
18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential
Subdivision Lots
Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards
have been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 4
I •
•
• •
A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision
lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs.
B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands &_Stream
Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots,
because:
1 . Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and
maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes
of this chapter; and
2. Equal or better protection of the identified major stream resource is
ensured by retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on USA's
maximum water quality buffer.
C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed
subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such
- structures are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated
wetland edge.
18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses
A. DSL Approval. Required. Development proposed within water resource shall
also be approved by DSL.
B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of
any water resource shall also be approved by the City of Tigard Engineering
Division, which administers USA standards.
C. City of Tigard Exemption. When performed under the direction of the City
of Tigard Engineering Division, 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 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.
D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes
permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the W R district. A "Yes" indicates
that the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed
conditions in the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary
criteria under Type Ill standards. A "No" indicates that the use is not permitted. A
use that is not permitted may not be approved through the variance provisions of
this chapter.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 5
•
Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List
Regulated Activity & Procedure Type Riparian minor Streams Mitigation Plan
Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
1. Type I Permitted Uses with Mitigation : •-• . :
a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes No
Riparian Setback boundaries
b) Low impact, passive recreation facilities
and trails including, but not limited to, Yes No Nci
viewing shelters, picnic tables, nature
trails and interpretive signs
c) Irrigation pumps Yes Yes No
d) Replacement of existing structures with
new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No
additional riparian surface area
e) Removal of non-native vegetation and -
replacement with native plant species, Yes Yes Yes
- no closer than 10' from the top-of-bank
or edge of wetland
f) Removal of vegetation necessary for
hazard prevention (dangerous trees) Yes Yes No
g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No
lawns
h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes No
less than 10' in width A-t)
i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes No
facilities
2. Type II Permitted:UseS:With Mitigation - Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan -.-
where no reasonable alternative eicistS Setback Area Isolated VVetlands *. Required? -
a) Dimensional standard adjustments to Yes Yes Yes
reduce impacts on water resources
b) Reduction in Riparian Setback boundary Yes NA- Yes
c) Public facilities that appear on the City's Yes Yes Yes
Public Facilities Plan
d) Local streets and driveways serving
residences and public facilities Yes Yes Yes
e) Drainage facilities Yes No Yes
f) Utility crossings Yes Yes Yes
g) Underground utilities Yes Yes
h) In-stream and streambank enhancement,
including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes
replacement within 10 feet of the top-of-
bank or edge of wetland
i) Bridges and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes
3. Type III -- Conditional Uses Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
• .Setback Area 'Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Hardship Variances, su • o variance Yes Yes Yes
provisions of Chapte 18.120 /34.-(
b) Water-related and water-dependent uses Yes No Yes
not listed above, subject to conditional
use provisions of Chapter 18.130
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 6
•
4. Prohibited Uses - unless specifically Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan
authorized above Setback.Area Isolated Wetlands Required?
a) Removal of native plant species No No Not applicable
b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable
surfaces
• c) Grading and placement of fill No No Not applicable
d) Application of herbicides No No Not applicable
e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or No No Not applicable
other unauthorized materials
f) Creation of a parcel that would be Not applicable
wholly within the WR district or resulting No No
in an unbuildable parcel, as determined
by the director.
18.85.060 Application Requirements
All development applications on lots within, or partially with, the WR overlay district
shall submit the following information, in addition to other information requirements
required by this code.
A. Type I Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the
use will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, and native vegetation
removal, and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional
information where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate
identified impacts from a proposed development, including but not limited to:
1 . a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.050.B;
2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.050.C.
B. Type II and Ill Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or
activity is proposed within 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:
1. 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.
2. Isolated wetlands.
3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback.
4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer.
5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater.
6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities.
7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory.
8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals.
C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The
required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.B, shall serve as the basis
for refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 7
• •
1 . The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure.
2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely
outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no
further WR overlay zone requirements apply.
3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback-areas are
limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the
development standards of this chapter.
