The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/02/1983 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate MARCH 2, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ask to be recognized by the Chair. Non-agenda LECTURE ROOM items are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less and are heard at the discretion of the Chair. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: r� 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda 2. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICY o Public Hearing Opened o Director of Planning & Development o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council o ORDINANCE NO. 83- Adopting Floodplain Management Policy 3. APPEAL-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 2-82 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO i5 An appeal by John Duncan of the Hearings Officer's denial of a sensitive lands permit request to excavate and fill within the 100 year floodplain at 16055 SW 74th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 13A Lot 1500). The matter is to be reviewed by Council pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.84.250(b)(1). This matter is to be heard pursuant to Section 18.84.290(b) and the review will be confined to the record of the proceedings. No new evidence or arguments will be allowed. However, parties are invited to submit written arguments only pursuant to Section 18.84.290(b). Such arguments shall be submitted to the City Recorder not less than five (5) days prior to Council consideration. During Council consideration, Council may pose questions to staff and parties on policy ( issues. o Public Hearing Opened o Staff Report and Summary of Hearing Officer Proceedings by Director of Planning & Development o Arugment: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal o Public Hearing Closed o Council Consideration and Action 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 4.1 FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Director of Planning & Development o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council o ORDINANCE NO. 83- Adopting Findings, Policies & Implementation Strategies 4.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP (NPO #7 to NPO #1) -� o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Director of Planning & Development o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council o ORDINANCE NO. 83- Adopting Comprehensive Plan Map 4.3 INTERIM ZONING MAP c Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Director of Planning & Development o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council o ORDINANCE NO. 83- Adopting Interim Zoning Map 5. ADJOURNEMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 2, 1983 (0316A) ' s BOOM r TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, Ima rector of Public Works (leaving Scott; Frank Currie, Di at 10:00 P.M. ) ; Doris Hartig, City Recorder/Finance Director; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel. 2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA (a) City Administrator requested the following items be added to the open agenda. .1 Accept Bid for Main Street/99W Traffic Signal i i .2 Report on Atlanta/Pacific Hwy. LID 4 3. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICY (a) Public Hearing Opened Planning Director reviewed staff memo regarding floodplain policy, } discussing options 2, 3, and 4. This report was developed based on the recommendation of the sub-committee consisting of the CCI, NPO and staff persons. He noted the memo was sent to members of the sub-committee, Park Board, Planning Commission and other interested citizens. i (b) Public Testimony I o Tom Burton, 302 Tigard Plaza, Civil Engineer, gave his viewpoint from a developers standpoint and recommended having a mix of both greenway, floodplain/floodway for Commercial/Industrial property. o John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Rd. , Beaverton, spoke for alternative #4, explaining why he supported this option. He felt it is a compromise of all options to modify the floodplain policy. o Fred Fields, property owner echoed Skourtes' comments and feels a well managed floodplain can function in this particular area. He further commented the floodplain needs to be established so that it can be managed on a day-today basis. He felt option #4 meets the needs of the community. o JB Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. , spoke to option #4 and commented on the other options and urged Council to make a decision at this time. He supported staff's point of view and endorsed option #4. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 22 1983 o Bob Bellinger, 10475 S.W. Clydesdale Place, representing the Park i' Board, recommended alternative #3 because it gave more control over sensitive lands. o Gloria Johnson, 9300 S.W. Hill St. , spoke regarding the greenway. She inquired how development can occur across from commercial development and stated concern the greenway will be destroyed or be allowed to be developed. She would like protection from fill-in and development. She read a letter into record regarding her concerns for buffering the residential area that borders the business districts. o Deborah Knobble, 14365 S.W. 80th Place stated she was not opposed to management of the floodplain but questioned how it is going to be done. Her opinion is the floodplain and greenway is an asset to City of Tigard and urged Council to be conservative in proposed development for this floodplain area. She recommended retaining chis asset and supported alternative #3. If Council does not adopt alternative #3 she requested opportunity for further review. o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 S.W. Walnut, representing NPO #3, supported alternative #3. He stated concern about maintaining character of greenway and the bike pathway be retained. o Larry Saub, 13230 S.W. Burnham Place, NPO #1 expressed concern to what might take place if landfill is allowed in the floodplain to meet the City's density requirements. o Chris Vanderwood representing NPO #5 stated they were looking for a floodplain management program. She commented she didn't understand alternative #4 and asked to have it explained. She suggested they needed more time to review staff's memo and recommended alternative #4 referred to the NPOs for further review and recommendation of a policy. o Mayor Bishop requested staff to respond to questions raised in public testimony. Director of Public Works and Planning Director explained alternatives and applied the policy to specific questions. Staff further commented they were not making a recommendation but urged a policy be adopted. o Council discussed at length the issue of allowing development in the floodway and selection of a recommendation at this time. (c) Public Hearing Closed. (d) Councilor Brian discussed the alternatives and stated he was comfortable with alternative #3 with modification as a more conservative approach. He suggested language changes which were discussed by Council. City Attorney said some of Council's concerns regarding goal #5 could be clarified with the ratification ordinance. Staff was directed to proceed. PAGE 2 - C017NCIL MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 vv� we ®�vrv�ry®wwrww®vew®v®v® - - (e) ORDINANCE NO. 83-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A FLOOD/GREENWAY POLICY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (f) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt with exhibit "A" alternative 3 as amended to read: 3.2.1(b) Delete (There is existing commercial or industrial use on the site at the time of adoption of this plan;) 3.2.1(c) Be amended to read: "The application can demonstrate that development in floodplain is reasonable and necessary for financial feasibility to site development." Motion carried by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. APPEAL-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M-2-83 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO #5. (a) An appeal by John Duncan of the Hearings Officer's denial of a sensitive lands permit request to excavate and fill within the 100 year floodplain at 16055 S.W. 74th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 13A Lot 1500). (b) By Council action of 2/28/83 this item was reset to April 11, 1983. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION aTRATEGIES (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Jeremy Coursolle Associate Planner made presentation, explaining the rationale for plan and suggested Council listen to what the NPO's have to say. He further reported the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland had submitted today an alternative density proposal which staff would like to discuss further with them. Council and staff discussed issue of further review and study of density issue. Kevin Hanway, staff attorney for Home Builders was allowed 5 minutes to discuss merits of proposal submitting an alternative which would give broader density range for single family dwelling units. He requested item be continued to March 14, 1983. Consensus of Council was to proceed with the hearing. Staff and Council discussed requested changes as distributed by staff. All of the changes were previously discussed by Council at February 23, 1983, meeting. (c) Public Testimony o Bob Bledsoe 11800 S.W. Walnut, representing NPO #3 spoke to Home Builders proposal regarding locational criteria and untimely submission. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 o Deborah Naubert, 14365 S.W. 80th Place echoed Bledsoe's concerns regarding changes proposed by Home Builders at this late date. o Herman Porter 11875 S.W. Gaarde endorsed City Attorney's suggestion regarding compromise language change submitted, referring to "congested intersections", in addition he spoke to C-P zoning and that apartment units be allowed in that zone. o Richard Boberg, 10660 S.W. N. Dakota NPO #7 testified against consideration of Home Builders recommendation. o Gary Reid, Chairman Washington County Home Builders spoke for reconsideration. o Larry Barnum, 14405 S.W. Hazelhill Dr. , Tigard, stated if it was to be considered, the NPO and Planning Commission should have time to look at proposal. Consensus of Council was to proceed as planned without further input from Home Builders Association. (d) Public Hearing Closed. (e) May : Bishop noted the issue of Durham Road was not included in req_; red staff changes in stated Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies. He stated he could not support the recommendation without it. Meeting recessed for staff to prepare and gather information. RECESS 9:22 P.M. Director of Public Works left: 10:00 P.M. MEETING RECONVENED at 10:10 P.M. (f) Mayor read the following from the Transportation Plan and recommended it be included in Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies page 55, numbered Implementation Strategy item 10. "Specific Transportation consideration for NPO #6 shall be as follows: 1. The City shall: encourage the assumption of jurisdiction from Washington County of Durham Road between Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway. 2. Durham Road shall not be considered a major arterial route between I-5 and Pacific Highway. 3. Consideration of use of Eide Road as a connector between I-5 and Pacific Highway shall be encouraged. 4. Durham Road shall be improved to 2 moving lanes of traffic with the provision for left turn movements. 5. Truck traffic on Durham Road in excess of 30,000 pounds gross vehicle weight shall be discouraged. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 (g) Councilor Brian suggested page 28, 5.1.5 paragraph two be amended as a compliment to the allowable commercial professional uses in that area. New paragraph "High Density residential development (20 units per acre or more) shall be allowable as a conditional use in the "Tigard Triangle Area" as a compliment to the allowable commercial professional uses in that area." Council was concerned with the new language. (h) Planning Director called Council's attention to staff memo responding to Council's concern regarding the language issue. Council will deal with matter later in the Development Code. (i) ORDINANCE NO. 83-7.0 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ELEMENT OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (j) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt Ordinance 83-10 with exhibit "A" as amended, noting it is a green Tigard Comprehensive Plan Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies policy dated October 1982, revised February 1983, along with the amendments and memo to Council by the Planning Director entitled "Council requested changes to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document", further amended by the high density policy which was read amending policy 5.1.5, page 28, and further amended on page 55 adding implementation Strategy #10 as read by Council ; adding April 1, 1983 as implementation date. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP (NPO #7 to NPO #l) (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director called Council's attention to package of letters from various NPO's and stated staff would respond starting with NPO #7- (c) NPO #7 o Jeremy Coursolle, Associate Planner responded to letters from Joseph Hart, Neva Elliott and Yvonne Larson and noted changes made by Planning Commission and recommendation forwarded to City Council for approval. He noted this is land use designation map being referred to, not the interim zoning map. o Richard Boberg, 10660 S.W. N. Dakota, NPO #7, supported density designation and questioned issue of funding of minor collector status of S.W. N. Dakota Street improvements, who will pay and when will it take place. o Yvonne Larson, 10730 S.W. N. Dakota reiterated Boberg's statement and referred to her letter in the packet. She requested their area 1 be an established area and thereby the status could be protected. i 1. PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 � o Staff responded to question regarding S.W. N. Dakota Street improvements, that 1/2 street improvements would be done by developer as property is developed and residents would pay fair share of general street improvements. Council tentatively accepted the Planning Commission recommendation. (d) NPO #6 o Planner Cou-rsolle read Planning Commission recommendation maintaining medium density in Picks Landing area. He also referred to letter regarding property south of Royal Mobile Villa on Pacific Highway noting the map had been corrected. He also commented on other changes in response to letters made by the Planning Commission. o Phil Pasteris, NPO #6, Chairman, 8935 S.W. Pinebrook discussed the issue of Little Bull Mt. density that was not resolved by Planning Commission. N-PO #6 feels density should be lower than the map designates. He discussed the property at S.W. Hall and Durham and commented that NPO #6 realizes they can't stop the developments but requested judicial use of rented space. o Sally Thomas, 16575 S.W. 85th Avenue opposed allowing higher density adjacent to her property, to be in keeping with area already there. o Mike Marr, 14445 S.W. 87th Ct. , Tigard, pointed out letter and petition previously submitted that was not mentioned by staff and noted he felt there was lack of control by the City regarding kind of Businesses allowed. o Roger Stovers, representing Plaid Pantry, 2540 S.W. Riverside Way noted history of acquisition and development of site at Durham and Hall. He spoke to uses that were not compatible with their business and stated they are selective in uses they want in their neighborhood shopping center. o John Gibbons , Home Builders Association, 15555 S.W. Bagney Road, supported medium density at Durham and Hall and referenced properties that he is representing; and discussed density issues. Exhibits are marked and referenced in City files. (Gulf Side Estates and Sunny Side Estates) o J.B. Bishop, 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. , Suite 303, addressed property ite on 99W near Summerfield Shopping area zoned C.L. and noted there was no access from 99W going south. He proposed the use to be high density with buffering to residential areas being medium density, south to Summerfield. o Council discussed testimony, with attention focused on Willowbrook area, density issues and comp plan designations. They considered medium density with R-5 single family zone for Golf Side Estates Subdivision. Consensus was to have low density; south of Tigard High School, Little Bull Mt. (north side to Naeve Road) and south of Naeve, to Summerfield be a C.L.P.D. (High Density). , the Plaid Pantry property at Hall and Durham to stay the same. PAGE 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 2, 1983 (e) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to continue to March 7, 1983. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. OPEN AGENDA 7.1 99W MAIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL BIDS The State Department of Transportation received a bid from M & J Electric, Inc. , dba Marine and Industrial Electric, P.O. Box 4529, Portland, Oregon 97208 for the amount of $26,123.18. City Administrator recommended Council accept staff recommendation for the acceptance of bid and authorize payment of $26,125 for signal installation, engineering, striping and testing which is 23% under the estimate. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to accept the bid and authorization for payment of $26,125 for the signal installation, engineering, striping and testing. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7.2 99W/ATLANTA LID ENGINEERS REPORT For Council information City Administrator, reported Cooper and 4 Associates total cost is $2500 for study and report. He stated property owners would ask to be reimbursed if the project goes forward and that the LID pick up the costs estimated to be $5000. 7.3 City Administrator, noted a meeting of WaGhington County Public Officials at City of Beaverton March 24, 1983. 8. INTERIM ZONING MAP Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to set over discussion to March 7, 1983. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 12:40 A.M. City Recorder — ATTEST: Mayor (0398A) PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1983 woE ■ree jj aia I-t: March 2. ]9 3 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your nave) Y.tem Description: 4.3 INTERIM ZONING MAP PUBLIC HEARING oponent (for) Opponent (against) me, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation . ne l fi ,Q'S .eez 7ovo sw ='60, ,camIA Y .. _ f7 . i m7i March 2, 1' 3 y un the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: 4,-1 CQMR HENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) FINDINGS, POLICIES & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES oponent (for) opponent (against) ne, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation J a� ~ 5�5� Std � 414) f. sK . lu 1 wash to cestixy before the Tigard City Council on March 2, 1983 the following .em: (Please print your nane) r - Item Y)escription: 2, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICY PUBLIC HEARING roponent (for) opponent (against) arae, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation -13 rJd 3vZT aSL . PC If UL March 22 1983 ` on U a i y ounc the following item: (please print your name) item Description-.____- E escription:__„______- E LANDS PERMIT M 2-82 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO #5 PUBLIC HEARING Orpponent (agains t) 9ponent (for) , " Name, Address and Affiliation me, Address and Affiliation U _5 . r ®107-lb?, coda 410A C mpreltnsi- P[an I I vc Map icoh n i s bbon N PL 1 111�1i!!!`1�till °111°1°�!1°+111 ,• NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO . THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAMING. __ ______ _ _ ;... O!E62 t3Z dZ 8Z S1Z��- b2 E2 ZZ 12 OZ 6t @q—11 SI ST bl E! 21 11 OI 6 8 5' �I�ulp�a�trlli9l_IL�l111t1 ttl�tutltaultw6lw�ta#alu�#ltr�ulle!!,1!tt�tlyd!!!q � ` u>I�lgslltln � 1HI1R11�I111�11111lII1�1IN11H1 _ - —_- ---_— _ v R _ - _-� 1_, 1 _�___ _ _ `i i ---------- I r 8r I Fe `-X 17T. I gel' ry I: cxr>,t FA S 89��SG�E 4(o.os Ya�y - a AO U - - 3 +k �—-- I— - --�_ .,y . ( - VAC_ , a i . Y EE ; E ;��. -- N 89��ms`s• .��.i a.-- � __ . -_- _ _ . __.-- ' - _ # � �_._._._._.z I=6 G IiI;�N OF .r H E JEIS SEP 151987_JFieE -• � • r � � - , -. ,- - � � i r > > � 1 1 r 1 � � r � � � � . � � � i � 1.,11 � t � 1111 � � NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 10 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO r' THE QUALITY OF Trf ORIGINAL DRAWING. -- OC 62 82 LZ 9Z SZ >Z CZ ZZ�IZ 02 61—81-- LI 91- 91 b1 CI ZI 11- 01— 8- b Ci" s G_ U_ L_ S®DE E ®�A rES Stole of Oregon )Stole of Oregon ) ss County of Washington)ss County of Washington) /, Roger Thomssen, Director of Records and Elections,do hereby certify that the original plat was received for record on the day S Roger Thomssen, Director of Records and Elections, o( 119 al-o'clock-W, and recorded on Page-in Sook_of Records of Town Plots of said County. do hereby certify'that/have compared the within plat (A RL"PLAT OF APART OF LOT 9, ALDERBROOK FARM ") BY , ' with the original thereof, that the some is a full,ftwe, SITUATED/N THE SOLOMON RICHARDSON D.L.C.No.44 Jeputy LOT CURVE DATA and correct Copy thereof,as the some appears of record AND THE S W//4 OF SECT/ON// T.2S. R./bd� GY.f,{9 NOTE A GENERAL UTILITY EASEN£NT TO INCLUDE in Plat Book Page thereof. , , STORM SEWER qND SANITARYSEWERS.SNAG LOT DELTA RAGYUS LEN07H CHOW CIYORDaFARAV EXIST ALONG ALL SIDE,FRONT AND REAR LOT AND S}fL T OWING 6 0°04'47" 1435.36• Z.00 2.00' N89°51'30 wC/TY OF RGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON MOMS, 5.A9FEr ALONG A44 SIDE AND 7 O°25'07" /433.36• /0.49' 10.49' N89036'33'W by_Deputy SURVEYED APRIL ,/980 BY: JOHN G REPPETO PL.S. REAR LOT LINES, /0.00 FEET ALONG ALL 8 2°37'17' 1435.36' 65.67' 65.66' S88°0521'E E 3020 EBURNS/0£Sr PORTLAND OREGON,9724 FRCWT LOT UN,-S,,EXCEPT WHERE OTHER- 8 Oo 4 !O'S2• /385.36' 38' 4.38' $86°32'09'£ WISE SHOWN. 1503)236-4648 9 2°53'32" /385.36' 69.93' 6953• SaeZ-0'2/E 15 1°I/58 /385.36' 29.00 29.00' Seg°/7'55-E DEDI/s AT/ON /Z 014959` 138536* ZO.OI' 20.0/' S88°/7'06E )) O°49'4/- /385.36' 2002' 20.02' S87°2727-E BE/T KNOWN:7H47 THE ROBERT RANDALL CO.,AN OREGON CORPORATION, /0 0°15'53' 1385.36' 6.40' 6.40• S86°54 40'E DOES HEREBY A!kl7CE,ESTABLISH AND DECLARE THE ANNEXED MAP OIC S. W SA MER Sr COUNTY RD. 0757 to 3004 24 143536• 76.99 7698. S88°IB 55 E, "GULF SIDE ESTATES 'AS DESCRIBED/N THE ACCOMPANY/NG SURVEYORS ) 89 55 54" 16.00 25.N22;.61 V45004'03'E o r0'STR£ETDED/CATigy 5 90°OdOd' 16.00' 25.13' 22.63' N44°53'54W CERTIFICATE TO BEA'T77UE AND CORRECT MAP AND PLAT THEREOF,ALL s/atw S89058'007E /6/.85 / )a 90°00'00" )sad 25.)3 _ 22.63' N45°06'05"E LATS BEING OF THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND ALL STREET OF THE WIDTHS �-M, -� ` -' ;� STREET GURVC DA 7A THEREIN SET FORTH ANO 00 HEREBY DED/CAT_F 70 THE USE OF THE \ ENO.1/2`/.P. PUBLIC AS PUBUCWAYS FORF�VER ALL EASEMENTS AND STREETS 5}� 6502 80.84 I 0.24 Y• OSSE SHOWN ON SAID MAP. TRACT A"IS HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF T/GARQ 4 3'07'11- B 4 :3°04.24' c:1 I 25� y, I R:1410.36' R= /4/0.36' HE RT WALL Co. w p O L= 7679' L = 75.65' ` •• 8 O 2 10 Co ,a,':38.4/ .,F 37.83 G y � p ` ^ 74780' ° 75150' a m C= 76.76 C=75.64 /I.-C.�C� Q 4 °moo / 2 `� C8: S88°R'I'18'E CB=S88°18'55 E ROBERT D RANDALL FRES/DENT ✓UUA WALLACE SECRErARY 60.77 4 M /� /�/ p� SCALE I. .60 a N89°58'00"W /6/.77• NOTES SEE CUT80UIVDS SURVEY No 18256 A ijKNO LEDGEME!Y TS _ I ,0 I WASHdNGTON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS I STATE CF OREGONS O p I O 0 I Q OfNOTfS 5/8 X 30 IRON RODS W/CAPS SET COUNTY of wASh7NGrON I y m BE/T REMEMBERED THAT ON THIS Z 9 Q /3755 0�, 2 0 DENOTES MONUNfNTS FOUND AS NOTED DAY OF /980,EFF®RE ME THE UNDERSIGNED,A NOTARY PUBLIC/N AND FOR SAID STATE AA0 COUNTY PERSONALLY 'A W I o.s,+/•aero E fND./L R FEARED ROBERT D. RANDALL AND JULIA WALLACE 727 ME PERSONALLY KNOWN, se9'58'00E 16/70' W I S8.9°5800'E 146.65 .84N•O20E APPROVALS WHO BEING DULY SWORN,DID SAY THAT HE, ROBERT D RANDALL /S THE PRET/DENT AND HE DID SAY THAT JULIA WALLACE/S THE SECRETARY CF 7T/E ROBERT RANDALL Co. ee.c0 72002 I I 54' • AND 7HAT SAID INSTRUMENT WAS SIGNED /N BEHALF OF SAID CORR?RAT/ON BY AUTHORITY D<ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROBERT D.RANDALL AND JULIA �` _ 3 i I p��1V� / a APP ED f G y/980 /D 1 8 PL NN/N LOM /ON 3 WALLACE DO ACKNOWLEDGE SAND INSTRUMENT R7 BEA FREE ACT AND DEED. 0 ^ W 2$.- e a 4 y.I I I/760 o ° C/TY 804117 6 0 O I N89°58 0 'W 14000 O BY ~ I 7000" 70.00 APPROVED ® ,1980 NOT RY PUBLFOR OF OREGON 3 S n' o DIRECTOR GFASSESSMENTB TAXAT/ON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES /i G-&V - Q N89°�53 54 w /3435 a' - o u Wj x (COUNTY ASSESSOR) x u o WASH/NGTDN COUNTY BY +� SURVEYORS CERT//'-/GATE 25" �n ^ 7� -' ° 5� I 8.2340 i ` 84180 a �e APPROVED /980 o I IQ o� COUNTY SURVEYOR Z JOHN G. REPPETO,FIRST BEING DULY SWORN,DEPOSE AND SAY 7�/AT I HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED _O 2.00 4.36 I WASHINGTON COUNTY AND MARKED WITH PROPF-R MONUMENTS THE LANDS REPRESENTED ON THE ANNEXED MAP OF"GULF _ 0 y SIDE ESTATES'AND THAT AS THE/N/77AL P9/NT OF SA/D SURVEY I SET A 2/NCH DIAMETER G4LVANIZEO 700° > 6567 4�� 69.93' O J BY ,� IRON A'PE, 36 INCHES LONG, 6 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF 77.1E GROUND ATA POINT FROM 1 S � N /O 49 WHICH THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION //, T 2S.,R./W., W.N BEARS SOUTH /554.45 FEET _ I K'4�� _ >67y ST APPROVED 1980 AND EAST/297.97 FEET, THE LANDS BE/NG PLATTED BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEG/NnJ/NG ��89°53'S4 E y /56 0O � ��- ®_ AT SAND/N/TIAL POINT AND RUNNING N 89°54'43'W ALDNG 7NE SOU7N UNE OF LOT 9,AL IEWBROOK o ti 75 65' I FARM, A PLAT OF RECORD,A DISTANCE OF 25.Ob FEET 70 THE SOUII-HWEST CORNER 7HEREOF; THENCE � 2aw Q p z002' �I kl^ 29.Od ' NO OB'OB E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF.5.41D Lor.9 A DISTANCE OF 73 9/FEET THENCE N89°51'45 E 7600' 2h�. 