D. Type II and 111 Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the
following studies shall be required whenever any Type II or III use is proposed within
the WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local
Wetlands Inventory (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to
the submission of information required for specific types of development, and shall be
prepared by professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt
permit applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as
to why the study is unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter. This
determination must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required
pre-application conference and prior to application submittal.
1. Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the
hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the
proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report
shall also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for
development, and erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a
hazard to life and property, or adversely affect the use or stability of a public
facility or utility. Finally, this report shall include information on the nature,
distribution and strength of existing soils, the adequacy of the site for
development purposes, and an assessment of grading procedures required to
impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon.
2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical
structure or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of
property), drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures
and existing structures which may be affected by the proposed grading
operations, water quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all
cut and fill slopes and proposed drainage channels. Project designs including
but not limited to locations of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form
part of the submission. The grading plan shall also include a construction
phased erosion control plan consistent with the provisions of this code and a
schedule of operations and shall be prepared by a professional engineer
registered in Oregon.
3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative
cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the
proposed development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed areas
(i.e., areas devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or
invasive species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the
riparian setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 8
• •
native plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include
recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this
code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer,
botanist or arborist with specific knowledge of native plant species, planting
and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability to enhance fish and
wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation.
4. Streambank Conditions Report. This report is only necessary if a reduction in
the riparian setback area is proposed. The streambank conditions report shall
consist of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of
vegetative cover, the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and
the extent to which mitigation measures would be successful in restoring the
stream to its pre-disturbance condition. Measures for improving fish and
wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated, as well as
methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The
streambank conditions report shall include recommendations to assure
compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared
by a wildlife biologist in concert with a hydrological engineer registered in
Oregon. The report shall specify long-term maintenance measures necessary to
carry out the proposed mitigation plan.
18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions
A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application based on the provisions of this chapter. The
Approval Authority may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and
provisions of this chapter.
B. Conditions. The required reports shall include design standards and -
recommendations necessary for the engineer anc landscape expert certify that the
standards of this section can be met with appropriate mitigation measures. These
measures, along with staff recommendations, shall be incorporated as conditions into
the final decision approving the proposed development.
C. Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with
mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section
shall be as stated in Chapter 18.24.
18.85.080 Development Standards
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 18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each
of these standards in writing.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 9
•
• •
A. Alternatives Considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most
Type II 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.
B. 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.
1. For Type II and III uses, the water quality engineer must certify that water
quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the
development proposal.
2. 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 practicable.
C. Construction Materials and Methods. No construction materials or methods
may be used within the riparian setback area that would unnecessarily damage water
quality or native vegetation.
D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground residential structures shall not be d n ft6
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 1/'
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 to minimize flood damage, consistent with Chapter 18.84.
E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and
vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent 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. -
F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. 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 shall not be left in place
permanently.
2. Work areas on the immediate site shall 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.
4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to
fall or be placed outside the work area.
5. 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.
6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on
a permanent basis.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 10
• •
G. 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 18.85.090, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented.
1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily
disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis.
2. 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 with 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 • LL
within the riparian setback or wetland shall be re-planted with native plant
species.
3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of
native plant species designed 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. -
H. 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.
On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited
within the WR overlay district.
J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource
site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within
the WR overlay district:
1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during
construction to 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
construction 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 covered 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 unworked 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.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 11
i •
6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exits 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 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 drainageways.
9. Any other relevant provision of the Washington County Erosion Control
Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, 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 or 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 into 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.
L. Type Ill Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of
Chapter 18.130, Conditional Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below
and 18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type III use listed
below may be approved. The applicant for conditional use approval shall:
1 . Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the
resource area; and
2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan to show that any loss of riparian values
will be fully compensated through the enhancement program.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 12
18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions
The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major
stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of
structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that
equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through
streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved
portions of the riparian setback area.
A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a riparian
setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was
substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination
must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.0 that
demonstrates all of the following:
1 . Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor area;
2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site
riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-
site riparian setback area for the last five years;
3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section
18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species;
4. The riparian area is not entirely within the 100-year floodplain; and
5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent.
C. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the
standards of 18.85.080.B are met, as much as 50 percent of riparian area may be
developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and
subject to the following standards:
1. The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shall not
be less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian
setback shall not be less than 25 feet.
2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a
33 percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved,
provided that the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining
riparian setback area on a 1:5 basis. The vegetation report identifies
disturbed areas (non-vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with
non-native or invasive plant species such as English ivy or Himalayan
blackberry) and areas dominated by native plant species. Thus, for every
100 square feet of riparian setback area that is developed, at least 150
square feet of the disturbed portion of the remaining riparian setback area
must be re-planted with native plant species. In this manner, up to a one-
third riparian setback reduction may be approved.
3. As much as a 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may be
• approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared by
a biologist and a hydrological engineer. The plan must certify that the
streambank mitigation measures will substantially improve fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 13
•
18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards
In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to
dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the
Planning Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district.
A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50 percent
adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the
underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the
WR overlay district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse
impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the
potential for slope or flood hazards.
B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be
requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent
to the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional
adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the following criteria are fully satisfied:
1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at
the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback
area or water quality buffer.
2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover,
minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable
land.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,
including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence
close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native l�
landscaping materials, minimizing parking area and garage space. v �A tt��
4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence
(including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory
structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of water
resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer area.
5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach
further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district.
The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate
identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land.
18.85.110 Density Transfer �j
Density may be transferred from water resource and riparian setback areas as ^ ` /
provided in Section 18.92. 020-030. ✓iJ" 6'
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
TIPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 14
•
18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards
Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances
from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may
be considered only as a last resort.
A. Type Ill Variance Option. The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances
from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance
with the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance. -
B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in
Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance
to any dimensional provision of this chapter:
1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject 1A4 7
parcel of land, which is owned by the apolicant,Cnd which was not created +
a.,a, the effective date of this chapter.
2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the
Coss of a buildable site)or a use that is permitted outright in the underlying /,is 4"‘
zoning district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application.
3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve
the hardship.
4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the
variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for
- increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native
vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
5. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no
significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will
result from approval of this hardship variance, QL these impacts have been
mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be
replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation.
18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option
Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must
be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would
be to remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall
demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following:
A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social,
Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with
OAR 660-23-040.
1 . The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the
proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
WPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 15
•
•
resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard
Planning Area.
2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City
Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the
conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the
resource.
3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be
located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter,
and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can
meet the specific needs of the proposed use.
4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife
biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney
all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the
preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis.
5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be
incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the
Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the
site from the inventory.
B. Determination of "Insignificance." In this case, the applicant must
demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable
significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other
comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area.
1 . Significance thresholds are described and applied in th%addendu to the
City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of
this chapter.
2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in
identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or
any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code.
Second Draft-City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District
NPS-02/24/97 4:38 PM-Page 16
•
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Per Attached DATE: April 25. 1997
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: Zone Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 97-0001 Water Resources Overlay District
A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new
section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the
Goal 5 administrative rule. This new se ction will be titled the "Water Resources
Overlay District".
From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to
our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the
proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS
BACK BY: May 7. 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return
your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact
noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you
have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR
97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number:
• 41)
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS .
NOTIFICATION UST FOR IAMB ISE s DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS •
eriIt(CI al S1 wt e(I1�NINVOLVEMENTTEAMS • <i � igk[d ::::
FILE NAME - FILE NOISL•
ADVANCED PLANNING/Nadine Smith,Pr•.•we.P...._COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPTJo.e,.e gm..T....o... POUCE DEPTJc.,. ..,r ncm..,
(UILDING DIVJOavid Scott.wading omt.., //ENGINEERING DEPTJBrian Rager,o.p.a Resew Engineer _WATER DEPTJMIchael Miller.op..m.w..o.r.
_CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,cryR.o.d. !/6PERATIONS DEPTJJohn Roy,Prepay Wraps, _OTHER
::. . ... ::>::.;::.::.> .:: :<:.;:>: :::::>:: ::.::.spigua D :>: :::- .:.' ::.. . :::..:. : :::';:`':`:';::
_TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE _TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ±NIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker,SWM Program
Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Street
(place In pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124
.: .: :..::'-c:::--.i.:.'.•.•. ' . ` :.::: . ....................................LOCALANDSTATEIORISDICitONS: :;. . . ::::: ;: .:;
CITY OF BEAVERTON _CITY OF TUALATIN • /OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE 1--07R.DIV.OF STATE LANDS ,
PO Box 4755 Planning Director 2501 SW First Avenue 775 Summer Street,NE -
Beaverton,OR 97076 PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem,OR 97310-1337
Tualatin,OR 97062 Portland,OR 97207
_Larry Conrad,su..otPU..r . _OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM.
_Mike Matteucci,Rsowmo.Came. METRO _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street,NE
600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380
_CITY OF DURHAM Portland.OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232
City Manager 111S ARMY CORPS.OF ENG.
PO Box 23483 P ulette Allen,c..a Mammonism c.i„m,.e.. _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue
Durham.OR 97281-3483 1 Huie,r...,.p.ra,coon/haw(CPA's/ZOO:a) 1175 Court Street,NE PO Box 2946
Salem,OR 97310-0590 Portland,OR 97208-2946
_CITY OF KING CITY _METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION
City Manager 800 NE Oregon Street _OREGON DEPT.OF TRANS.(ODOT) WASHINGTON COUNTY
15300 SW 116th Avenue Building*16.Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept of Land Use&Trans.
IGng City,OR 97224 Portland,OR 97232-2109 Attn: Tom Highland,Pr..* 155 N.First Avenue
3040 25th Street.SE . Suite 350,MS 13
_CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124
Planning Director Bonneville Power Administration
PO Box 369 PO Box 3621 _0001%REGION 1 _Brent Curtis(CPAY)
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Routing TTRC-Attn: Renae Ferrera Sonya Kazan,MOM Re..Coed _Scott King(CPA.)
Portland,OR 97208-3621 123 NW Flanders _Mike Borreson(n e.i
_CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97209-4037 _Jim lice oGmo
David Knowles,Riming aura.,or. ✓OREGON,DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY _Tom Harry(curm+Pl Apps.)
Portland Building 106.Rm.1002 811 SW Sixth Avenue _ODOT,REGION 1-DISTRICT 2A _Phil Healy(m.*w.rpm.)
1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland.OR 97204 Jane Estes.Pe,..Swoon .
Portland,OR 97204 PO Box 25412
Portland,OR 97298-0412
- >:;: PROVIDERS AID SPECIAL AIIIIICIES ::>; ::-. :::..:> :>:; : :_::::>:>_ > ::<:
_BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.(R/R) _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT.
Administrative Office Jason Hewitt Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Kim Knox,Project Planner
1313 W.11th Street Twin Oaks Technology Center 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard 710 NE Holladay Street
Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 1815 NW 169th Place.S-6020 Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97232
Beaverton,OR 97006-4886
_COLUMBIA CABLE COMPANY _TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
Craig Eyestone _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY Linda Peterson Pete Nelson
14200 SW Brigadoon Court Scott Palmer 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street
Beaverton,OR 97005 220 SW Second Avenue Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204
Portland,OR 97209-3991
_GENERAL TELEPHONE
Paul Koft,Engineering _PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
MC: OR030546 Brian Moore
Tigard,OR 97281-3416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road
Beaverton,OR 97007 rtpanyvnassersvro oace.mst 7-Feb-97
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Attn: Sue Marshall, President
16295 SW 85th Ave.
Tigard, Oregon 97224-5569.
Fans of Fanno Creek
do Dave Drescher
Data Resource Center
Metro Regional Ceter
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97232-2736
Friends of Summer Creek
Attn: Douglas Gravatt
11380 SW Erste Place
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Wetlands Conservancy
Attn: Rosemary Furfey, President
PO Box 1195
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Tigard Chapter
Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Attn: Jerry Hofer, President
14815 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97224
Division of State Lands
Attn: Janet Morlan , Wetlands Program Leader
775 Summer Street,NE
Salem, OR 97310-1337
i.lrpn.dr/ZOA.mail