6400 boo s A DISTANCE Oc'250 0A FEET TO A FOINT IV 7HE EAST RICHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.'W /00 IN 4IE..; THENCE 7699� Al At 0006'06 E ALONG SA/D EAST RIGHT OF-WAY L/NE A DIS TANCE OF 558.79 FEET 70 A POVNT/N 7HE- �,I SVU7H RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE O�SW SATTLER Sr; THENCE S89o58'00"E AWNG SAID SOUTHR)GHT-GF-WAY 14 $ fes+ I �v /O UNE A DISTANCE OF/61.85 FEET 717 A Pt71NT IV A UNE WHICH/S 146.85 FEET WEST OF 7HE EAST o hl.41 `� UNE CF S41D LOT 9; THENCE S O°OB"53 W PARALLEL W17H 710E EAST UNE OF S41D LOT 9 A DISTANCE �° 0 8345 c' 4 o' o // 22 o i. a 8469 x�g h OF 18805 FEET, THENCE 589058'OO E PARALLEL W/TH 7'r/E NOR7H UNE CST'SAID LOT 9 A L9STANCE c m �X Gil /46.85 FEET 70 A Panr!N 7HE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 9; 7HENCE SO°0853"W ALONG oA/D EAST - ` .' � o p � a° UNE A D/STAM E 445.03 FEET TD THE St7tlTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE N89 5443'W o 0 ALONG THE S0U7H UNE OF SAID LOT 9 A DISTANCE OF 308.18 FEET 77 THE /NIT/AL P(NNT ANO R7/NT O W 60 c0 0 /05.00' ~ W I OF BEGINNING. I �W 8327' WI 0) 0 N89° "5354•W '� I S89°53'S4'E BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I certify that MIS tint/ng is a ftv� N89°5/45"E_ o y Q I y W /5 WASHINGTON COUNTY T and&Awl�oy of the or/ginal p/of. 14 25.00 I� x - - - '1:v is ` °oo + p rk I, APPROVED ,/960 ,.Fxn G./r wao,Oren,.rLSN"s57 40 .,s I3 �� B2 a IW W Iti HEALTH DEPAR77NENT A o 0, o d. I/ a to WASH/NGM-WCOUNTY O 8262 14995 I I2 12730° x REGISTERED 0 K I BY PROFESSIONALREG/STEREO PROFESS/ONAL LAND SURVEYOR i O k T0.4A AND S4N/TARP SEWER.EASEMENT 70 TN£PVBL)C yOF OREGON No. 657 Z _ -___ I ATTEST 6-AND SUR4�YOR 5 � ® �� h 100./6 RECORDED /980 SUBSCRIBED AND SWOR BEFORE ME ✓ �� N B9°54'43 by 308./8' 1 LYRECTOR GF RECORDS 8 ELECTIONS 1N1T/AC PO/NT FND.S/8"LR 7H/S z9 DAY GF -1,1,1980 N89054 43 / (COUNTY CLERK)WASH/NGTnNCOUNTY 04EGON � 25.00' SET z'G./.P. 015N._O74'.w JULY 10 WI �j N JOHN G. REPPETO ' //lRLKw�i' I�I 2. BY °c' S j 5 5 7 NOTARY PUBLIC FDRY7HE STATE OF OREGON to - MY CONNISSION EXP/RES FNO SOUTH I/4 CORNER In SEC.//,T.2S,R./W.,WM C 1/Z-1R/N/"I P./N Af0&BOX (&--r PLAT OF CO.RD.A4.2748) EAST 1297.97 � �I/ ^�I `vi r��c"✓ , :x a.. _ r)ISI)►+111II)III�I'�)I�IIIIIII`I�II)II�I)IIIiI�IIIII�I�i1T�)�T�II1��I)I(IllfllTjl��l)1111111)IIIII�II�I�I`i)III)��I)III)I�I)III'I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII)I�I'I'11�''I'III'lllll'I'I''''II NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED - - - I - - - 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS v NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO DRAWING. ^E 62 aZ LZ 9? SZ bZ £Z ZZ IZ d2 61 BI LI 91 SIif EI ZI if • .L,—f •uog! �' REVISIONS 1 F f DESCRIPTIONIDATE`- L I d I KESYv ExIST '�•.Z. FSG: I GIGALE.� I -(00 r.�� i_��1�, __.. T �,- ,, ��S/" -Al L/NL i _ Ad <?�. Z_ 1 oo R'SiD�rJc-r 7Glo 1 O1NNr'�r� _ 7NE reO�ERT_fl•-�/v� LL �Dl�7l'.'v4"/ sj _ - oc- 1. i MEN - •l• � "- v 1c. — —�_— — — RES;'✓1:... C.�� ._ i � 97Z/y zo or o. 1•� �� i � �A / �,v Pte✓ LOCIA Tivi/ ✓r r BATT<// - 'Yp �¢ . ��-g•i�i4� / 1000 _>- � ¢ IM✓ S 89'�SGbE 1 � I7S i - -- J --O ---- I � � ?SRC*< ^:.ci% G/5c .`ii��iL= T�;,,'�/ .�D;;//SiOi✓ 1 IvA ;llo0 I 8,1�0`b 81� VAS.. Gi59� =wra 1" .i To - '' rJ�L'_jrCNY'✓Y ��.L7.�. %div'%�CG�T��OL ?iGA,Y I� U' �.. 373 jG} �" j �✓� R.�w�✓ I _63' ! �3 I :� Z jA I I 43___ZSO pQ I !mac /✓1/. aTUP4G ��AS �d Z ;54� z. + t I_ 5rvc�� B� .� s �I-- LL B Z > a Sv\/ L 01I I �NDlcafEs �Rl�a DR�v�v�ar5 �� --�-_ ___.._ y25 �� j _ WI D% U111MP1b i��I��C� i I?.�O A •�� ✓G_C�/�6 I � 9 _ _ I I I ray Dov gg�g�y _ Lu VA,(f-4 A I Q a 0 • i � � ��;' \ i (0,370• ti. — f PA6EMEµS L _ - _ �!L\�� C/L- I k � 'i jos No. DESIGN --- 711 EO DRAWN corm. --- -- LLL Fr I I ! ! CHECKED --- �I , ✓., DATE �•253Z SHE E7 N0. SEP ? = yiC�l Lei/✓> /1/ �rlu� I o X� 19�z c�,glSl7AFY SEvIE� LOCA•�I o IJ I�A F ,�K I I�1` Ki',IF��I�I�T ✓vl ✓N I �Elti OF SHE ETS 11 1�►illl 1111111 Illilll 111 111 111 111 111 111 i(1 7 I 1 1 1 1 1 T 11 I 1 � I 1 1 1 .u< ;w. r....� f' I � 1 ) � � i � I i 1 1Tl'T imrmi ► r 1 ( 1 rn�l l I � � 111 i Inm1111�11r(11��111�111111+i11T�.111illllal1i111�111�1111111i111�1111111111oi111�F1 _ y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 2 3 4 5 g 7 g A ��, 1t I� DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS (]IIF TO THE QUALITY OF Trf ORIGINAL DRAWING. _- __ _ OE 6Z BZ 1.Z 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ--OZ -8t-91-" 11 91 SI' fpI cI ZI II_ 0 - S- s jr February 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Floodplain Management Policy As you directed, Staff has been working with members of the Council appointed Sub-Committee regarding the City's Floodplain Management Policy. Consensus has not been resolved among Sub-Committee, C.C.I. , N.P.O. and Staff persons involved on this important issue. The purpose of this Memo is not to recommend one policy over another, but rather to summarize the issues and options for Council decision-making purposes. Issues The primary issue involved is the function of the floodplain itself, the ability to carry storm water flows. Two secondary issues then arise: greenway/open space and economic development. The function or flow of the floodplain must be our primary concern before tailoring our policy as to greenway/open space and economic development needs. Floodplain Options There are five major and distinct floodplain management policies which have been discussed so far: 1. "Do Nothing". . . 2. "Moratorium" or the Sub-Committee's report. . . 3. Encroachment for "Existing Uses Only" or the C.C.I. 's position. . . 4. "Controlled Management" as presented to C.C.I. by 3 members of the Sub-Committee. . . 5. 11Pipe It". . . Evaluation of Alternatives Options #1 (Do Nothing) and #5 (Pipe It) are not under serious consideration, but clearly help to focus the realistic options available between extremes. s The "Do Nothing" option #1 is technically unacceptable since it will result in a two-foot rise in the current flood levels ; some work in the floodplain (see Master Storm Drainage Plan) is required. Alternatively, the "Pipe It" option #5 is equally unacceptible, BUT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE: So, if we know what .' will 'happen under 11Do Nothing" option #1 and if we can technically determine how to "Pipe It under option #5, then any of the other options #2, #3 or #4 { are viable. To evaluate options #2, #3 and #4 we need to consider a variety of factors such as: cost and who pays, as well greenway/open space and economic development. Alternative #2 calls for a Moratorium until further detailed study of the entire floodplain is completed and essentially defers the policy decision until later. Staff finds that current information is more than adequate for the policy decision to be made. Funding for any additional studies is in doubt, given the City's budget situation. Further technical details should be submitted at the applicant's expense during the Sensitive Lands Permit review. Several projects and applications are presently on "hold" until this policy is resolved, one way or another. In summary, this option places further cost on the City's limited operating budget, defers the real decision, gives no long term protection to greenway/open space, delays capital improvement plans and finding, and discourages economic development. Alternative #3 allows some modification or encroachment in the floodplain, but then sets up conditions which are difficult to quantify and further restricted only to existing land uses. Under this policy, the bulk of the cost of needed modifications to the floodway/floodplain would be at community-wide expense. Maximum preservation of greenway/open space would occur, but little, if any, economic development benefit would result. Alternative #4 provides for a controlled management policy and attempts to balance cost, greenway/open space and economic development issues. Under the controlled management policy the largest share of cost would be placed on adjacent development and provides maximum relief on any community-wide cost shares. In residential areas a large greenway/open space set back from center channel would be maintained. In non-residential areas abutting residential areas across the floodplain, additional buffering on the encroaching non-residential side would also be required. Economic development is encouraged. Conclusion Drafts of alternatives #2, #3 and #4 are attached along with minutes of the C.C.I. meeting of February 22, 1983. NOTE: A complete copy of this report was sent to each Planning Commission member, each Park Board member, each Sub-Committee member and each C.C.I. member. ch (0447A) airs sir sono x ALTERNATIVE #2 3.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY*; AND b. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN*. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY UNTIL THE CITY HAS COMPLETED A DETAILED FLOODPLAIN STUDY AS DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL. *The floodplain and floodway as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance Administrator. EXHIBIT "A" ALIERNA'I LVE 9t;1 Policy as submitted to the City Council following Planning Commission revisions on January 19, 1983 within the Natural Features and open Space Element . 3.2. 1 IHE CI'iY SHALL: a. PROHIBIT LAND FORM AL'IERA'CIUNS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY*; AND b. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERA'1IONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: 1. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DFVELOPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOO-2LAiN ARE DESIGNATED AS EITHER INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN POLICY 3.2.2 CAN BE SATISFIED. 2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE ONE SIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS: (a) THE LAND FORM ALTERATION OR DEVELOPMENT 1S ON LAND DESIGNATED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE; (c) THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE IHAT DEVELOPING IN FLOODPLAIN IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY TO SITE DEVELOPMENT; AND (d) THE FACTORS SETFORIh IN POLICY 3.2.2 WILL BE SATISFIED. 3.2.2 WHERE LAND FORM ALTERNATIVES AND DEVELOPMENT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN*, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE: a. THE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND STREAM FLOW CAPACITY OF THE FLOODWAY ADJOINING THE SITE BE MAINTAINED; b. ENGINEERED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTATION PROVING THERE WILL BE NO UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM CHANGES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA; C. THE PLANTING OF AN EVERGREEN BUFFER ON THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND WHICH SCREENS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM VIEW BY THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LAND (SEE BUFFER POLICY ) AND WHICH IS SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO BE NOISE ATTENUATING; AND d. THE DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND AREA ADJOINING THE FLOODPLAIN AT A SUITABLE ELEVATION FOR THE CONS' JCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATHWAY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN I.i ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PLAN. *The Floodplain and Floodway as definea by the Federal Flood Insurance Administrator. E c ALTERNATIVE #4 3.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN*/GREENWAY EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: 1. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING THE EXISTING ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY: 2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS NON-RESIDENTIAL MAY BE PERMITTED WHERE: (a) THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SENSITIVE LANDS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY CODE HAS BEEN MET; AND (b) THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS BEYOND 100 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY AS DESIGNATED BY THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY. WHERE THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY IS LESS THAN 200 FEET IN WIDTH NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL OCCUR. *The floodplain and floodway are as defined by the Federal Floud Insurance Study. C. C. I. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; iNancy Robbins, NFO #7; John Butler; Phil Pasteris, NPO #6; Lou Ane Mortensen, NPO a#3; Chris Yanderwood, Planning Commission; Garry A. Thornton, McKenzie Engineer; Geraldine Ball, NPO *4; J.B. Bishop, Commercial Property Owner; Wilbur Bishop, C.C.I. 2. Discussion of Floodplain Issue Bill Monahan outlined the process which was followed leading up to the meeting, 1. the formulation of a policy by the C.C.I. 2. acceptance oc the policy by the Planning Commission 3. submittal of the policy as Pert of the Natural Features and open Space element to the City Council 4. Council's appointment of a subcommittee to develop an alternative policy and S. formulation of a new policy 3.2.1. Based on the new proposal of the subcommittee, staff called the C.C.I. meeting to allow Frank Currie and Gary Thornton an opportunity to present the data available to the City so that the C.C.I. could evaluate whether or not to formnlate a new policy to take the place of the subcommittee report. Frank Currie explained the engineering data which is now available to the City. Available options: 1. pipe the whole thing 2. do nothing 3. stream flow management enhancement 1. Pipe it/Deep ditch Advantages i 1. no flood control damage if designed properly 2. high potential tax base Disadvantages 1. prohibitively high initial cost 2, limits open space 3. decrease natural aethetics 4. maintenance cost high t 2. Do Nothing Advantages 1. low initial cost 2. maximize open space - floodplain will grow 3. simplify city application for filling permits Disadvantages 1. Floodplain rises, will inundate 3. in Between Policy - Stream Flow Management Enhancement gdvantage s 1. ability to maintain existing flood risk by managing it, i.e. under bridges, rip rap, re channel 2. increase inpotential jobs 3. increased authority featuring over the other 2 Disadvantages 1. decreases open space through economic development 2. increase in staff's administrative responsibilities Frank then discussed the areas of greenway and open space. Open space is erties, least important to industry. most important to residential prop Issue {ghat is the consensus definition of open space with numbers attached to it that define it? John Butler of NPO #1 offered a definition of Fanno Creek, Open Space of 200 ft. with the buffer controlled by the Community Development Code. Existing park plans must be upheld including any new proposes. There was no second to his motion. Lou Ane - Moved adoption of the subcommittee's 3.2.1 as an interim policy. wo second. Chris stated that the G.C.I. wants time to "study the study" i.e. the floodplain study. Frank suggested tieing the policy to the 1980 FIS center line. Then, measure from the center to specify the open space that is required. Motion by John Butler, and Phil Pasteris seconded. Motion: Stand on the original C.C.I. proposal as submitted to City Council. C.C.I. is willing to work further in the issue with the information that is now available. Note, unanimous in favor. Adjournment 10:30 p.m. E OEM ceTber 4. 19=- 4 Ti;_ ard Plannin '-� to f f Ti and Planning Corrmiss ion Ti-ard City Council City of Ti,la.rd , Oregon, 97223 Dear Members : FANNO CREEX CREENWAY AND c-LOODPLAIN In :SPO #1 Book , pa_,e 44, it says Fanno Creek provides a natural buffer between the neighborhoods residential and business district. Why should the Plann.iny* Staff want to take in the Greenway and Flood Plain for the Central Business District? The CBD calls for high density . Do they want to fill in the flood plain and Tare it high density? Are they proposinct ; to throw out all of he existing codes which now protect our Greenway and Floodplain areas? The NPO .#1 Book talks about the important reasons why we should keep the (Greenway and Flocd Plain on Page 3 , 12, -5 and 47 . 1. As a buffer between the residential area and the central district . The Plannini Staff has the C3D l_- e comins across the Greenway ad ,;acent to a low density single family :rem which will destroy the Greenway and Flood Plain buffer. 2 . The NPO 41 Book states that filling; in the Floc-- Plain udD, create flooding; ��C insurance rates for floors would �gu 3 . The Greenway trees and vegetation helps purify the air and puts oxygen back into the air. 4. The Greenway is very vital f r birds , water fowl and wild life which helps keep down to population of mice , rats and insects . The CBD line should be moved to the business side of the Greenway to protect the Greenway and to preserve the low density single family residential area. 'Ne should maintain the codes we now have which protects the Greenway and gives a .buffer to the single family low density residental areas . Once the Greenway and ='lccd Plain is destroyed , a very vital part of our environment is lost forever. Thank you for your time and consideration, Paul and ;loris ohns.cn 't t d V nANciis J. rrEPEDINO ATTORNEY AT LAW UNIVERSITY STATION.P.O.BOA'8623 PORTLAND.OREGON 97207 OFFICE(503)796-6693 RES.(503)639-7600 February 23, 1983 [� F The Mayor and Members of Dt The City Council of Tigard FEB 24 9'�E3 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Dear Mayor And The City Council Members: PLANNING DEPT. I write to you in my capacity as Chairman, City of Tigard Planning Commission. On February 22, 1983, The Planning Commission unanimously passed a Resolution which directed The Planning Commission Chairman to communicate a "Sense of The Commission" to The City Council. We understand that The City Council has requested that certain Flood Plain issues of The Comprehensive Plan be reviewed and commented on by a Subcommittee. This Subcommittee, as we understand it, is to report directly back to The City Council with it's recommendations and/or infor- mation. As you know, The Planning Commission has spent many hours and some length of time on the proposed Comprehensive Plan, a part of which are Flood Plain issues. We have held public hearings, gathered input from various con- stituencies, coordinated with the NPO's and C.C.I. , City Staff and The City Attorney's office. Following these efforts, we sent the results of these labors to The City Council with our recommendations. All of the above was done in accordance with the applicable Procedures, Codes and Ordinances of the City and State. I o� JU ti February 23, 1983 Page 2 We do not question the right of The City Council to request additional information. There is some concern, however, that the procedure used may violate the rules under which we have been functioning, or at the least, raises issues that the efforts, deliberations, recommendations and efficacy of The Planning Commission may be undermined. We respectfully request that The Planning Commission be given an opportunity to review and comment upon any-�proposed changes to The Comprehensive Plan. �- Yours Mtru Francis J. epedino FJT:kc C immamnt INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, SITE LOCATION The Equitable Center * Suite 320 Salem (503) 581-8904 530 Center St. N.E. o Salem, OR 97301 Portland (503) 639-7183 March 1 , 1983 Mayor and City Council members City of Tigard P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Bob Jean City Administratortj� I Y AT py The purpose of this letter, is to urge the mayor and c� C I .10 6fi"M favorable consideration for a commercial (CL) zone impac presently owned by Alex Finke (enclosure) and in the process of being purchased by my client, Invest-A-Venture, Inc. Additionally, we would ask the council to make the decision on the CL zone within the comprehensive plan revision as soon as possible so that our project can get under way. It is my understanding that the city is considering tax increment financing for the downtown area. Perhaps I should point out that my client's project will provide new "economic blood" to the business community because of the multiplier effect or turnover of dollars from the business that would be generated from out-of-town and greater metropolitan consumers being attracted to the facility. In essence, economic development stimulus may come, at times, when the normal course of approval procedures inhibits such stimulus because of hearings delays. Therefore I urge you to consider perhaps taking a "piecemeal " approach to approving the zone and allowing my client to move forward with a building permit prior to the conclusion of the hearings re- lated to the city's comprehensive plan. Reasons for doing so are as follows: 1 . Tigard's reputation will certainly be enhanced as "the place" in the Pacific Northwest for family entertainment. 2. As the president of an industrial real estate company, I am aware of tentative industrial projects in nearby communities that will enhance the industrial base-- thereby adding to increased spending possibilities via employees for consumer goods and recreational activities. It is conceivable that traveling executives and management would bring their families when visiting in the metropolitan area in order that they could spend most of the day at my client's facility while "Dad or Mom" is at work attending meetings. 3. The project would provide the impetus for a general "face lift" among commercial businesses along Highway 99 within the vicinity of my client's facility. INDUSTRIAL REALTORS SERVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST l May and City Council members City of Tigard Page 2 4. t4holesome family recreation would be a welcome addition to Tigard as opposed to the alternative forms of recreation which tend to create problems for the police and fire depart- ments in terms of teenagers gathering in unsupervised areas. Our project would be supervised, no alcohol or drugs would be permitted, and grandparents, parents and children of all ages would have fun in a safe environment. To reiterate, the entire project cannot move forward until a commercial zone is designated. We have already extended the time frame twice in which our option to Mr. Finke will remain in effect, but my client simply cannot keep their investment backers interested on an "on-going basis". We appreciate your cooperation and hopefully the support of our project. Sincerely, JA-SAPT CORPORATION David D. Sant President DDS/lh P.S. I failed to mention that the Randall Company is also supportive of a commercial (CL) zone for their adjacent acreage. cc: Mr. Merrill Haddon r r r s ft®�ft+s�®�sr ir'r s€er rr far�rr�r o r rr�rm��r y-4iied by Purchaser' > -erecf the Sale ^xreement S&elRleecert Exhibit "A„ is attaches heretc. a:d rte e a Par, f �, ?vo. 1 lol, �e.,: C`c`ober <�, _7.-,<_ , ar_d outlines the subjec:t For Earnest Money, 5' _� Se-- . the W.n:. property iZ? yeilc herein des_r-bed, �o ,ait. comprising ta.a lots 2106, a-rid IL © li� '0, t ifi tit v I� 41 CO `f�S a�..e.sr.•��•�•T:• °t} �+ � 'P_ :��_;S+ :'q _ �- t 1 L It CO °�.,...�—._ ` �� '�t '+�'.� �"�, - s 4i � •may `�� •�." 'diff Y'"��- + _ -. p� �� • O �• � '�' ` � February 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Floodplain Management Policy As you directed, Staff has been working with members of the Council appointed Sub-Committee regarding the City's Floodplain Management Policy. Consensus has not been resolved among Sub-Committee, C.C. I. , N.P.O. and Staff persons involved on this important issue. The purpose of this Memo is not to recommend one policy over another, but rather to summarize the issues and options for Council decision-making purposes. Issues The primary issue involved is the function of the floodplain itself, the E ability to carry storm water flows. Two secondary issues then arise: greenway/open space and economic development. The function or flow of the floodplain must be our primary concern before tailoring our policy as to greenway/open space and economic development needs. Floodplain Options There are five major and distinct floodplain management policies which have been discussez! so far: 1. "Do Nothing". . . 2. "Moratorium" or the Sub-Committee's report. . . 3. Encroachment for "Existing Uses Only" or the C.C.I. 's position. . . 4. "Controlled Management" as presented to C.C.I. by 3 members of the Sub-Committee. . . 5. "Pipe It". . . Evaluation of Alternatives Options #1 (Do Nothing) and #5 (Pipe It) are not under serious consideration, but clearly help to focus the realistic options available between extremes. The "Do Nothing" option #1 is technically unacceptable since it will result in a two-foot rise in the current flood levels ; some work in the floodplain (see Master Storm Drainage Plan) is required. Alternatively, the "Pipe It" option #5 is equally unacceptible, BUT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE! So, if we know what will happen under "Do Nothing" option #1 and if we can technically determine how to "Pipe It" under option #5, then any of the other options #2, #3 or #4 are viable. To evaluate options #2, #3 and #4 we need to consider a variety of factors such as: cost and who pays, as well greenway/open space and economic development. Alternative #2 calls for a Moratorium until further detailed dydef entire floodplain is compthe leted and essentially defers the policY until Later- Staff finds that current information is more than adequate for the policy decision to be made. Funding for any additional studies is be in doubt given the City's budget situation. Further technical details should it submitted at the applicant's expense during the Sensitive Lands Permit this review. Several projects and applications are presently on "hold" until laces policy is resolved, one way or another. In summary, this option p limited operating budget, defers the real decision, further cost on the City's gives no long term protection to greenway/open space, delays capital improvement plans and finding, and discourages economic development. roachment in the floodplain, but Alternative #3 allows some modification or enc then sets up conditions which are difficult to quantify and further restricted only to existing land uses. Under this olicy, the would be aticommunity-wideof the cost oexpense. needed modifications to the ¢loodway/floodPlain Maximum preservation of greenway/open space would occur, but little, if any, economic development benefit would result. Alternative #4 provides for a controlled management policy and attempts to es. Under the balance cost, greenway/open space and economic development issu controlled management policy the largest share of cost would be placed on adjacent development and provides maximum relief on any community-wide cost shares. In residential areas a large greenway/open space set back from center r, channel would be maintained. In non-residential areas abutting residential areas across the floodplain, additional nal buffering on the encroa non-residential side would also be required. Economic development is encouraged. Conclusion Drafts of alternatives #2, #3 1983.d #4 are attached along with minutes of the C.C.I. meeting of February 22, NOTE- A complete copy of this report was sent to each Planning Commission member, each Park Board member, each Sub-Committee member and each C.C.I- member. ch (0447A) C m7l ALTERNATIVE #2 3.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY*; AND b. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN*. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY UNTIL THE CITY HAS COMPLETED A DETAILED FLOODPLAIN STUDY AS DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL. *The floodplain and floodway as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance Administrator. E gi KNEW ALTERNATIVE ata following Planning Commission Policy as submitted to the City tyCouncil the Natural Features and Open Space revisions on January 19, 1983 within Element. 3,2.1 THE CITY SHALL: RM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY*; a, PROHIBIT LAND FO AND bAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN . PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: ODPLAIN ARE DESIGNATED AS EITHER HE 1, LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AIN.(D) DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWEDWHER AND BOTH SIDES OF THE INDUSTRIAL OR COMMIRCPALICY 3 H2-2 E COCAN EBE SATISFIEDN MAP FACTORS SET FO 2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS ANDDISEPLLANNED FORSHALL RESIDENTIAL USEAND WHERE ONE SIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FTO CTHE FOLLOW NG LIMITATIONSIN IS PLANNED FOR : AN INDUSTRIAL USE SUBJECT (a) THE LAND FORM ALTERATION OR DEVELOPM FOR COMMERCIAIS ON LAOR NT DESIGNATED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP INDUSTRIAL USE; (b) THERE IS EXISTING COMMERCIALTION OF THIS PLAN AL USE ON THE SITE AT THE TIME OF THE AD (c) THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT DUE TO EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT THERE ENO OTHER ONSITE ALTERNATIVES BUT TO EXPAND INTO THE FLOODPLAIN; (d) THE FACTORS SETFORTH IN POLICY 3.2.2 WILL BE SATISFIED. WHERE LAND FORM ALTERNATIVES AND DEVELOPMENT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 3.2.2 * THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ( STREAM FLOW a. THE WATER STORAGES CAPACITY O TNG THE SITF THE LO E BE MAINTAINED; CAPACITY OF THE b. ENGINEERED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTATION PROVING THERE WILL BE NO UPSTREAM O DOWNSTREAM CHANGES IN THE FLOODPLAINACOMMERCIAL OR THE C. THE PLANTING OF AN EVERGREEN BUFFER ON ) AND INDUSTRIAL LAND WHICH SCREENS gHEBU FER Op�LICY FROM VIEW BY THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LA NOISE ATTENUATING; WHICH IS SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO BEARAREA ADJOINING THE - d. THE DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND A SUITABLE ELEVATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLOODPLAIN AT A WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN IN ACCORDANCE PEDESTRIAN CLE PATHWAY WITH THE ADOPTED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PLAN. k'loodway as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance *The Floodplain and Administrator. �1 INN ALTERNATIVE #4 3.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROHIBIT LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN*/GREENWAY EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: 1. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING THE EXISTING ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY: 2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS NON-RESIDENTIAL MAY BE PERMITTED WHERE: (a) THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SENSITIVE LANDS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY CODE HAS BEEN MET; AND (b) THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS BEYOND 100 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY AS DESIGNATED BY THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY. WHERE THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY IS LESS THAN 200 FEET IN WIDTH NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL OCCUR. *The floodplain and floodway are as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance Study. r C. C. I. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRU?iRY 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; Nancy Robbins, NPO *7; John Butler; Phil Pasteris, NPO 96; Lou Ane Mortensen, NPO *3; Chris Vanderwood, Planning Commission; Garry A. Thornton, McKenzie Engineer; Geraldine Ball, NPO s4; J.B. Bishop, Commercial Property Owner; Wilbur Bishop, C.C.I. 2. Discussion of Floodplain Issue Bill Monahan outlined the process which was followed leading up to the meeting, 1. the formulation of a policy by the C.C.I. 2. acceptance of the policy by the Planning Commission 3. submittal of the policy as part of the Natural Features and Open Space element to the City Council 4. Council's appointment of a subcommittee to develop an alternative policy and S. formulation of a new policy 3.2.1. Based on the new proposal of the subcommittee, staff called the C.C.I. meeting to allow Frank Currie and Gary Thornton an opportunity to present the data available to the City so that the C.C.I. could evaluate whether or not to formulate a new policy to take the place of the subcommittee report. Frank Currie explained the engineering data which is now available to the City. Available options: 1. pipe the whole thing 2. do nothing 3. stream flow management enhancement 1. Pipe it/Deep ditch Advantages 1. no flood control damage if designed properly 2. high potential tax base Disadvantages 1. prohibitively high initial cost 2. limits open space 3. decrease natural aethetics 4. maintenance cost high 2. Do Nothing Advantages 1. low initial cost 2. maximize open space - floodplain will grow 3. simplify city application for filling permits Disadvantages 1. Floodplain rises, will inundate 3. In Between Policy - Stream Flow Management Enhancement Advantages 1. ability to maintain existing flood risk by managing it, i.e. under bridges, rip rap, re channel_ 2. increase inpotential yobs 3. increased authority featuring over the other 2 Disadvantages 1. decreases open space through economic development 2. increase in staff's administrative responsibilities Frank then discussed the areas of greenway and open space. Open space is most important to residenti_1 properties, least important to industry. Issue What is the consensus definition of open space with numbers attached to it that define it? John Butler of NPO #1 offered a definition of Fanno Creek, Open Space of 200 ft. with the buffer controlled by the Community Development Code. Existing park plans must be upheld including any new proposes. There was no second to his motion. Lou Ane - Moved adoption of the Subcommittee's 3.2.1 as an interim policy. No second. Chris stated that the C.C.I. wants time to "study the study" i.e. the floodplain study. Frank suggested tieing the policy to the 1980 FIS center line. Then, measure from the center to specify the open space that is required. Motion by John Butler, and Phil Pasteris seconded. notion: Stand on the original C.C.I. proposal as zubmitted to City Council. C.C.I. is willing to work further in the issue with the information that is now available. Vote, unanimous in favor. Adjournment 10:30 p.m. 0 i' February 28, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Appeal - Sensitive Lands Permit H 2-82 Jadco Chemical NPO #S Attached are copies of the documents relative to the Jadco Sensitive Lands Permit including the Final Order filed by the Hearings Officer, the transcript of the hearing and the Staff report. The Floodplain policy discussion to be held prior to the hearing on this appeal must be completed prior to initiation of the hearing. For your information, we have also attached copies of the floodplain and greenway policies which existed at the time of the Hearings Officer decision. Please retain this information in the event the hearing is postponed. pm (OO51P) i f e t t c i It 1 1 E t 18 . 57 . 010 property be removed. The city council, at the written _ request 'of the applicant, may grant an extension of time to allow construction. (Ord. 80-94 §1 (part) , 1980) . Chapter 18 . 57 SENSITIVE LANDS Sections : 18 . 57 . 010 Statement of intent. 18 . 57 .020 Definitions . 18 . 57.030 Permitted uses . 18 . 57 . 040 Uses and activities allowed with a special use permit. 18. 57 . 050 Nonconforming uses . 18 . 57 .060 Special use permits . 18 . 57 . 070 Standards . 18 . 57. 200 Enforcement. 18 . 57. 010 Statement of intent. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of location within the one-hundred-year floodplain, within a natural drainageway , or on steep slopes . Sensitive land areas are designated as such in order to give recognition to the need to protect the public health , safety and welfare of the community through the regulation and control of lands within floodplains, drainageways , and steeply-sloping land areas , and to thereby mitigat-- potential financial burdens arising from flood damage loss and to preserve natural drainageways from encroaching uses which threaten to affect adversely the property rights of the citizenry of the com- munity, public safety, and the public health by natural conditions arising from upstream or downstream flood levels . City actions under this chapter will recognize the rights of riparian owners to be free to act on the cart of the city, its commissions , representatives and agents , and land- owners and occupiers . The floodplain district has for its purpose the preserva- tion of natural water storage areas within the floodplain dis- trict by discouraging or prohibiting imcompatible uses. (Ord. 79-73 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-46 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) . 7.92-2 (Tigard 9/81) t r, 18 . 57 . 020 18. 57 . 020 Definitions . in this chapter the following words and phrases shall be construed to have the specific meanings assigned to them as follows : (1) "Drainageways" are defined as those areas which convey significant seasonal concentrations of water over the surface of the land. (2) "Excavation" means mechanical removal of earth material. (3) "Fill" means any act by which earth, sand gravel , rock or any other similar material is deposited, placed, pulled or transported, and includes the conditions resulting therefrom. (4) "Flood" means a temporary rise in stream flow or stage that results in water overtopping stream banks and inundating land adjacent to the normal flow of water through the stream channel. (5) "Floor? hazard" means a danger to property or health as the result or inundation of the floodplain . (5) "Floodplain" means the relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining the channel of a river, stream, water- course or other body of water which has been or may be covered by floodwaters within the area of applicability defined by the floodplain district. (7) "Floodplain district" means those areas within the city of Tigard inundated by the one-hundred-year regulatory flood. (8) "Grading" means any excavation or filling or combination thereof. (9) "Greenway" means all lands within the one-hundred- year floodplain of Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River and the lands on either side of natural drainageways as designated by the park board and comprehensive plan for preservation. (10) "Obstruction" means any dam, wall , embankment, levee, dike , pile , abutment, projection, excavation, channel modifica- tion, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, gravel, refuse, fill, structure, matter or things of a similar nature in, along, or across or projecting into any channel , watercourse, or floodplain drainageway areas which may impede , retard or change the direction of the flow of water , either by itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water, or that is placed where the flow of water might carry the same downstream to the damage of health or property . (11) "Regulatory flood" means the flood used to define the outer boundary lines of the floodplain district. The maximum flood predicted to occur within one hundred years . ( 12) "Steeply sloping lands" means portions of the ground surface which have a slope of twelve percent or greater. 292-3 (Tigard 1/15/80) L 18 . 57 .030 (13) "Structure" means constructed edifice , barrier or building of any kind, or any artificial build-up or com- position of physical parts adjoined together. (Ord. 79-73 §1 (part) , 1979 • Ord. 79-46 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 78-10 55 , 1978 ; Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) _ 18 . 57 . 030 Permitted uses . Except as provided by Section 18 . 57 .040 , the following uses shall be permitted within sensitive lands: (1) Greenways. (A) Community recreational uses such as bicycle and pedestrian paths , archery ranges or unpaved athletic fields or parks ; (B) Public conservation areas for water, soil , open space, forest or wildlife resources ; (C) Removal of poision oak , tansy ragwort , blackberry or any other noxious vegetation. (2) Floodplain District and Drainageways . (A) Accessory uses such as lawns , gardens or unpaved play areas ; (B) Aaricultural uses conducted without locating a structure in the floodplain district; (C) Community recreational uses such as bicycle and pedestrian paths , archery ranges , or unpaved athletic fields or parks; (D) Public and private conservation areas for water , soil, open space, forest or wildlife resources ; (E) Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, black- berry or any other noxious vegetation. (3) Drainageways. (A) Fences ; (B) Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, black- berry or any other noxious vegetation. (4) Steeply Sloping Lands . (A) Low-intensity recreational uses such as bicycle and pedestrian paths ; (B) Landscaping or gardens which provide substantial vegetative cover; (C) Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open space, forest or wildlife resources ; (D) Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, black- berry or any other noxious vegetation. (5) Except as explicity authorized by other provisions of this chapter., all other uses are prohibited on sensitive lands. (6) Modification by grading shall not alter the character of lands for the purposes of this chapter. Land which in its natural state lay within the floodplain , or was steeply sloping shall continue to have that legal character, though grading f may have altered the surface condition. (Ord. 79-73 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-46 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) . i 292-4 (Tigard 1/15/80) 18 . 57 . 040--18 . 57 . 060 18. 57 .040 Uses and activities allowed with a special use permit. The following uses and activities are allowed only by special use permit granted by the planning commission and based on the standards set forth in Section 18 . 57 . 060 : (1) Within drainageways/greenways and steeply sloping lands : (A) Fill, grading, excavating, (B) Structures , (C) Off-street parking and maneuvering areas , access- ways and service drives located on the ground surface, (D) Roadways , bridges or utility facilities , (E) Removing any live vegetation other than poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry or any other noxious vegetation; (2) Within the floodplain/greenways only: (A) Any temporary structure which by its nature cannot be readily removed from the floodplain area during periods of flooding, and which would impede or interfere with the flow of floodwaters within the district, (B) Any change in the topography or terrain which would change the flow .of waters during flooding periods , or which would increase the flood hazard or alter the direction or velocity of the floodwater flow. (Ord. 79-73 §? (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-46 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) . 18. 57 . 050 Nonconforming uses . A use established prior to June 1, 1979 , which would be prohibited by this chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and controls imposed by this chapter shall have nonconforming use status , and be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18. 68 of this code. The benefits of nonconforming use status shall not, however, be available to uses or con- ditions established or created in violation of any statute, ordinance, or law in effect at the time of establishment or creation. (Ord. 79--73 §? (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-45 §1 (part) , 1979 : _ Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) . 18 . 57 .060 Special use permits . In accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in Chapter 18 . 84 of this code, an application for a special use permit filed as by said chapter stated may be approved or denied by the planning commission following a public hearing. All applications for special use permits shall be sup- ported by the following information to enable the planning commission to determine whether the proposed use is located in the floodplain or drainageways district and if so, whether the proposal, if approved, will conform to the purposes and guidelines as set forth in this chanter. r 292-5 (Tigard 1/15/80) t 18 . 57 . 070 r = (1) Floodplain : (A) Plans drawn to scale , submitted in triplicate as prepared by a registered professional engineer with ex- perience in hydraulic and geohydrologic engineering and processes , showing the nature , location, dimensions , eleva- tions and topography of the site; the location of existing and proposed structures located upon the site, existing and proposed areas to be filled or otherwise modified, and the relationship of these to the location of the stream channel , and proposed methods for controlling erosion. (B) Any documentation, photographs , water marks, and similar evidence offered in support of the claim that the site or area in question lies above high water as defined by the regulatory flood. (2) Drainageways : (A) Plans drawn to scale, submitted in triplicate as prepared by a registered professional engineer with experience in hydraulic and hydrologic engineering and processes, showing the nature, location, dimensions , elevations and topography of the site; and location of existing and proposed structures located upon the site; existing and proposed fill or excavated areas, and the relationship of these to the location of the stream channel (if any) , and the proposed methods of control- ling erosion. (3) Steep slopes : ► (A) Plans drawn to scale , submitted in triplicate as prepared by a qualified registered professional engineer showing the nature, location, dimensions , elevations , and topography of the site; the location of existing and pro- posed structures located upon the site , existing and proposed fill or excavated areas and proposed methods of controlling erosion. (Ord. 79-73 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-4E §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A 51 (part) , 1974) . 18. 57 . 070 Standards . (a) Application for a special use permit in floodplain areas shall be granted or denied in accordance with the following standards : (1) No structure, fill, excavation, storage or other use shall be permitted which alone or in combination with existing or proposed uses would reduce the capacity of the floodplain area or raise either the flood surface elevation or flow rates , or adversely affect flow direction on upstream or downstream properties , or create a present or foreseeable hazard to public health , safety and general welfare. (2) The applicant must obtain the permit required by the state of Oregon under ORS Chapter 541 for removal or filling of waterways , or demonstrate that the provisions of this statute do not apply. a i 292-5a (Tigard 1/15/80) 18 . 57 . 200 a (b) Application for a special use permit in a drain- ageway area shall be granted or denied in accordance with the following standard: The proposed action must not adversely impact runoff, erosion, ground stability, water quality , groundwater level, flow rates or flooding. (c) Application for a special use permit in a steeply sloping land area shall be granted or denied in accordance with the following standard : Applicant must supply affirmative documentation that the proposed action will not adversely impact runoff, erosion, ground stability, water quality , groundwater level , or flooding; and that the site can support the proposed mod- ification or structure as designed. (Ord. 79-73 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord.79-46 §1 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A §1 (part) , 1974) . 18 . 57 . 200 Enforcement. (a) In addition to any other remedies available to the city to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the city shall have the right to proceed in the manner set forth in subsections (b) through (e) of this section with regard to any violation of Sections 18 . 57 .010 through 18 . 57 . 090 . (b) The city shall give notice in writing by certified zF or registered mail that it intends to correct the condition resulting from the observed violation. The notice shall be given to all record owners of the land upon which the violation has occurred. The notice shall describe generally the nature of the alleged violation, and shall inform those to whom the notice is sent of the city' s intent to correct the condition by restoring the land as nearly as possible to the condition it was in prior to the violation, and to charge the owner or owners with the cost of any such action. The notice required by this section shall be valid and legally effective as to all owners of any one tract when successfully delivered to any owner. (c) At any time after the passage of ten days from receipt of the notice the city may proceed to have performed such work as it finds necessary to cure the effect of the violation. The city shall keep account of work and materials used in curing the effect of the violation. Upon completion of the work the city shall compute the total cost of the work, in- cluding labor and materials , and to this shall be added an amount equal to fifteen percent of the total labor and materials costs , to cover costs of engineering and other overhead. The amount thus identified shall be entered on the city' s lien docket, and shall immediately become a lien against the property of the owner or owners, and shall bear interest at the rate at which judgments of the Oregon courts bear interest. The owner or owners shall be notified by certified or registered mail of the entry of the lien. 292-5b (Tigard 1/15/80) WN18 . 57 . 200 (d) The lien described in subsection (c) of this section shall be foreclosed in the same manner as that in which the liens arising out of assessments for local improvement dis- tricts are foreclosed. (e) The ten-day-notice provision of subsection (c) of this section notwithstanding, the city may proceed to cure the condition caused by any violation of this chapter immediately, with or without notice, if the city council or the city adminis- trator finds that the condition presents an immediate and serious threat to human life or to developments located upon property other than that upon which the violation has occurred. If work toward the curing of the condition proceeds under this subsection, that is , if an emergency is found to exist, the city may proceed to charge the cost to the owner or owners , and to place its lien against the property , as provided by subsections (b) through (d) of this section, and the fact that the city did not give ten days ' notice shall not be a defense against the charge or the lien. (Ord. 79-97 §1, 1979) . 292-5c (Tigard 1/15/80) ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY DESIGN GOAL : To preserve areas and featureti scenic beauty . 1 „ c<rn t. natural or To enhancet:hc, o1> >or•turrit. ies for continued enjc vment of the natural envi ronnion t community . GOAL: To ..z.erve and/or Conserv(' rc>nc�wnt� ic and non renewablF, resources . To protect and promote the e>c•ology of the community and to discourage prematurc> unci unnecessary conversion of open space to urban uscs . This sect ion serves as a manuu 1 fc,rrc,nrn<>n to 1 commun i t_y de5i-fn • It Y i proceeds beyond the nc>i � hhonc�,<�d 1, I ;,n;r i rr prat <>ss by establishing environment-11 pc, 1 i c i c•� rrrcl i ,,•c l;rr r c u.>ti f�, moda t i ng the various t borhood Plan . ypes OF land u5c> prc,I>c,~f cl i n c ac 1, Vc> i h- The guiding f�rcmisr c, t' and bui lding designs `- "'I ic,n ;iro thrit sit.(-,designs should al ]o« fcir arc, �c:•r font t Tonin Olc.mont involved in a ohment 1 1 g, of each ment should be complementary to prc>•jc>ct Altio . each develop- t:iveness • t.hc commun1 ty 's natural attrac- i A review of the community s dE vc-rlopment histor.v re all too common occurance of natural amc>ni ti c s vals hc'i nz unnecessarily replaced by asphalt and buildings . The result, 1l;r5 ciften been to increase flood potential while dctrac t. in phere a primari 1 1 "roll' 111( Pleasant at.mos- munit Y residential eomnnrnii.v shotrici tuin - A c•om- Y ' s design should be directly rc l ;rtc d tc> crud c aai ty idc:nti- fi ed with the function the communi t:y �c,r�:c,s Iti'h i 1 c• Ti Bard is fortunate to have a viable employemnt bas( trial and commercial businesses , in the fc,rm of indus- community. it is fundamental l } a residential A residential environment calls for a pleasant , relaxing atmosphere. The community design then , should include those aesthetic and natural features considered complimentary sirable living environment . One Of the key fclr tenance of a sense of openness . Open space nottonl� to a de- is the main- i visual relief but also recreational opportunity • Provides Therefore , one of the objectives of this section is to ensure that a full complement of open space , ill both lar > reserves, is provided as future devc>lo ,mf, ge and small nature provides the essential inf;redieni.5ntcls cwell <rsOacdev�lop- ment guide. Fanno Creek and its tributary system provides an opportunity for linear open spacec>xcellent , linking tho cnt. ire community together. (See Open Space Map . ) �- Enr_;rnrr;ule develof'ers on beth sides of Fmino Creak to conserve all trees within 50 feel of the adjoining bank. This will ctetrte ;r physical buf ler over 100 feei wide (including the creek channel) to separ;rte potentially - conflicting land uses lying on opposite sides of the creek. Since the 100-year flood plain ranges from 100 to 800 feet in width along the creek, the buffer Will not upsurp land that is suitable for development. b. As circurnstances permit, encourage the acquisition of public access easements in addition to construction and maintenance easements, where ' utility corridors fall within the greenway system. For example, the sewer easements required for the Fanno Creek, King City, and Tualatin River interceptor sewers and the Mower transmission easement ;uses; Birll Mountain provide uppUrltill ities for loint ir;rt of rtility eas(;nlenis for pedestrian w<rys art(] linear p;rrks. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS �r Objectives 1. To prov;de small or medium-size neighborhood parks and playgrounds in proximity to residential areas. I, 2. To develop elementary schools and parks together in order to integrate complementary facilities, reduce maintenance costs, and achieve greater It utilization. i- 3. To provide additional open space adjacent to schools that will create a buffer ll I between school activity areas and adjoining homes. t IPolicies and Standards f t 1. In general, neighborhood parks will average 10 acres. On sites adjoining i elementary schools, open school playground areas will be included as part of f this average site requirement. These sites will serve a residential population of ` 3,000 to 7,000. Smaller sites may be obtained where the development pattern or financial restraints prohibit this "'optimum" size. 2. Initial emphasis will be on a program of land acquisition rather than site development in dor to develop an inventory of suitable sites while land values are leas' es{ at ,ive. 1 3. Each park will be individually designed and developed with playground facilities, picnic areas, and other amenities based on the recommendations of 1 neighborhood residents and the city park department. f 91 I Bill r 1 r PARKS A park and open space system is described on the map ''Schools and Parks." Tigard has the opportunity now to develop a system of neighborhood and community parks and public open spaces that will help perpetuate Tigard"s quality as a suburban residential community. GREENWAYS 9 Objectives 1. To utilize the, natural drainageways provided by the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, and their tributaries as the basic, element in a system of connecting open spaces. 2. To integrate other linear open spaces, such as abandoned railroad grades and major utility easements, into the "natural" greenway system, in order to supplement the "natural'' system. 3. To establish a greenway system that will (a) tie together recreation areas, schools, and their service areas; (b) provide protective buffers between incompatible land uses; (c) reduce flood hazard by restricting development lalong natural drainageways; (d) provide opportunities for passive recreation activities; (e) afford alternative pedestrian and bicycle circulation routes separated from the street system and motorized vehicles; and (f) preserve the amenity of the area. Policies and Standards 1. Where possible, school sites and neighborhood and community parks and playgrounds will be located along the greenways. Woodward, Bellwood, and Cook parks already fit into this pattern. 2. Preserve natural drainageways by prohibiting development that would ' obstruct the flood plain, as provided in the zoning regulations. The flood plain of the Tualatin River and Fanno Creek has been delineated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 3. Encourage the ::onservation of natural tree cover and the provision of public iaccess along smaller drainageways with undefined flood plains, as well as the 1 larger streams and creeks. Techniques such as planned unit development, the granting of easements (visual, conservation, or access), and land donation to the city, county, or quasi-public organizations may be used for this purpose. J i i 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 2 In re the Appeal of ) No. M-282 3 JOHN DUNCAN and JANICE ) DUNCAN from Hearing Officer ) REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF 4 Determination with Respect to ) COUNCIL HEARING Appellants' Land ) 5 6 John Duncan and Janice Duncan, being the fee title owners of property 7 at 16055 S.W. 74th, Tigard, Oregon, further described as Tax Lot 1500 2S1 13 A, 8 hereby request that the appeal pending from the hearing officer's decision con- 9 cerning said lands as now scheduled for Monday, November 15, 1982, be taken off 10 the docket and continued to a later date on the following grounds and reasons: 11 (1) The apparent ambiguities between the various applicable sections of 12 the Tigard Municipal Code has already been cited as requiring additional study 13 and consideration in order to bring all matters into a consistent outlook in 14 the public interest. 15 (2) That the decision of the hearing officer as heretofore rendered and 16 which is the basis for the appeal in this case, is wholly lacking in support in i 17 the regulatory ordinances, as well as by the officers of the City who must deal Y8 with such matters on a day to day basis, namely, City Administrator, City Engineer, N r{7 2 S6 19 City Planning Director, etc. whose analysis of this matter is already in the 0 20 record. Z Gm oP rl-R 21 (3) The order given by the hearing officer stating "applicants shall re- F$Jt 1--5! 22 move all fill material previously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek < Id 23 no later than November 15, 1982" obviously is without legal standing, for the o. T 24reason that it is subject to appeal, and further purports to deny John Duncan ( 25 and Janice Duncan's constitutional and other property rights, and in the absence 26 of a continuance and re-evaluation and restatement of the applicable regulatory Page 1 - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING 1 matter, the undersigned must necessarily bring declaratory proceedings in the 2 Circuit Court of Washington County, including injunction, wherewith to obtain 3 a determination of property rights, public interests involved and other elements 4 of important nature. 5 (4) That the matter is set for hearing on the record on November 15, 1982, 6 before the City Council, and the notice of the hearing states that no new evi- 7 dence or arguments will be allowed, "however, parties are invited to submit writ- 8 ten arguments only reserving to the council the right to pose questions to staff 9 and parties on policy issues." In view of the ambiguities and differences already 10 developed, both public and private interests in this matter are best served by 11 efforts of the council to redefine the applicable regulatory matters prior to 12 any further expenditure of public funds on the part of the City and private funds i 13 on the part of the undersigned appellants. 14 The foregoing is totally consistent with the request heretofore made to 15 the council by officers of the City concerned with this matter for a total review 16 of all provisions set forth in the City's ordinances with respect to this matter. 17 For the foregoing reasons, a continuance of this matter as requested is of such 8 18 vital public economic importance, not only to the public, but to the undersigned 19 that the continuance requested herein, if granted, will preserve the integrity <�yo^ 20 of public hearing processes, and further written argument on the part of the �,� 21 undersigned is not being submitted as solicited in the expectation that the City E.O E-J' 22 will grant the continuance without opening the hearing or otherwise compromising a d� 23 the rights of the undersigned until all aspects of this matter have been fully 24 evaluated and remedial ordinances or amplification of the ambiguities are made 25 available. 26 In further support of this request, it is to be noted that appellants have Babe 2 - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING 1 expended the approximate sum of $ 3,000.00 in connection with the current problem, 2 and it is of utmost importance that the related problems indicated in the attached 3 copy of Mr. Monahan's memorandum of October 15, 1982, concerning comprehensive 4 plan hearing and other legal aspects be considered by the council precedent to 5 a review of this appeal by the City of Tigard. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 VIA Joha4 k�u ncan, Appellant Janice Duncan, Appellant 9 10 ANDERS- , DITTMAN & ANDERSON B v� 11 Fr . A. Anderson Of Attorneys for Appellants 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 N z C4 19 s 20 g�H0n .dam b - 21 E" .2< g g 22 4 Quo 23 6d C C 24 ( 25 26 Page 3 - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING CITYOFT117APM WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON October 15, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Affected Property Owners FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development f SUBJECT: Durham Island Annexation - Zane Change (ZCA 3-82) Required action by the Tigard City Council .to revise the zoning designation for the Durham Island Annexation has been postponed from October 25, 1982 to January 24, 1983. This action is required since the City's revised comprehensive plan is not yet completed. The issue of which zoning is proper for the above named area has not adequately been addressed or resolved. Therefore, at this time the City cannot hold an adequate public hearing to determine the appropriate zone for this, area. Please be advised that the Tigard City Council will hear this issue at a public hearing on Monday, January 24, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon. Please note that this is the only written notice that 't you will receive for this hearing. There will, however, be a public notice f publicized In the Tigard Times at least ten days prior to the January 24th hearing. i i WE1sMi�h i r t i i 12755 S W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 T'IGARD.OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 July 19, 1982 UffrOFF TIVARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON John Duncan Jadco Chemical Ltd. 16055 S.W. 74th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Duncan: The recent "Fill". that has taken place on your property raises concerns of possible Municipal Code violations. Chapter 18.57 addresses use of "Sensitive Land", and as your property is designated as such, it falls within the bounds of this section. Any fill taking place within a drainage way, or. floodplain, requires a special use permit, which is issued by the Planning Commission. In addition, any fill in excess of 50 cubic yards requires a permit issued by the Building Official. As the City has no record of any such permits being issued, you are hereby notified to cease any further filling, and contact the City Planning Department so it may be determined what action will be necessary to eliminate the violations. Contact will be required within two (2) days of July 19, 1982. Sincerely, Brad C. Roast, Code Enforcement Officer /br 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-1171 NEW rO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: NPO #5 RE: JADCO CHEMICAL DATE: NOVEMBER 10 , 1982 The NPO would like to make the City Council aware of our concern regarding the filling of the Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway. The Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway provides a natural buffer between the Industrial area to the East and the Residential area to the west. The NPO #5 Plan (Ord. 77-69) addresses the importance of preserving this buffer by the following policy statements: Policy 4: The plan is particularly concerned about achieving a comparability between the broad range of land us categories which exist in the neighborhood. This is especially important in relationship to the developing residential area west of Fanno Creek. The creek, the trees and other vegetation found along it, provide an excellent opportunity to both separate and buffer the residential area from the industrial development associated with S.W. 72nd. Policy 5: B.) Provide protective buffers for residential areas by use of such natural features such as the Fanno Creek Greenway. Policy 6: In order to enhance the environment of the residential areas, natural amenties such as Fanno Creek and its tributaries as well as existing stands of evergreens, thickets of deciduous bushes, shrubs and trees, particularly where they form a buffer between land use types, should be retained. We ask that you consider these policies when making any decisions regarding the Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway. 1\10V 1 tGAKU PLANNING D EPS• (;1tY Oil- PLANNING pEPT. PLANNING 109 ANN OGS �- Pio \� of October 19, 1982 To: Planning Director City of Tigard From: John A. Duncan Subject: Appeal findings . of hearing officer case No. M-2-82. Decision rendered October 7, 1982. Please process my appeal to be heard after inconsistencies within The Comprehensive Plan have been effectively refined and clarified. Reasons: a. We are not affecting flood plain. b. Findings of hearing officer based on a document that (, at best is inconsistent and not in accord with pending comprehensive plan. C. Confiscation of property without due process. d. Land 400 feet west of subject property owned by applicant is more than adequate for future greenway. e. Staff, after thorough review of facts, recommends approval. Additional information to be furnished prior to appeal hearing. Enclosed please find the applicable Appeals Fee. Sincerely, A. Duncan JADCQ CHEMICAL LTD. "Specializing in FormutaleG Chemicals- (503)684-0044 hemicals"(503)684-0044 16055 S.W.74th AVENUE PORTLAND.OR 97223 MEM 13 ET H B L®Ulf°r ATTORNEY AT LAW 2437 Pacific Avenue, Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 Telephone 11503) 648-4887 October 7, 1982 Liz Newton Tigard Planning Department 12755 SW Ash Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Hearings Officer Order M2-82 Dear Liz: Attached please find my final Order, including Findings and Conclusions, in the above-referenced matter. Also attached are all of the exhibits I receivedge Recorder for hearing. Please submit this to the City filing. k Very truly mss. 1H BLOUNT Barings Officer BB/cem BEFORE THF. HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR j No. A SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT TO FILL AND M 2-82 LANDSCAPE PROPERTY WITHIN THE FLOOD- j PLAIN OF FANNO CREEK; John and Janice j Duncan, applicants. The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 23, 1982, at which time testimony, evidence and the planning department staff report were recieved; and The Hearings Officer adopts the findings and conclusions as set forth on the attached, which is incorporated by reference herein and marked Exhibit "A" ; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: M 2-82 is denied. The applicants shall remove all fill material previously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek no later than November 15, 1982. Dated this 7th day of October, 1982. HEARINGS OFFICER APPROVED: B 0 _ T CITY OF TIGARD FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER File No. M 2-82 Applicant John and Janice Duncan Proposal: To fill and landscape a portion of the Fanno Creek floodplain, for future development of a building. Date Application Filed: Decision Rendered: October 6, 1982 Last Date to App dal: October _, 1982. Staff Recommendation: Approval, with conditions Staff Representative: Elizabeth Newton Public Hearing- A public hearing was held in the conference room o the Durham Waste Treatment Plant, --igard, Oregon, on Thursday, September 23, 1982, at which time the matter was taken under ad- visement for a written decision. John Duncan Speakin in Support of the Request: (22 Dave Larson (3) Bob Bledsoe opposition to the Request: (1) John S-liwartz Speakingin Opp (2) Clifford Speaker (3) John Havery .' (4) Bob Bledsoe it Exhibits: (1) Staff report (2) topographic map with cross sections of site (3) Tigard Planning Commission memo FINDINGS: i A. Subject Property: 1. Description: Tax Lot 1500, WCTM 2S1 13A, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, containing approximately 6.9 acres. 2. Location�4thThe Avenueernortheastlocated Durhamthe Roadnorthwest side of-S.W. 3. Zone: M-3 Light Industrial; Greenway �BlGags�sas:��mrs�� ®r�� w sae® Page Two John and Janice T)uncan M 2-u2 4. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial and Greenway/ Open Space 5. Site Description: There is an existing warehouse on the site which occupies approximately 1/4 of the total land area. A little more than 40% of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek; the property slopes toward Fanno Creek. B. Vicinity Information: The property to the northeast and south is developed for industrial uses. The western portion of the property is Within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The property west of the greenway is currently designated urban low den- sity res.1-dential and is partially developed. C. Public Facilities and Services: The provision of public facil- ities and services xs not relevant to this application as no development is proposed at this time. D. Applicable Ordinances and Plan Considerations: The application is controlled by the comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard, adopted in October, 1971, but not yet acknowledged; by the Environmental Design and Open Space Plan adopted in August, 1977, but not yet acknowledged; the indus- trial an-' narks and open space sections of the plan adopted by NPO #5; Section 18. 57 of the Tigard Municipal Codet and applicable LCDC Goals. The provisions of the Tigard documents are incorporated by reference herein. The comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard contains the objective to "utilize the natural drainageways provided by Fanno Creek. . . as the basic element in a system of connecting open spaces. " (Objective 1, page 51) . It also states that the greenway system will " (a) tie together recreation areas, schools, and their service areas; (b) provide protective buffers between incompatible land uses; (c) reduce flood hazard by restricting development along natural drainageways; . (f) preserve the amenity of the area. " (Objective 3, page 51) The comprehensive plan for the City, under the policies and standards section provides that the City should "Preserve natural drainageways by prohibiting development that would obstruct the flood plain. . (Standard 2,page 51) , but then states in a subsequent standard that the City should "Encourage developers on both sides of Fanno Creek to con- serve all trees within 50 feet of the adjoining bank. This IM slim M Moro Page Three John and Janice Duncan M 2-82 will create a physical buffer over 100 feet wide (including the creek charnel) to separate potentially conflicting land uses lying on opposite sides of the creek. Since the 100- year flood plain ranges from 100 to 800 feet in width along the creek, the buffer will not upsurp [sic] land that is suitable for development. " (Standard 4 , page 52) Standards 2 and 4 seem incompatible on their faces, one suggesting that the flood plain should be retained for open space, and the other suggesting that only a buffer of 100 feet should be retained, so land "suitable for development" is not usurped. Unfortunately, Standard 4 does not define some of the key words used to describe the Fanno Creek area, such as "adjoining bank" or "creek channel" . Those words have specific meanings in most flood plain ordinances, al- though they are not defined specifically in ordinance 18. 57 of the City Code. However, in 18. 57.020 of the Code, under the definition of "flood" , ,straam channel" is used to mean that area carrying the "normal flow of water" distinguishing that area from the area that floods periodically. If one uses that definition, reading Standard 4 of the comprehen- sive plan, only a buffer of 100 feet, plus the channel width of approximately 5-10 ' would constitute the only buffer between the industrial zone and the residential zone in this area. The balance of the land (on either side) could he filled and used for development, so long as the storage capacity of the floodplain, and the carrying capacity of the floodplain, were preserved under the guidelines set forth in 18.57 of the Tigard Code. However, in 1977 , the City of Tigard adopted the Environcument mental Design and Open Space Plan for the City. cognized that " [wlhile Tigard is fortunate to have a viable T: eployemnt [sic] base in the form of industrial and commercial m businesses, it is fundamentally a residential community. " (p. 12) It goes .on to say " [a] residential . environment calls for a pleasant, relaxing atmosphere. The community design then, should include those aesthetic and natural features considered complimentary to a desirable living environment. One of the key features is the maintenance of a sense of openness. Open space not only provides visual relief but also recreational opportunity. Therefore, one of the objectives of this section , is to ensure that a full complement of open space, in both is provided as future development large and small reserves, occurs. Once again, nature provides the essential ingredients, as well as a development guide. Fanno Creek and its tributary system provides an excellent opportunity for linear open space, linking the entire community together. " (p. 12) Based on those conclusions, the City adopted Policy 7, which states: Page Four John and Janice Duncan M 2-82 Retain the 100-year flood plain of Fanno Creek, its tributaries and the Tualatin River open as an preserve (Greenway) . The Greenway shall be space networkb lisped as the backbone ofbthefipen s bE derived, and when a direct p the Green- adjacent residential development, way should be developed for passive recreation and pedestrian/bike travel. Today, there is a marked change in attitude, generally, abother out encouraging industrial development, often at the cost befpree- more intangible benefits. In fact that t ude However, thatattitude is not valent in the City of Tigard. of harticularly reflected in the adopted documesSpacePlantwhich must guide the Environmental eign and open this hearings Officrers' s opinion. From the adopted documents it is apparent that the City has made a choice: of this City, en space, in its natural keep Fanno Creek flood planas eation and pedestrian/bike state, and allow only passive travel uses within its boundaries. applicant in this matter met his burden of proof While the aPP technically, that fill could safely be in establishing, without reducing the carrying placed within the flood plain, of the flood plain, his appli- capacity, or storage capacity this cation contravenes the policy already established by City of no development within the flood plain of Fanno Creek. the Environmental Design and Open Space Interestingly enougfi, development x plan speaks to the technical side considering ocess of eval- } in Fanno Creek. It states, in p several gating the plan area for flood plains and wet lands, informational problems were identified: c 1. Discrepancies were found between calculated flood r elevations and their demarcation on the official maps- 3. Lack of distinction between the floodway (area of fastest stream flow) and the flood plain fringe. gic data regardflood levelscexpected lfrom future able odevelopment. " (pages 9-10) 1 In response to those problems, Policy 2 was written, stating: "The City shall initiate a cooperative, interjurisdictional water shed, storm drainage establishood ain management restrictive interim of the Fanno Creek basin, andnd il sufficient data is aInterime standards for development unt to set standards at identified levels of adequacy. standards shall limit the rate of runoff and erosion caused Page Five John and Janice Duncan M 2-82 by a development both during and at completion of construction, as well as development in all flood plain and wetland identified in the physical inventory. That study is underway now, as a cooperative effort with the Cities of Beaverton and Tualatin, and with Washington County. Perhaps after that study is completed, the City will consider a revision to their current policy to preserve Fanno Creek flood plain for recreational purposes. But that possibility is not before this Hearings officer. As the application fails to meet the standards and policiofficer of the various plans of the City of Tigard, the Hearing has not addressed the LCDC issues which may be relevant. CONCLUSIONS The application violates the policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard and the Policies of the Environmental Design and Open Space Plan of the City of Tigard. RECOMMENDATION Denial. The applicants shall remove all fill material pre- viously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek no later than November 15, 1982. Dated this 7th day of October, 1982. HEARINGS---O CER BETH BLOUNT 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 2 . 1 CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER SEPTEMBER 23 , 1982 - 7 : 00 P.M. DURHAM WASTE TREATMENT PLANT - CONFERENCE ROOM Corner of S.W. Durham & S.W. Hall Tigard, Oregon A. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CASE: M 2-82 Sensitive Lands Permit REQUEST: For a Sensitive Lands Permit to include landscape and fill within the floodplain, for future development of a building and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION : Based on staff analysis of the technical information supplied by the applicant and site inspection, staff recommends that the Hearings Officer approve the Sensitive Lands Permit with the conditions listed on Page 5 of the staff report. APPLICANT: John & Janice Duncan OWNER: Same 16055 S .W. 74th Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION : 16055 S.W. 74th (WCTM 2S1 13A lot 1500) LOT AREA: 6 .9 acres PRESENT ZONE DESIGNATION: M-3 Light Industrial NPO COMMENT: No comments from NPO # 5 had been received at the writing of this report. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: 18 public notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on September 13 , 1982. One written response was received and is attached as Exhibit "A" . 2. BACKGROUND On July 21, 1982, the Public Works Director wrote a memo to the City Council which is attached as Exhibit "B" . The owner had filled in the floodplain area of his property without a Sensitive Lands Permit. A Sensitive Lands Permit was filed on September 7 , 1982. f I Sim 1 STAFF REPORT M 2-- PAGE --PAGE _ 2 3 . VICINITY INFORMATION The property to the northeast and south is developed for industrial uses . The western portion of the ?roperty is within the 100 year floodplain. Fanno Creek runs southerly through the property. All of the land within the 100 year floodplain is designated greenway/open space on the Comprehensive Plan. The property west of the greenway is currently designated urban low density residential. 4 . SITE CHARACTERISTICS There is an existing warehouse on the site which occupies approximately 4 of the total land area. A little more than 40% of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain. The property slopes toward Fanno Creek. B. APPLICABLE LAND USE POLICIES AND STAFF ANALYSIS 1. LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES a. Citizen Involvement - The intent of this goal is to insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Owners of record within 250 feet of the site were notified by mail on September 13 , 1982. In addition, a legal notice was published in the Tigard Times on September 9, 1982. b. Land Use Planning - All applicable LCDC goals and guidelines, NPO # 5 policies and Tigard Municipal Code sections have been considered in review of this application. A C. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources - The intent of this goal is to protect land which may have a value as open space, historic or natural resource areas. There are twelve resources to be considered in review of this goal. The resources applicable to the applicant's proposal are as follows: 1. Land needed or desirable for open space; a portion 4 of this site is designated greenway on the City's adopted Parks and Open Space Plan. There is a bike path proposed for the greenway in this area but no other greenway uses are proposed. There is 100 feet of greenway between the residential lands to the west and the area the property owner has filled. RKIF STAFF REPORT M 2-82C PAGE 3 2 . Water areas , wetlands , water sheds and groundwater resources . A portion of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The applicant is propos.- ing to remove approximately 850 yards of earth sloping to the 100 year floodplain to mitigate the fill which will allow for construction of a new building in the future. Section 18. 57. 070 of the Tigard Municipal Code addresses standards for reviewing proposals to cut and fill within the floodplain . d. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards - In the case of this site, flooding is a concern. The excavation proposed by the applicant will be done to meet the re- quirements of the City under Section 18 . 57 .070 of the Tigard Municipal Code. This code section prohibits any fill or excavation which would reduce the capacity of the floodplain area or raise flood surface elevations or adversely affect flow direction on upstream or downstream properties. e. Economy - The purpose of this goal is to improve and encourage diversification of the State ' s economy. Economic growth and expansion of existing businesses should be encouraged by the City. However, the benefits of encouraging business expansion in this case needs to be weighed against the effect of the applicant' s proposal on the floodplain and flood control measures. f. Public Facilities and Services - The intent of this goal is to insure the availability of public services to developing areas. Sewer, water and storm drainage are available to service the site. Specific locations will be addressed at the time furture development occurs. 2 . APPLICABLE NPO # 5 POLICIES POLICY 22. The industrial portion of the NPO is seen as an economic asset _to Tigard community and land use decisions which affect this area must be judged according to their economic implication. 3. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM ENVIORNMENTAL DESIGN AND OPEN SPACE PLAN POLICY 1. Designate areas of physical limitation (poorly drained, seasonally flooded, ground instability) and incorporate these designations in the City zoning Ordinance and Map, and develop gradutated development restrictions according to the distinct characteristics of the constraints and anticipated limitations. A portion of the site is designated greenway/floodplain and is subject to requirements under Chapter 18.57 of the Tigard Zoning Code. RM- STAFF REPORT M 2-L t PAGE 4 Policy 5 . The City shall adopt an ordinance to regulate the removal and/or replacement of existing natural vegetation in designated areas , e.g. floodplains , drainageways , areas of high visibility, unique habitats, or rare species. Significant trees or stands of lumber shall be protected. Chapter 18 . 57 of the Tigard Municipal Code regulates activity within the floodplain. 4 . APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18. 57 Sensitive Lands a. 18 .57 .010 Statement of Intent - The floodplain district has for its purpose thepreservation of natural water storage areas within the floodplain district by dis- couraging or prohibiting incompatible uses . b. 18 57 040 Uses and Activities allowed with a Special Permit (2) (B) Any change in the topography or terrain which would change the flow of waters during flooding periods , or which would increase the flood hazard or alter the direction or velocity of floodwater flow. The new fill and excavation proposed by the applicant t will alter the topography of the site. C. 18 .57 .060 Special Use Permits - The applicant has provided the staff and Hearings Officer adequate in- formation to make a decision on the proposal. d. 18 .57 .070 Standards - (a) Application for a special use permit in floodplain areas shall be granted or denied in accordance with the following standards: (1) No structure, fill, excavation, storage or other use shall be permitted which alone or in combination with existing or proposed uses would reduce the capacity of the floodplain area or raise either the flood surface elevation or flow rates, or adversely affect flow direction on upstream or downstream properties , or create a resent or forseeable hazard to pu lic. healt4 safety and genera_1 welfare. The applicantis narrative (Attached Exhibit "C" ) addresses standards required for action on a Sensitive Lands Permit to allow fill and excavation within the 100 year flood- plain. The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's narrative. His comments are attached as Exhibit "O" . Briefly, the City Engineer finds that the proposal is consistent with the City's "zero foot" f loodway ordinance and that any change in direction of flow are not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and will not adversely affect upstream or downstream properties. LIME STAFF REPORT PAGE S S. APPLICABLE OREGON REVISED STATUTES SECTIONS Staff has attached applicable ORS sections to this report (attachment "E" ) . C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS After careful review of the technical data submitted by the applicant, it is the opinion of the City Engineer and staff that the fill presently in place, if offset by the excavation proposed by the applicant, does not violate the intent or purpose of the floodplain district. Further, 100 feet of green- way/open space buffer will remain between this site and the land designated single family to the west. It is staff ' s opinion that 100 feet is adequate for the purpose intended for the Greenway. The applicant's proposal will not reduce the capacity of the floodplain area, raise the flood surface elevations or flow rates , adversely affect flow direction or create a hazard to public health, safety and general welfare. Remaining issue regarding this proposal involves the Greenway Bikeway System. Tn accordance with the adopted Parks and Open Space a bike path is to be constructed along Fanno Creek within the Greenway area. (see attached map Exhibit "F" . ) When development occurs adjacent to greenway area, it is the responsibility of each property proposing development to complete their portion of the Greenway Bikeway System, -or at a minimum acquire an estimate for the construction of the bike path and submit a deposit to the City to cover the cost of construction. Staff recommends approval of the Sensitive Lands Permit allowing the new fill to remain and permitting the excavation as proposed with the following conditions: 1. A soils investigation by an approved soils engineer of the area to be filled shall be made before and after the filling and excavation occurs. 2. The material used for stream bank protection shall be as required on attached plan from the City of Tigard Drainage Plan. (figure # 6 .1) The rip rap shall go in prior to November 15, 1982. 3. All lands remaining in the 100 year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington �' County after it is approved by the City. l STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Conditions continued: 4 . A plan showing the topography of the entire site and potential areas of cut and fill, if any, as a guide for determining Greenway boundaries , shall be submitted prior to permit approval. 5. The applicant shall construct a bikeway to City standards the length of subject property, to meet the approval of the City Engineer; or at a minimum the applicant shall submit to the City an estimate for the cost of construction for the bikepath and a deposit to cover those costs. Should the permit not be approved the new fill shall be removed prior to November 15 , 1982. i' 7-74�Ci+7 efZr' PREP D BY: Eliza eth A. New n APPROVED BY: William A. Mo n Associate Planner Director of Planning and Development REVIEWED BY: Frank A. Currie Public Works Director 'HIBIT "A" �'%i '? :>e-,teber 15� 1932 �' 1 '5'1 15 S.','1. 71Tth Ave F,�' 1 - '� TI-a.rd, Ore;,on 97%23 Ti .rd e^ri;:-:c Crfice �T Plannin_; Dir^ctorY OF Gq p� T! RD 12755 .S.:4__ Ash Ave lV/�l/NG a r Tib arCl, Ore-on 97223 E� D-�.r Sir: Re: Sersitivie Lards Per,ruit 2-82 Jodco Chemical NPO #5 As the owner of 2 acres on S.N. ?4th Ave. for 40 years or so I think the permit should be denied and I am wondering 1 . ':lhy with city, county and state police passin` the corner of 74th Ave. and Durhom Road this ille-al lend fill on the flood plain of Fanno Creek was ever allowed to start. Each fall and spring durir.; flood ti,:;e the :voters of the creek easily reach 74th Ave. -t this point. 2. In spite of three desist orders from the city, orders plainly hosted on trees the dumpin- has still cone on and is btill in pro;ress. =-:o:v besides the fill dirt rubbish and ceent tailings are being added to the fill to polute the creel:. 3. E'r. John Duncan or whoever is responsible for the fill should be required to turn the area to its original state, for the loss of ^ this reservoir for floodwater will bush the flood :rater farther y up the creek and caused last fall the flooding of the parking V' area of the new apart_f.ents on Bonita Ro. d. 4. To the city official concerned: It should be noted that the drain- -1 _ —e er 6 - ---- -- a^e s ::�eroho was res-oonsible for the fill, has neglected to place � a screen or grate over the mouth of the sevrer where it flows into the creek and right now with the creek lore small children could i creep into the the without ever get-tin;; their feet fret. P- grating should be installed at once. Sincerely yours, C.A. Hubbard Carbon retained ¢ Fr {{tf tt d E krF 1 f E}:F(!BIT "B" July 21, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROLM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: Floodplain Filling at 74th Avenue & Durham Road An estimated 5,000 cubic yards of fill have been placed in the floodplain at SW 74th Avenue and Durham Road without a permit. A stop work order has been issued and the property owner given until Wednesday, July 21, 1982, to pick up a sensitive lands application at City Hall. This permit will require considerable engineering and soils work on behalf of the property owner to give us the information necessary to evaluate the extent of the impact on the floodplain, floodway, greenway and open space. I anticipate allowing the property owner until the end of August to accomplish the necessary engineering and hydraulics work and submit a completed sensitive lands application. Staff evaluation and staff report should be completed in time to allow the Hearings Officer to render a decision in -September, in plenty of time to have any material removed before the rainy season should that be required. We will keep the Council updated on the progress of this issue. - i I t ,��Cep��i�✓ ��L�-- - - � �.• ` `'\' �� \ oma. ', +; • n. i _ MAC.KENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Ex►irsiSheet 1 of 3 •r "C" -- MEI Job ;182367 JADCO INTRODUCTION The following narrative will provide brief responses to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance criteria for a Sensi- tive Lands Permit. The proposal includes cut and fill within the floodplain, for future development of build- ing, landscaping, and open space. The fill material which has been placed on the site, was obtained by the applicant from the contractor in- stalling a new storm water drainage pipe in Durham Road, as well as other local construction projects. The applicant received the material after checking with the State of Oregon. He was unaware that a per- mit for filling, from the City, was required on the assumption that disposing of the excess material in this manner would be of value to all parties concern- ed. The filled area was previously a low depression, sub- ject to periodic flooding from Fanno Creek. With the addition of the fill, the applicant will utilize the upland area for future building, parking and land- scaping, while the slope, floodplain, and stream chan- nel will remain in a natural character. It should be emphasized that although the fill has been placed, the applicant was not aware of the necessity of permits, and did not intend to circumvent any regula- tions. In addition to the following statements addressing Sec- tion 18. 57 (Sensitive Lands) and Part II (a) 4 of the floodplain application, a site plan has been prepared and accompanies the application. Also, complete engi- neering calculations have been submitted to the Direc- tor of Public Works. A. The proposal will not reduce the capacity of the floodplain area or raise either the flood surface elevations or flow rates. The proposal maintains the floodplain capacity in two ways: 1. The channel flow capacity is maintained by reducing the wetted perimeter of the channel which reduces flow resistance and friction, and increases the hydrau- lic efficiency of the channel. The flood Principals: Thomas R.Mackenzie Eric T.Saito M.P.J.Breshears 0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET • PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 + PHONE 503;224-9560 R.ACKENZIE ENIGINEEI:ING INCURPUhATEL) Sheet 2 of 3 ii I MEI Job 1# 182367 JADCO profile is controlled downstream by the constriction at the Durham Road bridge. This constriction remains unchanged by this proposal . 2. The storage volume of the floodplain will be maintained by excavating areas between the top of existing creek bank and toe of fill slope. The capacity of Fanno Creek, adjacent to the subject property, has been calculated for the following conditions: 1. Existing stream (prior to fill) . 2. Existing stream plus fill to date. 3. Proposed total fill , floodplain alteration. B. The proposal will not adversely affect the flow direction on upstream or downstream properties. The proposal does not include any relocation of the main stream channel, therefore, no redi- rection of flood flows will occur. C. Identify any foreseeable hazards to public health, safety and welfare, and how they will be mitigated. The proposal will not create or increase any hazard to the public health, safety or general welfare since the basic drainage way character will not change. In most cases a drainage way is not considered hazardous, since in its natural state a flood water rise will occur slowly enough to pose no particular danger. Currently, large boulders and trees have been ' dropped over the edge of the fill. These will f be removed, as they present minor flow restric- tions in their current location (the log could float out and result in substantial constric- tion in the stream channel) . F • MACKENGIL ENGINEEKING INC;C)RPURATL:I) Sheet 3 of 3 MEI Job x182367 JADCO The earthwork (cut and fill) proposed will re- sult in no change in the 100 year flood profile, which is consistent with the City of Tigard' s adopted " zero foot" floodway ordinance. (see attached General Data Sheet and Computa- tions submitted to the City Engineer) . D. Erosion Control. Erosion Control must be an integral part of the alteration proposal. The alteration increases the average stream velocity only about 13% , (approx..5 fps. ) , however, the existing stream velocity is detrimental to unprotected native material. The relatively granular fill should be rip- rapped with 6" - 12" pit run rock to 1' above the 100 year floodplain. The excavation area should have an established native grass cover prior to any major stream flows, as stream velocities above 4 feet per second could cause erosion of the silty-clay soil. i CONCLUSION The proposal as herein outlined will allow industrially zoned property to be developed to a higher level. It has been demonstrated that the proposed modifications to the 100 year floodplain will not cause a rise in the flood profile; will not create re-direction or increase in flow; will not cause erosion and sediment transport utilizing the recommended erosion control methods. i r .DL/slm s Q�QQwYi!'®!!iC Q�10YQQ� QQYeY!®®l�1ri _-- GENERAL DATA SHEET Backwater Curve 100 year flow rate at Durham Road - 5903 CFS, based on Corps of Engineers Data for river mile 1. 44 . Downstream control is the Durham Road Bridge, as channel and flood profile steepen significantly downstream of the bridge. Mannings "n" = 0. 06 Velocity Coefficient = 1. 36 Control PT elevation: C.O.E. 100 year elevation, 129 . 19. w 100 Year Flood Profile Elevations Before and After Construction Sec- Elev. before Elev. after Elevation Elev. - after Elevation tion Current Fill Current Fill Change Proposed Fill/Exc. Change 0 129 . 19 129. 19 0 129. 19 0 A 129 . 62 129. 64 +. 02 ' 129. 63 +. 01 B 129 . 81 129 . 85 +. 04 ' 129 . 80 -.01 C 129 . 99 130. 03 +. 04 ' 129_ 99 0 Average Stream Velocity Before and After Construction Vel . before Vel. after Velocity Vel. after Velocity tion Current Fill Current Fill Change Proposed Fill/Exc. Change 0 7 .47 7 . 47 0 7. 47 0 A 4 . 22 4.86 ft/sec. +0. 64 f t/sec. 4 . 87 +.55 ft/sec. B 3. 33 3.77 ft/sec. +0. 44 f t/sec. 3.71 +. 38 ft/sec. C 3.46 3 . 43 -0. 03 f t/sec. 3. 09 +.44 ft/sec. W L a SsyJ"3 LI l�•. . NVASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON CASE No_ - -tNL 'AL APPL1CA'I'IU�+ FO(;ii — CITY OF TIGA RD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397 RECEIPT No. Tigard , Orego;i 97223 - X503)639-4171 }'OR STAFF USE ONLY: 1_ GENEK.,I. INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDPESS --: 16055 S. W. 74th- Associated Cases: Tigard, Oregon 97223 LEGAL DESCRIPTION T25 RZW Section 13(A) TL 1500 INTERNAL PROCESSLUG: Accepted for Pre�App. : SITE SIZE 6.9 acres _ �f� PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* John A. Duncan, Janice M. Duncan BY: ADDRESS 16055 S. W. 74th PHONE 684-0044 Pre-APP-'- CITY ' PP-= CITY Tigard, Oregon ZIP 97223 Date &• Time: APPLICAUT" Same as owner ADDRESS PHONE._ Accepted for Decision: CITY ,-ZIP By: *Where the owner and the applicant are different people , the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in Hearing Date: ossession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The written Hearing Reset To: authorization must be submitted with this application. . 2. REQUIRED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS ATTACHED YES ® N0. Decision: filed & mailed 3. ' THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: APP. FEE D PAID Accepted for Appeal- FI ?' . _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _.. from► to By: quasi-judicial legislative Date of Hearing: Zone Change from to quasi-judicial legislative DESCRIPTION: Comp. Plan Deesignat - Planned Unit Development concept plan detailed plan NPO No. Subdivision Major Partition Minor Partition Zoning District De-%ign Review Zoning Map No. Conditional Use Variance to Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) Quarter Section Variance to Subdivision Ord. (Title 17) Sensitive Land Permit STAFF NOTES: Floodplains Drainageways • �— Steep Slopes �— Other X0000. mom sJMKRFL ;::.C;i. API'LICATI0�: A(:1 l_C>! _ I' •_-) CASL r.v. GEN1 --- - CITY OF T1CARD. 12 75 5 Sk4 ASH YU 1i ox 23397 Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4 171 PPLEi•ENTAL INFORMATIO 'I� O BL PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) FOR STAFF USE ONLY Notice of !response 4 . DISTRICTS A ent R�criyr-rt es No Yes SCHOOL DISTRICT Tigard 23 J �^ WATER DISTRICT Tigard Water District FIRE DISTRICT Tualatin Rural F.P.D. _ PARI: DISTRICT Tigard UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY - Sewer Available : YES X NO OTHER 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICITY P.G.E. NATURAL GAS Pacific Northwest Natural Gas. TELEPHONE General OTHER b PUBLIC TRANSIT (TRI iiET) NEAREST BUS ROUTE AND STOP #37 & #38 at Durham & Boones Ferry _ #43 at Hall & Durham 7. . OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES (SPECIFY) Unified Sewerage Agency 8. CHARACTER OF THE AREA EXISTING LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ZONE VERIFIED BY STAFF NORTH Vacant R 7 SOUTH Durham Rd. M 4 EAST 74th Avenue R 7 WEST 'Vacant R 7 PACE 3 VASE too. APPLICATION F01'M - ( ITY Ov TICARU, 12755 St. Ash , PO ISox 23397 _iEard , Ore Eon 97223 - (503)639-G 171 9. CHANGES It: THE CHAP0.CTFR OF THE AREA WHIC11 AFFECT THIS APPLICATION. Please Discuss: Recently, a gradual developnezt of property along 72nd and Durham Road of an industrial nature has taken place. This project involves creation of additional building area for future building(s) , and thus would be an extension of this gradual growth of industrially zoned property in the City of Tigard. 10. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE Lot Area (acres, square feet) 6.90 acres 11. EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE Square Distance From Property'Line Feet North Use South East West Light Manufacturin 7800 ' ± 300' ± 20' t ' ± (County Zoning MA-1) NATURAL CONDITIONS 12. Percent Slope: 13. Vegetations Types: Average Diameter Percent Of Each Yes No Size Of Trees Per Size Trees: X 2" & Less BO ------ 20 .$ no tree removal Brush: X 10 - 12" . time Grass: X 14 . Floodplains: X How much of the site is in floodplain? 43% 15. Water Courses X What type? Small intermittent •6. Rock Outcroppings X 17. Other: s 18. Proposed Development: Please briefly describe the proposed development: The proposed sensitive land application request includes landscaping and filling for future building development. The owner seeks tyle city's approval of the filling that was accoirplished CASE No. GENERAL APPLICATION' 1_ Ol"t"_ PAG[. � 12755 Sti' Asti , 1'O Box 23397 f-TY OF '1'1GaFD, -4171 hard . Oregon 97223 - (503)639 is not required. " 14- The follo'-ging i; � � ' Overall site 0" eloPIrzI2t Residential commercial Industrial Open Space Other Roads Total 2D. + Future ( arking) Iso. of acres Building ax 3000 300,564' or square 7800 , feet per use 1 � � Percent of _260 96.4% ' site cover.a e Type of Residential Use and Oharacteristtics of Bedrooms/:.`nit # 1 2 3 4 proposed Density T pe of Use of Units EFF. Where applicable , please explain how the open space , common areas and recreational facilities vrill be maintained. T f the project is to be completed in phases * please describe each phase of the project. Ffdrr %I;N'ERA; APPLICATION FORH - PACE 5 CASG Nu_ CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 S14 Asti , PO Box 23397 - 'gard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171 THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EACH HEARING. (e.g. Attorney, Surveyor , Engineer) Staff Notice Notice Report Decision of Review Name Dave Larson/Ma6:en_ie Engineering Street 0590 S. W. Bancroft Street city Portland State Zip 97201 Nam z Street city State Zip Name Stree t city State Zip Nasse Street city State Zip _'PLICANT UWNER e EXHIBIT "D" 1 . City Engineer has reviewed all calculations presented with the application and finds that the proposed alterations to the site are consistent with the cit' s adopted"zerc• foot/floodway ordinance and further, that any increase in velocity or change in direction of flow are not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and will not adversely affect upstream or downstream properties. The city engineer also finds that the proposed changes actually increase the hydraulic efficiency of the stream. 2. . .s:; applicant to provide a plan for development of the cot-11plete parcel . (At least on this side of the creek) If no more filling is proposed in the 100-year floodplain, then all land in the 100-year floodplain after all proposed filling should be dedicated to the public for greenway purposes. j_ 3. Contribution to proposed bike trail system should be required in lieu of of construction of a bike trail portion at this time. 4. It appears some filling has been done in the northeast portion of the property which may also be involved in an intrusion into the 100-year floodplain. Should be "checked out." 01 ''MIN 100 MMMM EXHIBIT "E" otherwise. Damage resulting from extraordi- 541.0800 Suits involving water right.;; nary and unforeseen action of the elements, or parties; decree as to priorities. In any suit attributable in v.,hole or in part to the wrong- commenced for the protection of rights to ful interference of another person or irriga- water acquired under the provisions of the Act tion, drainage, water improvement or water of 1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891, control district organized pursuant to ORS the plaintiff may make any or all persons who chapter 545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 with the have diverted water from the same stream or irrigation, drainage, water supply, water source parties to the suit, and the court may control or flood control works, which may not in one decree determine the relative priorities be known to the person or irrigation, drain- and rights of all parties to the suit. Any per- age, water improvement or water control son claiming a right on the stream or source, district organized pursuant to ORS chapter not made a party to the suit, may become such 545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 for such length of on application to the court, when it is made to time as would enable the person or irrigation, appear that he is interested in the result, and drainage, water improvement or water control may have his right determined.The court may district organized pursuant to ORS chapter at any stage, on its own motion, require any 545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 by the exercise of persons having or claiming rights to water on reasonable efforts to remedy the same, shall the stream or source, to be brought in and not be recovered against the person or irriga- made parties, when it appears that a complete tion, drainage, water improvement or water determination of the issue involved cannot be control district organized pursuant to ORS made without their presence. chapter 545,547, 552, 553 or 554. (2) An action or suit under subsection (1) APPROPRIATION OF WATER of this section must be commenced within two FOR MINING AND EILECTRIC POWER,UNDER 1899 ACT years from the date when the damage is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable 541.110 Use of water to develop min- care should have been discovered. However, in eral resources and furnish power. The use no event shall any such action or suit be com- of the water of the lakes and running streams menced more than four years from the date of Oregon for the purpose of developing the the damage actually occurred. [1979 c.882§11 mineral resources of the state and to furnish electric power for all pui-poses, is declared to 541.060 Waste of water-, flooding be a public and beneficial use and a public Yr premises; unnecessary diversion. Every necessity. Subject to the provisions of the corporation having constructed a ditch, canal Water Rights Act(as defined in ORS 537.010), or flume under the provisions of the Act of the right to divert unappropriated waters of 1891, pages 52 to 60,Oregon Laws 1891, shall any such lakes or streams for such public and carefully keep and maintain the embank- beneficial use is granted. ments and walls thereof, and of any reservoir constructed to be used in conjunction there- 541.120 Ditches, etc., through lands; with, so as to prevent the water from wasting two or more prohibited; use of existing ditch by others than owner;joint liability. and from flooding or damaging the premises of others. The corporation shall not divert at No tract or parcel of improved or occupied l any time any water for which it has no actual land in this state shall, without the written use or demand. consent of the owner, be subjected to the bur- den of two or more ditches, canals, flumes or 541.070 Ditches, canals and flumes as Pipelines constructed under the Act of 1899, Pages 172 to 180, Oregon Laws 1899, for the real estate. All ditches, canals and flumes permanently affixed to the soil, constructed purpose of conveying water through the prop- under when the same object can be feasibly and under the provisions of the Act of 1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891,are declared to be practically attained by uniting and conveying real estate, and the same or any interest all the water necessary to be conveyed through such property in one ditch, canal, therein shall be transferred by deed only,duly flume or pipeline. Any person having con- witnessed and acknowledged. The vendee of the same, or any interest therein,at any stage structed a ditch, canal, flume or pipeline for shall succeed to all the rights of his vendor, the purpose provided in the Act of 1899 shall and shall be subject to the same liabilities allow any other person to enlarge such ditch, during his ownership. canal, flume or pipeline, so as not to interfere '102 - ---—- . MEN 1..1ttic:t;t,t.nNta)Uti t'[tOv1:;1<)��1-_—________-- 54 1.055 WATER COMPANIES ditches, canals, flumes, distributing ditches, I ORGANIZED UNDER 1891 ACI' and feeders of any corporation appropriating water under the provisions of the Act of 1891, I 541.010 Furnishing )f water for cer- across all lands belonging to the State of tain purposes declared to be a public Oregon and not under contract of sale, is utility; rates; amendment of law. (1) The granted. use of the water of the lakes and running 541.040 Headgate; mode of construe- streams of Oregon, for general rental, sale or tion- Every corporation having constructed a distribution, for purposes of irrigation, and ditch, canal or flume under the provisions of supplying water for household and domestic the Act of 1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws consumption, and watering livestock upon dry ' lands of the state, is a public use, and the headg1891, shall erect and keep in good repair a right to collect rates or compensation for such fm ,to at the head of its ditch, canal or flume, use of water is a franchise. A use shall be flue. which, together with the necessary embankments, shall be of sufficient deemed general within the purview of this .height section when the water appropriated is sup- and strength to control the water at all ordi- plied to all persons whose lands lie adjacent to nary stages. The framework of the headgate or within reach of the line of the ditch, canal shall be of timber not less than four inches or flume in which the water is conveyed,with- square, and the bottom, sides and gate shall out discrimination other than priority of con- be of plank not less than two inches in thick- tract, upon payment of charges therefor, as ness. long as there may be water to supply. 541.050 Leakage or overflow; liabili- tion. Every corporation having o ditch, canal, flume or reservoir exception. (2) Rates for the uses of water mentioned cP in this section may ix^. fixed by the Legislative Co Assembly or by such officer as may be given under the provisions visions of the Act of 1891, pages that authority by the Legislative Assembly, 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891,shall be liable for but rates shall not be fixed lower than will all damages done to the persons or property of allow the net profits of any ditch,canal, flume others, arising from leakage or overflow of or system thereof to equal the prevailing legal water therefrom growing out of want of rate of interest on the amount of money actu- strength in the banks or walls, or negligence or want of care in the management of the ally paid in and employed in the construction ditch, canal, flume or reservoir. However, and operation of the ditch, canal, flume or damage resulting from extraordinary and system. unforeseen action of the elements,or attribut- (3) This section and_ ORS 541.020 to able in whole or in part to the wrongful inter- 541.080 :nay at any time be amended by the ference of another with the ditch,canal,flume Legislative Asses~_''Iv, and commissioners for or reservoir, which may not be known to the the management of water rights and the use corporation for such length of time as would of water may be appointed. enable it by the exercise of reasonable efforts to remedy the same, shall not be recovered 541.020 Construction of ditch, etc., by against the corporation. corporation; route across lands. Whenever 541.055 District liability for seepage t any corporation organized under the Act of 1891, pages 52 to 60,Oregon Laws 1891, finds and leakage from water or flood control it necessary to• construct its ditch, canal, works; limitation on commencement of flume, distributing ditches, or feeders across action. (1)Any person or irrigation,drainage, the improved or occupied lands of another, it water improvement or water control district shall select the shortzst and most direct route organized pursuant to ORS chapter 545, 547, practicable, haul whter supply. reference to cost of con- 552, 553 or 554 that owns, operates or main- practicable, upon which the ditch, canal. flume, tains any irrigation, drainage, ! distributing ditches. or feeders can be con- water control or flood control works shall be i strutted with uniform or nearly uniform liable for damage caused by seepage and leak- age grade. age from such works only to the extent that such damage is directly and proximately <.! 541.030 Ditches, etc., across state caused by the negligence of the person or lands; grant of right of way. The right of irrigation, drainage, water improvement or way, to the extent specified in the Act of 1891, water control district organized pursuant to 2,553 or 554 and not pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891, for the ORS chapter 545,547.55 301 -•1 CHANNEL BANK PROTECTION 601 .00 General Channel bank protection is necessary when natural bank material in Section S. Riprap of rock, rubble masonry is unstable as discussed j i with grout, sacked concrete, and broken concrete slab are most commonly used to protect embankrtjent or channel slopes of unstable material . -.02.00 Rock Riprap Rock riprap is either light loose or heavy loose riprap. Either should-.be p•l aced-on a one-foot thick f i l for material graded from sand _ to- 6 inch gravel to protect the original bank material from scour or sloughing. The filter should be graded in layers from fine to coarse out to the• riprap_ Riprap thickness should be 2 feet thick for light loose and 3 feet thick for heavy loose riprap. The .toe of the riprap - i bed a depth equal to the th-ickness should be placed below the channel of the riprap. i i Q o= /00 hood o o o'/77i17. MIS =l or Typical Roclr Ri rp F'ig. 6-1 TRANSCRIPT OF Iii?AK I NG B1:FOIZI: C 1'I'Y UP T 1 CARD BEAK I NC5 September 23, 1982 - 7 :00 p.m. Durham Waste Treatment Plant Cunterencc• Koolli Corner of SW Durham Road and SW tial " 111". Tigard, Oregon Re: M 2_82 - Sensitive Lands Permit - Jadco Chemical Present as Staff: Beth Blount , Hearings Officer, City of Tigard Tigard Elizabeth Newton, Associate Planner, City of Note: The Hearings Officer introduced hersel � and Elizabeth Newton. She referred to the written procedures for the hearing, and set forth the procedure to be followed. She ascertained there were no objections by those present to her hearing this case. Newton: This is a sensitive lands permit request to fill within the floodplain , including landscaping, for future development of a building and landscaping. The applicants are John and Janice Duncan. Th pro pity is located at 16055 SW 74th in Tigard; it is 6.9 acres, the zoning designation is M-3 Light Industrial. l' comment from NPO 5 at the writing of the staff report. We received no We mailed 18 notices , and one written response was received. On July 21 the. Public Works Director wrote a memorandum to the City Council which is also attached to the staff report. The owner had filled in the floodplain area of this property without a sensitive lands permit. Since then a permit- was filed with the city on September 7, 1982. Based on staff analyses of the technical informa- tion supplied by the applicant and site inspection, staff recommends that the hearings officer approve the sensitive lands permit with the conditions listed with the staff report_ The staff has applied all applicable LCDC goals, NPO 5 policies, policies from the invironmental design and open space plan, poli- cies from the sensitive lands chapter of the Tigard Municipal Code, and we can go over the conditions. Blount: (. . . .Suggesting she do so. . . .) Newton: Okay. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Tile conditions are: 1. A soils investigation by an approved soils engineer of the area to be filled shall be made before and after the filling and excavation occurs. 2. The material used for stream bank protection shall. be as required on attached plan from the City Of Tigard Drainage Plan. The riprap Shall go in prior to November 15, 1.982. -I- 'fRANSCKIPT OF HEARINGS OPFICE11" HEARING Jadco Chcmic•al Sept . 23, 1982 Newton• 3. All lnnds remaining; in the 100 yLrar t.loodplain steal L be (Cont. ) dedicated to tl:e pc:hlic prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington County after it is approved by the City. 4. A plan showing the topography of the entire site and potcn- tial areas of crit and fill , if any, as a guide for determining Greenway boundaries, shall be submitted prior to permit approval.. 5. The applicant shall construct a bikeway to City standards the length of subject property, to meet the approval of the City Engi- neer; or at a minimum the applicant shall. submit to the City an estimate for the cost of construction for the bikepath and a deposit to cover those costs. Blount : I have one question on your recommendations, recommendation on Condition No. 1. What are you accomplishing on the soils investi- gation -- do they want to know whether the fill is solid? Newton: Yes, for future building if there is to be a building placed on the fill. And the before would he only in the case of the excavation that is to occur. L Blount: But your goal in the soils investigation is to make sure that it is suitable for a building? Newton: Yes. Blount: All. right. Are there any questions that need clarification regarding the staff report? This is a time for questions, not testimony. Duncan: That engineering report that you anticipate on the sensitive lands fill permit and the engineering report will follow? Newton: The engineering; report would be filed after the permit. Blount : Again we are talking; about the soils report? is that what you are talking about-? Any other questions in clarification? Okay. Then I will open the public portion of the hearing, and I will ask either the applicant or his representative. Duncan: I am John Duncan. (Wrote out his name and address.) I am John Duncan, and I am the property owner at 16055 SW 74th. . . . . . the history of what happened, I did put the fill in, and I had advice from certain people which didn't turn out to be correct. After I did this I found [ heard from the City of. Tigard. They said I had to file a permit for this, and when I heard from them I f merely had the people stop putting the fill in. I fulfilled the -2- a� TRANSCRIPT OP HEARINCS 0I-'FICP.R HEARING ,►adco Chemical Seht . :Z3 , 1982 Duncan: request of the t:i_ty cif Tigard, and L hirud McKenzLe 1?ngLrteuring, (Cont. ) Dave Larson, to do the work after the fact. And that's where we are at . As f.ar as goirip, over this stuff right Isere (referring to conditions) : No. 1, you know, that 's fine, the soils investigation check on the material used. Going on to No. 2. The thing that 1 would like to delay is item No. 3 (dedication of floodplain) . Blount: : You just want to delay it? Duncan: No, I would, you know, go along with this at the time we are ready to put up a building or do something with the property. Blount : Well, you are doing something with the property now: you are filling. Duncan: Right. Blount : But I guess T need some more information why you would like No. 3 waived. w Duncan: i just don't think this is the proper time to turn something like this over to the city. Blount: Why not? Duncan: Well, (hesitating) T just feel that when the time comes that I do want to do something --- Blount : What's the difference, Mr. Duncan -- What's the difference between giving it to the city now, and giving it to the city at the time you want to build a building? You are stillgiving it to the city. Duncan: Welt, the thin- of it is, yon know, they might have, when it commas time that L do, you know--when I do, if I do, want to put up a building, they might have some other conditions. You know maybe I could use that property for negotiating when 1 put up my building or do something, maybe for landscaping or something like this, and use this as a trade off. (Long pause.) That , basically, is what --- Blount: You don't have any objections to 4 and 5? Duncan: Yeah, let's see here. Four, I don't have any objection to that. No. 5, as far as -- again when the time comes as far as, you know, putting the bike path and stuff, I don't want to put up any money right now, but when the time comes to put a bike path up, I will have the money to pay for it. The reason I don't want to do it at this particular time is due to economic- conditions. That's basically what --- -3- TRANSCRIPT OI' III:ARINGS OFFICER HEARING Jadco Chemical Sept . 23, 1982 Blount : A] 1 rif,lit , thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application: Larson: My name is Dave Larson. I represent McKenzie Engineering, Portland. Regarding Condition No. 4, it asks that further information provided on the entire site topography, and then also an idea of what the ultimate development of this side of the creek would be. At an appropriate time I would like to submit this. Blount: Okay, you can submit it; but I am not a qualified engineer to approve whether this meets city standards or not, so --- Larson: Frank Currie asked that I generate this and have it available. Blount: Okay, that's fine. Okay, why don't you -- Just let me mark this. Are these three copies all the same thing? Larson: All the same thing. Blount: Okay, I will mark this as Exhibit 2. Exhibit 1 tonight is the Planning staff report. So this is the topographic map? A side view cross sections. Okay. Existing warehouse, here's the creek, i top of the cut, tope of the slope, top of the slope. Okay. But you have not shown any proposed building sites here? Larson: At this time the applicant came to us merely to satisfy his require- ment by the city to resolve this matter in the most expeditious manner. He represents that there is no immediate plan for a building, and that at some time in the future he will be aprroaching the city for appropriate permits when planning the building. Blount: All right , thank you. k Larson: I preserved the work on this, if there are any questions. Blount : Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application? Okay, I see none. Those in opposition? Okay, come up front. Your name is -- Schwartz: John Schwartz (wrote it out) . Okay. It's not that I am personally against a person developing their own property as they see fit. I am very sensitive in that area myself. However, I feel that possibly the Hearings Officer should have a little background knowledge of how this bearing came about tonight. Blount : Okay, wait a second. Let me state something for the record here that will put this all in context. realize there is a substantial amount of unrest about the fact that fill occurred before the permit application. I do not consider that particular sequence of events in -4- i TRANSCRIPT OF Hf:ARIN(,S OFFICGR III:ARINC Jadco Clicmical Sept . 23, 1982 BI ount : determinin), whether in fact a fill should be on that site or. not , (Cont. ) because theoretically we could refuse to accept an application, lie could remove all the fill , turn around and apply, and we would have exactly the same data before us that we are going; co have before us tonight . So I am considering this application as if there is no fill on the property, and 1. am considering the engineer- ing data that's available, both regarding the fill and the need of protections for the fill to see whether it falls within the. criCer.ia of the sensitive lands permit. So, keeping that in mind, and the fact that I am aware of the sequence of events -- okay? Schwarts : I happen to owni a piece of property lying; not adjacent to this property, but on the strip -- Blount: Are you across Fanno Creek? Schwartz: I am across Fanno Creek. 1 Live on 76th. All the property on 74th is zoned commercial or industrial . L have a couple of concerns on this in the fact that other sensitive lands permits have been denied due to the flood plain issue, and T believe this is by the county some time ago. Allowing all the commercial to fill in to the property lines would basically abut -- could abut industrial properties directly up to residential which borders, and in some cases the property lines cross the creek. Do you follow me? Blount : No, I am afraid I don't. You are suggesting that on your side of the property -- on your side of the creek where the property is zoned commercial -- Schwartz: No, it is residential. Blount : Oh, I am sorry--residential. Where is the commercial property? This is zoned industrial. Schwartz: That's r-igiit. The property -- get a map -- (rustling of papers) Newton: We are down herr on the creek, and Mr. Duncan's property is on this side -- Schwartz: Okay, the property lines basically come right down the center here. Okay. A corner of my property happens to be on the opposite side, the industrial side of the creek; the property is zoned industrial. Now if it is a habit that we are going to allow these landfills into the floodplain, joining that up, then we are joining up and abutting tip against a residential. property directly adjacent to industrial property, and which the Tigard Planning staff themselves -5- TRANSCRIPT OF HLARINGS OFFICER IiF.ARING Jadco Chemical Sept . 23 , 1982 Schwart%: have attempted or supposedly have attempted to put in some kind of (Cont.) a buffer zone between zoned residential and industrial. Blount: Okay. It is my understanding -- and let me just see if you knew this -- that between the edge of the cieveloped industrial land and your property there will be a greenway buffer on this side of it -- that's what Mr. Duncan was asking that i waive. right now was that particular -reenway buffer, and that is -- do you know how wide it is, off the top of your head? Newton: Approximately 100 feet. Blount: Approximately 100 feet wide. Schwartz : On that particular property. Newton: On that particular property. Schwartz: Okay; but what about the rest of the property? Blount: I can' t consider the rest of it; I. don't have jurisdiction over the I rest of it right now. All I have got is jurisdiction over this particular piece of property. Now do you know the city policy on that--is there an established policy? Newton: That's what the greenway policy is for. There's the greenway policy and the floodplain situation, and this staff report attempts to outline concerns both dealing with the floodplain concerns. There is a policy in the city now to leave a greenway buffer between commercial and residential , or industrial and residential. Blount: And that's part of the comprehensive plan? Newton: Yes; it is also part of the Code. Schwartz: The comprehensive plan at this time is not complete--it is being developed. Blount: But it is also part of the Code. Schwartz: That could be. Also in a letter to the city council on July 21 from the staff, when originally this problem came up, a staff report to the council at that time was that the permit would require consideration on behalf of the property owner to give us information necessary to evaluate the extent of the impact on the floodplain, floodway, greenway and open space. I do not feel that it is proper to give this sensitive Landfill permit and to issue it until all engineering studies have been acquired and developed. The bridges along Eanno Creek, both at Durham and at -6- ira TRANS(:itll'T OF HBAlUNGS 0FF10EIZ HEARING .J ad co Chemical Sept . 23, 1982 Schwartz : Hall Boulevard on the other enol are con5idez-ed Substandard and will (Cont. ) and do at timesfLood in times of high water_ Filling these flood- plains in, how is that going to assure the residents and the other people in the area that the water -- this extra amount of fill -- will not cause this water to flood more often and more deeply across the existing bridges? Blount : Do you understand how fill works? Fill under the Tigard ordinance -- you can' t just fill . Every place you fill you have to do some compensatory excavation to handle the water that you have just filled. So it isn't as if this property is just being filled. That 's what happened prior to the permit application, but as soon as the application of the standards of the city were imposed, then their engineer in fact, you know, presented us with a plan whereby there would be fill in one location and eRcavation in another to handle the additional water, because the ordinance says you cannot increase the flow. Schwartz: That's correct. And I don' t see how it's possible on that particular property until a study has been made, and }pow this -- Blount: Well, there has been. That is what this particular engineer did. McKenzie Engineering. That's his proposal. That's what I have. That's part of the staff report. Have you seen this particular -- Schwartz: No, I haven' t. Blount : Okay, this is an engineering report. It is attached to my staff report so it is part of Exhibit 1, from McKenzie Engineering, Inc. And that in fact -- Mr. Larson, are you the one that in fact did the work? Maybe it would be helpful to the people here if you went through the work that you did and explained exactly what you did and how you arrived at the conclusions you arrived at . Would you be interested in hearing it? Schwartz: Yes, T would. Blount: Okay, why don' t we table you -- we can continue your testomony; but Let's take it out of order and let Mr. Larson explain what he did. Larson: (Business of mounting drawings on blackboard.) This is 74th Avenue; -this is Durham Road. The bridge is approximately here. The fill that was established up to this point in time is roughly in this area as documented by an engineering survey that was done on the property. The creek runs roughly through here, and the initial calculation on the fill indicated that the 100 year floodplain would rise somewhere in the vicinity of a half an inch to an inch adjacent to this area. The reason that is true from an engineering standpoint -7- TRANSCRIPT Or HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING Jadco Chemical sept . 23, 1982 Larson: is that this Land over here is fairly shallow with sonic grasses on (Cont. ) it and wasn' t going to be highly efficient for carrying flood water. When you fill here, indeed you rai.se the floodplain, because you have restricted the stream's ability to carry the water. . The floodplain in this area is roughly right in here, and I am taking, this section from the center, roughly in here. You can see that this area in here is not as efficient because it is flat -- bear in mind the scale is exaggerated -- this is approximately 100 feet here, and this is approximately four feet here. But by doing this fill that he did up to this limit, the actual 100 year floodplain was raised, and when a 100 year flood comes by you are going to notice a rise here and an equivalent rise to a certain extent for a length upstream. In order to take care of that, you provide an excavation adjacent to the creek. This is more efficient for two reasons: it giveg approximately the same area of this area that was filled for the water to flow through. The other thing it does is reduces the amount of water that is touched b; land: in other words, the efficiency of the channel is greater. This is a cross section that is very similar to a cross section that is proposed in the City of Tigard Drainage Plan prepared by CH2M. It is a generation of that same cross section. What you have done is replaced the shallow overgrown area with a seeded area much closer to the main channel ( ' of the water., and therefore this fill in this area is mitigated by this excavation adjacent to the stream. It should be noted that no change in the center line of the stream is proposed here--it is merely an offset, and you have to calculate that at intervals to get any sort of accuracy on it, and that's where our study was taken into accoui.;-. The City Engineer reviewed the calculations and found that we made reasonable engineering assumptions in developing the work, and he had no suggestions on how I might improve on my work. Blount : Okay, in the ? of your report, is the fill banked? It is rip- rapped -- Larson: I suggested in the report that it be riprapped. That was supple- mented by Condition, I believe No. -- Blount: Could it be done by November 15? Larson: Right. Condition No. 2. And that is a valid consideration, because near the bridge the channel is restricted and the velocity is increased and this proposal would not be survivable without the riprap. It would risk whatever materials were subject to that high velocity water into the stream and possibly create some constriction in the stream or deposit material on properties downstream. I think I should -8- rRANSCRII'T OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING Jadco Chemical SepL. 23, 1932 Larson : mention that this technique is similar to other uses .along Fanno (Cont. ) Creek in Tigard and Beaverton, in particular the Main Street planned shopping center area was a very similar procedure and the same general approach from an engineering standpoint. Could I answer any questions on that? Blount : I have a question. The ordinance provides that the proposal "shall not reduce the capacity of the floodplain area, or raise either the flood surface elevation or flow rate. " Now if I understand your testimony, the flow rate is increased. The water i- moving faster through the channel. Larson: That 's correct. The way to evade that is to riprap the bank. Blount: Does that slow the water down? Larson: It does to a certain extent; but it is more used to protect the bank. You should bear in mind that the increase in velocity is a small percentage of the total, and that as it passes under the bridge, that extra energy is more than abated. The flood profile downstream of this bridge drops the elevation--the flood surface lowers coa- siderably as it passes through this bridge. The bridge is a constriction and therefore does tend to dissipate the energy. Blount: Is the bridge structurally sound enough to dissipate the energy of ` an increased flow rate? Larson: A flow rate of this magnitude is not damaging. The bridge was -- Blount : What are we talking about in terms of an increase? I don't recall seeing that figure (shuffling of papers) the general ? ? Larson: Right. BLount : (Reading) "Velocity before the current fill , velocity after the current fill, velocity change." Larson: At station zero. Blount: Is that the cross section we are talking about? Larson: Right; at station zero; at the bridge there is no change because there is no work done right up next to the bridge. At Section A-1. it's increased a half a foot per second. Typically the soils in j this area are susceptible to erosion at 4 to 6 feet per second, and that's why we endorsed the riprap. t I Blount: And the current rate is ? E F Larson: The current rate at that section is 4.22. t -9- TRANSCRIPT OF HI?ARINGS OPPICGR HEARING Jadco Chemical Sept. 23, 1982 Blount: Okay, I guess 1 am a little confused how you lose the increased velocity. Where does it go? Particularly with the constriction of the bridge? T could see losing it on the other side of the bridge if you have got more room for the water to spread, but between your excavation and the bridge, where does it go? Larson: I am not sure I know how to explain that. The fact that the bridge is there and the fact that the water passes under the bridge through the tightening of the channel, and then it has more room to spread. Tt is a transition from here to here. Blount: So what you are saying is that the section zero is measured below the bridge--after it has gone through the bridge? Larson: Section zero is right at the upstream edge of the bridge. Blount: Of the upstream edge. Well, I guess you still haven' t answered my question then. Larson: The work is here. Blount: How -- You have demonstrated, of course -- you have demonstrated that the section A which is your section nearest to the bridge -- Larson: do the work, and I admit that we have closed the channel down some, made less area, the same amount of water going through a smaller :area yields a higher velocity. But at roughly 50 feet frog, the L: ',lge we haven' t changed the work and at that point in time we have the same section as it always had to get through. So consequently at zero, since we haven't changed from zero to zero plus 50, it still has the same cross section to go through. Blount it will slow in that 50 feet? Larson: That's ri-ht. Blount: 1 see what yott arc• saying. Any other questions? Schwartz: (?) Have you ever been out there in the spring? Larson: No. Schwartz: Then you are guessing. All this is guessing based on engineering principles and hundred-year flood floodplain, and all that. Is that really a guess? Have you ever been out there in the spring to measure the velocity of the water, any of that? Larson: No, I have not -- -1(I- I TRANSCRIPT Or HEARINGS OFFICER ItEAfZINC Jadco Chemical Sept . 23 , 1982 Schwartz: Then it' s based on engineering princ Ot's. Larson: Based on engineering principles. Schwartz: Purely and simply. Larson: I don' t want to admit to guess work because there is -- Schwartz: Well, okay. Blount: Where did you arrive at your velocity figures? Larson: The velocity figures are the set of calculations that went to Iracik Currie. Those are in his files. You have a summary of those calculations. Blount : Based on your measurements on the site? Or -- Larson: Based on my calculations and the Corps of Engineers information which came from the Tualatin River to about a mile above this site. That is what They sent me. I think the information they had was 7.5 feet per second at the bridge_ So the Corps of Engineers recent flood study on Fanno Creek work is base information for my calculation. Blount : Of course. How did you arrive at these figures? Can you give us just a thumbnail. sketch of how you developed these figures--your velocity f__-ur.es? Larson: Of course. Utilizing the Corps' information on the reference of the channel, we use what is called the Mannings (?) equation to determine the channel hydraulics of this reach. When we analyze it, this was analyzed in three stages: (.l) before the fill was done, to obtain a base line of the flood profile before any work was done. Blount : How did you get that figure if you were called in after the fill was done? Larson: We obtained topographic surveys of the area before it was touched 3 by machinery to develop this cross section; and using the Mannings equation we could determine, given the Corps of Engineers hundred r' year flow, cubic feet per second, you can determine bow high that y water is. The problem is the Corps didn't take sections at every hundred-foot intervals. That's why we have to develop some to ry supplement their work. They have them roughly every four or five hundred feet, and so you can check each ? each time you hit . one of their sections. So you apply the Mannings equation to the channel hydraulics and the amount of flow that the Corps of Engineers i -11- alffino TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING Jadco Chemical Sept . 23, 1982. Larson: says the hundred-year flood is, and that establishes your water (Cont. ) surface. You do that going through each one of these sections before the work is done, based on past history and topographic surveys. Then the surveyors picked up the actual configuration of the fill, and that's -- I think you see it -- Blount: Elevation after the current fill. Larson: And it shows that there is some rise in the hundred-year profile through that reach. At that point, then, we applied what might be an ultimate amount or work, and then also at thr. sam.: time what would be the excavation work to be done, apply the same principle and bring it back through; and what you actually do is keep increas- ing this area and reducing this area until you get it so that you have no rise in the hundred-year flood profile. The City of. Tigard recently enacted a zero flood floodway ordinance, which in essence mandates no rise in any activity in the flood- plain., and the first review went through and it came up in the order of a half an inch. The City Engineer was consulted. He agreed with our analysis that a half an inch is not acceptable. If you let everybody all the way up to a half an inch, the end result is going to be a building of that amount. It is going to compound as you get upstream, but eventually someone upstream will have an extra foot of water. So in order to comply with the intent of the zero foot floodway ordinance, we shoot for a zero rise or a slight reduction. Blu::._t: Okay. Any other questions from the audience? Yes, sir. Schwartz: M Seeing that you are only addressing one side of the bank . . . . . . Larson: We at this particular point in time, we are trying to address what is in fact, I guess you could call a violation. We are attempting; to obtain a sensitive lands permit on this side. The owner currently has no plans for this side of the stream. I suppose it is conceiv- able that we may come back for some other modification for that side of the stream at some future date. It just depends on the nature of the proposed use on that side of the stream. I will say that from the calculations standpoint, we limited ourselves to this side of the stream. We didn't assume there was any need to go to the other side of the stream to abate this. That was sufficient. Schwartz: Okay, if you fill in on this side--you are putting riprap and every- thing down there to stop the erosion -- Okay, you have in fact speeded up the stream. Now across there on the other side of the stream, that is going to speed up the river or the creek on his side of the creek. How can you guarantee that you are not going to start an erosion problem on that side? -12- ,mAN,;uur r Ol' HEARLNGS OI'P I CI'.R BEAR i NG Jadc o Chemical Sc pc . 23, 1982 one answer to that is the. same owner; but 7 wouldn' t put him L�irson: h'cll , going, to speed up on that side, part in that position. If it is o ra ped also. (Something of the property would have to be rip P1 about the same owner) Schwartz' Another question T have is -- Let me finish: Ii indeed it was a danger to him, I would have Larson: but the reason for the r.ipraps is that either we pointed that out; are filling on a ? to t slope with materials that ion; we are are obtained bank, off-site and may be subject to mired to ripraP t1iis bank where we and we are also going to be req will have a new cut and will be taking the vegeto�ect. nftofthe ground. The vegetation will add some further P" erosion From the higher here-thisso eoneeto PL^te trthisPfillhfroms bank here and thissome kind of a problem downstre-am; falling into the creek, and creating and this also to maintain a configuration of this to insure that the creek will still have the carrying; capac'ity- Then the last question I have yet is, Oi;a) we have speeded up the Schwartz: ou said it is no problem. But the bridge flow through there--Y itself richt now can take so much water through it. Larson: That's right . Schwartz: Okay; at gimes now at high water it i.s right up to the top. . At the point in time when it's up against the bridge and is backfin;; Larson: is reduced, and in a scrse you have: created UP, then the velocity point to a certain degree a pond, and it's like a dam. At that p the velocity is not -- But You haves reached that point now--to take all. the fill put in Schwartz: Y ? And you there--now that's tike taking a bathtuP Of water--okay? to fill the took a big rock and put it in1timetituhastcomesdown to the bridge water level . So at the P ou said it is going to form with the bride as a pool, you havend if sal.ready displaced that much a pond that is backing ups ut in it, so that is going fill or open area with the fill that you P to raise the water level. Larson: Yes, what you are alluding to there is what in the Code is tathat lking about storage flood waters. That requires that the material amount we fill under the hundred-year floodplain be balanced by theI - we excavate. This drawing is -- I think eeti is s that the fill and [his line - but one of the conditions that we have to meet cut be balanced under that amount , so that when you are talking about the problem you are discussing of storage, i think -13- r TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER Ill'.ARINC .Iadco Chemical Sept. 23, 1982 Schwartz: Lf there is 10,00( cubic• yards of fill nut in, you have Co re'Inoue' 10,000 cubic yards? Larson: That's right. Or more. We have to at Lust balance it , and those calculations were submitted to - - Keep in mind that is the volume under the hundred-year flood elevation. The owner has hopefully fil.Led above that level, but the volume above it is not taking away from the volume that can be stored, because the water only goes this way. Now that is a condition that the city has required, that you balance the cut and fill under the floodplain, and the fact that it piles up against the bridge is probably not great for the bridge, and it is happening now; but it will abate those higher velocities. Schwartz: Where will you attempt to excavate from--from the edge of where the fill is toward the river? Larson: The intent of the staff is that a bench be provided between the toe of the fill. and the top of the cut for the compensation area; this is the area that would be used for the bike path. Schultz.: Then you won' t actually dig out any of the Floodplain--if you do, you are going, to uncover the sewer because that is not very deep there. Larson: The sewer is -- Schwartz: There is a 40 foot right-of-way on that. Larson: It is a 30 foot easement. Schwartz: 30 foot easement? Larson: And that easement goes right through here, and indeed we are Cutting over the top of it . in a check with the UnirLed Sewerage Agency, the top of their line is about elevation 112, and at this section we are cuttin-_ down to about eLevat-ion 121 . We will still have nine feet of cover according to their plan, f have not opened up the sewer to see how deep it is, but accordin^ to their plans -- Schwartz: The fill in there now, is that the extent of the fill, or will there be additional fill? Larson: It will be slightly more, and it will be monitored by the ? to assure it is not in excess of specifications. Schwartz: Now that is the normal river level there, I take it? Larson: Well , it is, more or less; yes. -14- �� ®��®oma ■sem®®��srm� � 1 TRANSCRIPT OF HLARINGS OFFICLR IILARING Jadco Chemical Soht _ 23, 1982 Schwartz : Because I drive by and look at it , and it looks like there is a couple-foot bank, and that 's almost flat right through there- Larson: Okay, you are looking at this bench. What we have done to get it all on the drawing, we have used four feet to the inch here, and 40 feet to the inch here, and so you would need to stretch this out-- it would be ten times wider in order to represent it better. This bank on this other side is not this steep, and in fact much less steep. Before we filled, it was flat out in that area. Blount: Yes, sir. Voice: (Too low to understand, but presumably a question dealing with the channel.) Larson: Well, I am not sure I can answer that accurately. The corps of Engineers cross section could bear that out. The area that it has going under the bridge is obviously smaller and the velocity is almost twice. Voice: (Concerning the depth near the bridge.) Larson: Well, I can approximate it , if that would be okay. Well, 134 to approximately 1.16 from the top of the bridge to the bottom of the channel is approximately 18 feet. Voice: - Larson: Are you asking, now this elevation? That down Onto about in here? Voice: What is the distance by your (?fill?) and the hundred-year floodplain? Larson: oh, from here to the hundred-year floodpLain? That's about in the neighborhood of 10 feet -- 9 to 10 feet - Voice: eet .Voice: . . . . . . . . . Larson: Right; we have deliberately held this excavation so that swimmer low flows will not be in this area. This stream is considered a fishery by the State Game Commission, and they have a problem with people relocating channels to any great extent. So in than applications that I have been involved with, we have sought to find ways other than to alter the stream. (Tape changed, nothing lost.) That's an approximation; I. w<jn' t prepared to answer that sort of question. Voice: Okay; well even so, even if that is an approximation, I tell you that every spring there's 18 feet of water racing underneath that bridge for days on end, and there is still a great big pond bib enough for -15- TRANSCRLPT OF HL:ARLNGS OFFICER 11EARING Jadco Chentical Sept . 23 , 1982 Voice: whatever YOU .like to do in it sliurt of driVinl; a yacht . Lf you (Cont. ) narrow that area any you are going to wash out that road because that water will go over the road because there is nothing on the road, but a sunken area on the other side and a sunken area on this , and the only reason that water doesn' t go over the road right now is because there is an area large enough to hold it. Larson: Well, but we have met the intent of the Code in that we arc storing the same amount of water, and the difference is instead of being wide and shallow it will be narrower but deeper, with the same holding capacity and the same flow character. Voice: I'll bet it washes out the road. Larson: Well, our proposal will not change the jeopardy to the road. Blount : Yes, sir; in the back? Voice 2: My property joins this gentleman's property here, and I have lived there for over 40 years, and there isn' t any erosion► in my place, and it covers about five or six acres; and as far as the water only stays up not over 24 hours. It can be -- I don't think it gets within four or five feet of the road Surface of the bridge, and then within 24 hours it's gone. I have a fence that runs right through the property there . . . . . . it is only about four feet deep. Blount: I would like toret what }•ai are saying on tape as testimony. If you have a question right now for the engineer, this i:. the proper time for it . Voice 2: A question? BLount : A question. But if you have got testimony, as soon as we are done with the engineer I would like you to conic forward and say up here what you have just said so I have got it on tape. I can' t catch it from back there.. Okay. Any more questions or the engineer right now? Yes, sir. Schwartz: (?) You are relying on going deeper for your fill. How will you guard against future sedimentation when the water . brings things down . Larson: Well, when you are talking about the silt coming down stream, you are goint- to Have an increased velocity across the whole channel, and that increased velocity will be in effect very close to the ( surface in this excavation. The silt is ;ping to be in suspension in the water. , and the water will still lie moving fast enough along the surface so that very little if any would be deposited some would be carried along. -16- TRANSCRIPT OF 1117ARINGS 01-FICER HEARING .iadco Chemical ;ept. 23, 1982 Schwartz: I would like to ask: I believe that is a county road? Is them any plans for a new bridge on that road? Larson : The Tigard Drainage Study addresses severaL bridges along Fanro Creek, and Bonita Road is one targetted for a hopeful bridge soon. I don' t think the Durham Road bridge was endorsed -- Newton: I would like to correct myself. I believe from Hall east , Durham is a state highway, I believe. Do you know? Larson: Yeah; it is. Newton: Yes, of course. It is a state highway. Schultz: . . . . (?) contacted the state on that Larson: On replacement? No, I haven't. I don' t know what the situation of f-he bridge is from the state's standpoint. CH2M drainage report "id not target the Durham Road bridge as one of the recommended ones. They targetted the North Dakota Strut bridge, and they targetted Bonita as a hopeful; but I don' tthink, according to my t. recollection, that the Durham bridge was -- Schwartz: I believe that is part of the plan, and I. believe Durham Road was one that is claimed(?) as having flood problems. ? has a map in his office that has all the bridges has a flooding problem, and 1 believe Durham was one. Newton: I don' t know that. Blount: Okay; more questions? Yes, sir. Schwartz: I. would like to know, is tris going to change the runoff in any way by putting fill in there. Will the runoff still go towards the creek, or is it ,ming to to be increased drainage, and if it does, that water from the fill down there is quite an area that would be filled. Larson: In the case of this fill, I would recommend to the owner that when he moves ahead with the building plan, that drainage be diverted here to the front , and then flow out in this direction; or if he were to go this way, that it first be collected in catch basins and a pipe rather than allow it to drain over the face of the fill. It could have some detrimental effect on the fill, although in this area drainage is not going tg be significant. The typical practice is to put in catch basins,PY rain drains in a pipe and drain it to 1 a point where it isn't going to cause any additional erosion. -17- 'rRANSChIPT OF I1rARINCS OFFICER 11F.ARINC Jadco Chemical Sept . 23, 1982 B1ounL : More questions? All ril;ht. Thank you. All right. Anyone• else wishing to speak in opposition? Speaker: I am Clifford Speaker. I have a couple of statements here, and then some observations. Blount : Are those Chinos you would like to submit in writing, or -- Speaker. : This I will_ submit in writing; I would li.ke to read it into the record. This is to Tigard Hearings Officer from the Tigard Planning Commission dated yesterday: "The Tigard Planning Commission under open agenda at its meeting on September 21, 1982 briefly discussed the Sensitive Lands Permit Application pending before you for Jado Chemical. The Commission has several concerns which were expressed by individual members. Following are the comments of those Commission members who are unable to attend the hearing on September 23, 1982. "Commissioner Bonn: Any amount of fill permitted must be offset by removal of more fill so the net effect is zero or less. "Commissioner Edin: There is not enough depth to build on this site even with the fill . I am not certain that they have formed a buildable lot. I am not happy with it , however, we can't do anything else buL support the City's Engineering staff." Chairman Tepedi.no, who is an attorney and is knowledgeable about certain things that most of us aren't: "1. The Landowner was, or should have been, on notice that he was filling in the floodplain. r 2. Ameliorative waste has occurred. The owner violated the Tigard Municipal Code by performin;; this act. I suggest that any decision by the Hearings Officer musL be in compliance with F the Tigard Municipal Code and subsections dealing with fill.. I am concerned that this filling has violated the Tigard Municipal Code. By his .act, the owner has established a precedent. We must stand against this by forcing the owner to remove the fill and then apply for a permit for consideration ti under the Ti;ard Municipal Code. We cannot allow developers to frustrate the intent of the code. "Submitted by: Clifford Speaker Planning Commissioner" e -18- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING Jadco Chemical Sept . 23, 1982 Blount : This will be marked Exhibit 3 as the T;,ga rd Planning Commission memo. Speaker: Right. Now I was at that Planning Commission meeting, and because I was going to present that they did not record what f said, but this in effect is what I commented on at that time: (Reading) "I have observed for years that nothing succeeds like a fete_ accompli.. I, like President Tepedino, do not feel that the presence of an accomplished fact should sway the Hearings Officer, the Planning Commission or the City Council from upholding the declared and very plain intent of the floodplain ordinances which have been thrashed out over a period of several years in public hearings to my personal knowledge. I feel no landowner of property in the floodplain has any excuse at this time for being unaware of the restrictions on the floodplain in the Tigard Municipal Code. Consequently I can only agree with President Tepedino when he says, 'We cannot allow developers to frustrate the intent of. the Code. "' Now I think that anybody who has followed the Planning Commission's deliberations and actions on the floodplain--and believe me, we are very sensitive to it--all they have to do is to see what we have done on The Meadows -- (To Newton) Isn't that the one down there -- e Newton: Yes. Speaker: (Continuing) -- The Meadows as an example of our resistance to any fill in the floodplain. In that case the man wanted to put a little fill at the top of the floodplain in order to get two or three tci: re building sites, and in effect we said "NO". Now what has happened since it has left us I don't know. I would say this, that had we known. that it was intended to put a building on that floodplain fill, the response would have been a resouc_:"=ng No! One other observation,: Our experience over the last several years is that residents along the creek tell us the Corps of Engineers elevations are not accurate, and I think probably you are getting at that -- aren't you? -- that ordinary floods are higher than the Engineers indicate for a 25-year or 50-year flood. Blount: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker. Speaker: Yes? Blount: First of all -- Maybe I should just make a statement. In your remarks you urged that the de facto -- the existence of the fill -- not sway my decision. I think I can assure you, as I said at the beginning, I consider neither its presence nor its absence in Y` considering the application. I will consider whether it meets the -i9- -rRANSCRIF'1' OF HEARINGS 01"1"1CLR IRARING Jadco Chemical ,;Opt- . 2'1 , 1982 Blount : ordinance. But 1 am a little concerned about what you said abouL ) the manning Commission--that you consistently approve no fill in (Cont. the floodplain. Are you saying that even if it meets the provisions ot allow [ill in the floodplain? of the ordinance, you do n Speaker No. I wouldn' t say that. But Well, I think a review of The e extent and the depth of our concern for Meadows would indicate th floodplain fill. Bount• Does your concern go farther than--as far as to ignore the engineering that he says we are not displacing any more water? I think Liz (Newton, of staff) will agree with me that Yes, inspite Speaker: oln to of engineering that says we are gonna fill Frere but we are g g excavate at least an equivalent amount and it will not change the carrying capacity or alter the stream flow wouldealmostupstream say with a downstream. We take a very ou agree with that, Liz? jaundiced eye--at that. Would y Newton: Yes. . Speaker. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposi- Blount- Thank you, Mr tion? Yes, sir. Haver My name is John Havery; 2 live at 19570 SW 76th, Tigard. I came to y: give you some historical perspective, because= I was on the initia NPO 5 who originally set up the comprehensive plan for this area, and apparently I am still presently a member, but p-rhaps the reason you didn' t hear from me before was nobody knew I was a member. When the NPO originally did this whole area for the comprehensive plan for Tigard--and I am glad to see some of the things are being followed--the Greenway, the bike paths--we intended to preserve that whole area through there, through the river area, allthee to through Tigard as a refuge for its citizens, a beautiful pl walk, where there are still wild animals in there and a variety of other things. I am not the great environmentalist as that may sound; but I do enjoy seeing the wild animals there and I would hate to see them run out by the change in the stream. There are mink back there; there are all kinds of things in that riverstill. We intend to keep it as a greenway and bike paths for the en,loymen witdue of the people, and I do believe that the engineering, respect for the education and background and experience of the that what the engineer says here thztlw engineers--I do not believe ater what will. happen here. I believe that either backing up will wash out the bridge or will wash out tile henad- one or the e other.-- in a very short time. As a matter of fact , applied to build over there, he went to the county and the county sent out letters saying, "Any objection, write a letter." I. wrote -20- 'CRANSCIZIPT UP IiEARINGS ofI-'iC1:R H1'.ARINC .ladco Chemical Sept . 23, 1982 Havery: a .letter. They told Mr. Duncan he had tO l,et me to release that (Cont.) letter before he could do anything. WeIL , Mr. _ Duncan. and I had breakfast and he told me that the county wouldn't let him build out there where he is trying to build ri,,,ht now. They made him move farther back in on 74th, and I tell you only as -- no one can prove that he said that to me, but I know he said that to me -- and he told me what a great place he was going to make it over there. He was going to clean out that .little pond, and lie was going to landscape it. He has done really none of that. There is no land- scaping there. Instead lie has cut down al.l. the trees that were between him and Durham Road. He has put thaL fill in there illegally. The place has big barrels and stuff piled al.l around his building, and truly Mr. Duncan has not been a good neighbor--either a good business neighbor or a good neighbor in any way that way. He has not bothered me other than through my eyes, towseetthe messuffers that has been made of it. And if in y y zone and those people who do live adjacent to that industrial zone, no trees and a big open expanse and a river that has perhaps changed its course--and no one has talked about the downstream or upstream implications of this fill, and I don' t know th^_m either--I am not an engineer--but 1 can tell you the NPO had an engineer on it, and one of the things that came ouL as a result of the NPU or the engi_neerinl; look at the river is that that's why we did not want the Cloodplai_n filled anywhere , because it would affect the upstream and downstream people. And I don't think Mr. Duncan cares about the upstream or downstream people--I think Mr.. Duncan cares about himself. Blount: Thank you. Anyone else speaking in opposition? Yes, sir. . Your name is -- Bledsoe: Bob Bledsoe_ Blount: Which shall I put you down as--opposition or in favor.? Bledsoe: . . ? . . . I was at the Planning Commission meeting when the state engineer presented the master storm drainage plan. I work in I would like to get in the area of engineering as a technician. flood control. The storm drainage plan for the most part advocated that Tigard is supposed to try to move the water through faster to get it out of the area so it is no longer -- move it out quicker so it wouldn't cause higher flooding levels. And this is at the bottom of the flood control area. But the aspect of the increased velocity, I think, is actually where it carne into conjunction with Tigard's --at least the city engineer's--overall proposal for handling the whoic area of the basic concept of flood control . It kind of bothered me that he only dealt with half of the stream bed study--the whole stream bed, and he relies on increased depth to handle the water through there. i am concerned, though, that under various conditions, -21- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER NEARING Jadco Chemical Sept. 23, 1482 Bledsoe: sometimes you will have a scouring loss comes out, and (Cont. other times when the water is not that high but just a little bit high, it starts sedimentation. And you see the way the stream has already formed the channel through the years, that it tends to sediment, tends to deposit sediment in that area. I think if this is approved that the applicant should have the requiremec.L to maintain that depth through dredging--there should be a bigger requirement placed on him to maintain that depth through dredging whenever the depth is no longer to the level which he is creating, if that is the course he is going to take. Blount: Thank you. Anybody else speaking in opposition? Okay. I see none. Is there any rebuttal by the proponents? Okay, I see none. I close the public portion of the hearing. Are there any other points that need clarifications--questions that haven't been answered? Okay. Under the hearing procedure I generally issue an oral opinion. I am not prepared to make an oral. opinion tonight. I want to look at the comprehensive plan section for NPO 5; I want to look at the greenway ordinances in some more depth; I want to go visit the property; I want to look at the bridge, and I want to review the engineering report once more. The applicant is entitled to an oral decision. If you want an oral decision I can set the hearing over for a week and I can give you oratorio exterogate (?) , but I can give you an oral decision at that time. In fac4. my written decision will be faster. If you wish to waive an oral decision I will have a written decision to you within ten days, or to the city within ten days. By the same token, opponents, do you wish an oral decision--look square in the eye and let me tell you what my decision is--or will you let me get by on paper, huh? j i Okay. All right. But I will file a written decision within ten days of tonight's hearing, which will be Monday, October 4. All right, that concludes tonight's hearing. Thank you. -22- 3. The Willowbrook property on Little Bull Mountain; change the current 'medium' density to ' low' density. Discussion: Little Bull Mountain has been a scenic landmark in Tigard for decades . To allow a density of up to 20 units per acre on Little Bull Mountain would be an action that NPO #6 is unwilling to accept. if construction •were to begin with a per- mitted density of 20 units per acre, local residents would view a decision by the NPO in favor of this density as misguided and incredible. In reviewing the comprehensive plan documents and past records involving this property, the following facts seem pertinent. a. During the public process^of rezoning this land from low to medium density in excess of 200 signatures of landowners in opposition were presented to City Council. NPO #6 was inac- tive at the time and did not make a formal presentation against the rezoning. However, the NPO is now active and wishes to set the record straight. b. In the Natural Features and Open Space Plan Report, Section IV.c, Natural Areas (Special Areas) , Little Bull Mountain is specifically mentioned as an area suggested by specialists for preservation. These areas were singled out for priority because of 1) their particular vegetative and wildlife values, and/or 2) their relative uniqueness . Specifically, the summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area is heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals, including deer, raccoon and pheasant. C. Natural Features and Open Space Section IV.e revealed that the Oregon State Parks System Plan considers Little Bull Mountain summit as a scenic view. d. There are plenty of higher density apartments in the Canter- bury area encroaching upon the Little Bull Mountain area already. 3. This area contains steep slopes and drainage which will mace convential building impractical. Summary: It appears that the Natural Features section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan suggests a ' low' density for Little Bull Mountain. The NPO supports this finding also. Let' s keep Little Bull Mountain a scenic area not an eyesore. F a - 1 1 February 23, 1983 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Deveiopment SUBJECT: JADCO Appeal The appeal of Jadco Chemical Ltd. concerning Hearings Officer Order Number M 2-82 was reset from the January 24, 1983 to the February 28, 1983 Council session. The purpose of the delay was to give the City time to adopt new policies relative to floodplain, floodway issues. The issues have yet to be resolved, however, at the March 2, 1983 Council meeting it is expected that Council will consider the various policy adoptions and make a choice. Once the policy is adopted, the Jadco Appeal can be heard. I have informed Mr. John A. Duncan of Jadco of this change. He has agreed to delay his appeal until a policy is in place. Staff recommendation: Reset the Jadco Appeal Number M 2-82 to March 2, 1983. ch (0051P) a r MOM pNE January 10 , 1983 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn. : Dill Monahan Confirming our phone conversation regarding change of hearing date from January 24th, 1983 to February 28th, 1983 The above date change is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, Sohn A. Duncan JADCC CHEMICAL LTD. "Specializing in Formulated Chemicals- (503)684-0044 16055 S.W.74th AVENUE PORTLAND,OR 97223 vr� c� ✓14 �i kA) _ y If wj -�& All 'Ali L af Yl 1 � •'1 ] � � sY�--A� ��L_� �-�S'13--�.�1-'�.___.,� ..,{ �d -,. C. � ._r^et -f FYY..0 �.*, . NXNPO #4 : The needed collector connection within NPO #4 are located within the Triangle Area. The adopted NPO #4 plan indicates the connections for this area that are needed to provide job access to the commercial and industrial development areas. These inner Triangle Collector links include: 1. A connection between Pacific Highway at 78th south to Dartmouth. Although the exact alignment of this collector connection has not been determined, it is anticipated the alignment will continue in a southerly direction from Pacific Highway and then east to the existing Dartmouth right-of-way. This connection will be continued to 1-5 via the proposed 1-5/Haines Road interchange. (This interchange is on the construction priority list with the Oregon Department of Transportation; however, the exact timing of this interchange is uncertain at this time) ; 2. A connection in the form of a loop road from 69th westerly to 72nd , to the Dartmouth connection, (#1 above) then south in an easterly direction to Hampton; and 3. A connection from #2 above to Atlanta to be aligned with 68th. To complete the collector system in the Triangle area, the following streets must be upgraded to minor collector standards : 68th, 69th, 70th and Franklin. NPO #5: The collector system in this area is centered around the industrial areas south of Hunziker and north of Bonita. The connections include: 1. A collector between Hunziker and Hall aligning with O'Mara at Hall ; and 2. A collector from #1 above south to Bonita, east of Fanno Creek. NPO #6 The ,continuation of Riverwood• _Lane from 92nd to 108th represents: the only J Minor .Collector connectionfrneeded in the NPO #6•' area. The City shall: encourage the assumption of jurisdiction from Washington County of Durham Road between Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway. 12. Durham Road;Durham a major arterial route between 1-5 and Pacific Highway. 3. c Az E i d e Road as a connector between 1-5 and Pacific ` Highway shall be encouraged. { t F -23- 4. Durham Road s,IT14--be improved. to 2 moving lanes of traffic with the r` ` provision for left turn movements. 5. << Truck traffic on Durham Road in excess of 30,000 pounds gross vehicle weight shall be discourage. NPO #7: Due to the lack of developed areas west of 121st Street , there are a number of collector street connections needed in the NPO #7 area. All of the collector connections would be minor collectors. These would include: 1. The extension of Springwood Drive west of 121st Street to 130th; 2. The extension of North Dakota Street west of 121st to Scholls Ferry Road; 3. The extension c. 130th from Scholls Ferry Road to 128th, and to Falcon Rise Drive; and t. 4 l February 28, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Department of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Commercial Designations C-3 and C-5 The existing zoning map generally indicates two zones along Pacific Highway (C-3 and C-5). C-3 is General Commercial and C-5 is Highway Commercial. (There are also a few isolated areas on Scholls Ferry Road, Hwy. 217 and I-5. ) The list of permitted uses for both of these zones are similar to a point that it is difficult to distinguish where the C-3 zoning areas end and C-5 areas begin. In addition, there are many existing uses within the C-3 zone that are not permitted uses or conditional uses, yet appear to be compatible with those uses that are existing conforming uses. Because of this "mixing" of uses within these two zones the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department discussed the possibility of elminating the two similar zones and create one General Commercial zone. The permitted uses of this General Commercial zone would mirror those uses currently permitted in the existing C-5 zone, which is more permissive than the C-3 zone. In addition, staff believes that the nomenclature on comprehensive plan should also be changed from C-L (Linear Commercial) to C-G (General Commercial). Linear Commercial could continue to denote a strip commercial concept, especially along Pacific Highway. Because of the continual congestion problems along Pacific Highway, staff would lire to continue to encourage shopping center developments which tend to have fewer access points onto Pacific Highway. Staff recommends that this issue should be discussed in more detail during deliberation of these Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies document. ch (0051P) Y I ~ February 28, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Department of Planning & Developmen SUBJECT: Council Requested Changes to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document. Attached are the change sheets to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Comprehensive Plan Document as requested by City Council. All of these changes made were discussed by the Council at the February 23, 1983 City Council Special Meeting. Please remove the original pages and insert the change sheets. Pm. (0051P) yl e February 28, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Department of Planning Developmen jv---� SUBJECT: Council Requested Changes to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document. Attached are the change sheets to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Comprehensive Plan Document as requested by City Council. All of these changes made were discussed by the Council at the February 23, 1983 City Council Special Meeting. Please remove the original pages and insert the change sheets. pm (0051P) An Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County regarding planning in the Tigard Urban Planning Area has been adopted. This agreement includes recognition of a Urban Planning Area boundary and related policies which are intended to: 1. Identify planning efforts for the City of Tigard and Washington County; 2. Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable to urban land; and 3. Provide a process by which the City may expand the Urban Planning Area boundary when the City, County and affected property owners find that such an extension is necessary. PLAN FORMAT Each of the first eleven Plan Sections are organized in the following manner: 1. An introductory statement including a discussion of the intent and purpose, precedes each policy; 2. Brief statements of the findings which were developed for the factual material in the comprehensive plan resource reports; 3. The policy statements and directives to the City for making decisions and preparing plans; and 4. implementation strategies which are recommendations and set forth the means for implementing the plan; i.e., the preparation of specific plans, adopting of regulations, and special study commissions. The twelfth chapter of the document contains location criteria policies which establish standards for the designation of land use areas on the plan map and in making decisions on development proposals. These policies apply to the location of housing, commercial, industrial and public utilities and facilities. The policies establish the limits within which land development will occur in Tigard over the planning period (from 1980-2000). They also provide the generalized framework upon which more detailed plans and implementation mechanisms will be based. These may include: 1. The application of the plan policies when reviewing development r requests subdivisions, planned developments, district changes, etc. T 2. The formation of land development regulations into a unified Community Development Code; 3. The establishment of a growth management sysn:em which coordinates and evaluates a wide variety of existing mechanisms for the purpose of guiding the timing, type, and location of growth; i F -2- 1.1.2 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EACH OF ITS ELEMENTS SHALL BE OPENED FOR AMENDMENTS THAT CONSIDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS OF THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT (MSD) OR ITS SUCCESSOR ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ANNUAL AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE-OPENING OF LOCAL PLANS APPROVED BY THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (LCDC). THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY LEGAL RIGHTS WHICH THE CITY I4AY HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF A REGIONAL GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PLAN PROVISION. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Development District map (Zoning) will reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manners: a. Low Density Residential - 1 to 5 units to the net acre. The applicable development districts are all single family residential (R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5) b. Medium Density Residential - 5 to 12 units to the net acre. The applicable development districts are single and multiple family (R-7 and R-12). c. Medium - High Density Residential - 12 to 20 units to the net acre. The applicable development district is R-20. d. High Density Residential - 20 to 40+ units to the net acre. The applicable development districts are R-20, and R-40. e. Neighborhood Commercial - Areas of concentrations of small commercial and personal service activities and related uses necessary to satisfy the daily shopping and related needs of nearby residents. The applicable development district is Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). f. Linear Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located along major trafficways. The applicable development districts are General Commercial (C-G) and Highway Commercial (C-H). g. Professional Office Commercial - Areas deemed appropriate for business and professional offices and related uses. The applicable development district is Professional and Administrative Office (C-P). h. Central Business District - The area deemed appropriate for high intensity mixed use development allowing commercial, office, as well as higher density residential uses of a minimum of 20 units pet acre or higher. The applicable development districts are, the Central Business District (CBD) and the T.U.R.A. Special District which limits residential uses to 12 units per acre. -7- ssd�ga mt m s �m-ii� i. Light Industrial - Refers to areas deemed appropriate for industrial activities which include manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging or treatment of products from previously prepared materials and which are devoid of nuisance factors that would adversely affect other properties. The appropriate development districts are Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial Park (I-P) which also permitted offices and related uses. j. Heavy Industrial - Those areas deemed appropriate for intensive manufacturing, process, or assemble semi-finished or finished products, including fabrication, and whose operating characteristics are potentially incompatible with most other land uses. k. Public/Institutional = Refers to areas deemed for municipal uses, school uses or other public uses, e.g. , Durham Treatment Plant. 1. Open Space - Areas designated for retention in a natural state and for development for recreational uses, e.g. , floodplain, parks, etc. 2. The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved if the City Council finds: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; or b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or C. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. 3. Functional master plans shall be prepared and implemented in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code. 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT This chapter addresses Statewide Planning Goal #1: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Tigard is now well known for its active citizen participation program; primarily with the Neighborhood Planning Organizations. Through the drafting and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, these organizations contributed their time and energy developing Tigard's plan. -8- I levels. Often, however, water courses are altered to provide more usable land. The resultant adverse impacts are detrimental to the entire drainage system. i.e. , the storage capacity at the water course is lessened and flooding occurs. o Besides the basic need to control development in flood prone areas, it was found that public knowledge of floodplain hazards was lacking. Many of the obstructiono previously placed in the floodplain were the result of either ignorance or overly optimistic attitudes about potential flooding problems. These obstructions (e.g. Main Street Bridge) hinder the flow of high water and tend to increase flood levels. o Proper administration of the floodplain areas relies heavily upon the availability of adequate information upon which to assess the environmental impacts of a project. The development, which creates the need, should be responsible for providing the City with the necessary data for making sound decisions. The burden is on the applicant to prove that a project will not adversely affect the environment or create undue future liabilities for the City. o The City of Tigard, with assistance from The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has established an area designated within the 100-year floodplain. o The City of Tigard has been accepted as an eligible area for the National Flood Insurance Program, and as a result flood insurance will be available to property owners in flood prone areas. The federal program, however, requires the City to adopt an ordinance which meets certain federal standards. o The City of Tigard currently has ordinances, policies and standards within the Tigard Community Development Code which provide adequate controls for development within floodplain areas. o According to the 1981 Drainage Master Plan Study conducted by CH2M Hill for the City, flood levels of two to four feet higher than the existing 100-year flood plain may be expected if no corrective measures are taken. (POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO BE INSERTED) 3.3 NATURAL RESOURCES FINDING o Currently, there are extensive rock and gravel extraction areas located to the north and west of Tigard's planning area within Beaverton and Washington County. i o There is one active mineral or aggregate resource within the Tigard Planning Area, known as the Durham Pits, which is operated by Washington S County. POLICY 3.3.1 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEAVERTON AND THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT TO ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ROCK MINERAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1. The City shall encourage those jurisdictions regulating rock extraction to closely monitor the relationship between the demand for the resource and the amount of land planned for rock and gravel extraction and processing. 3.4 NATURAL AREAS FINDINGS o There are a variety of plants, animals and water fowl with the Tigard planning area which greatly add to the quality of life within the community. o Each species requires a complex and often, a narrowly specific set of conditions with respect to food, water, and vegetative cover or other natural features necessary for escape and reproduction. i o The significant plant communities and animal habitat areas are the i riparian vegetation adjacent to the water resources in the community, and various stands of timber and brush. I o Development adjacent to existing wildlife areas can adversely effect these t areas and 3_n some instances can virtually eliminate these needed wildlife i habitat areas. I o Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. i Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound, and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment. ' POLICIES i i 3.4.1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE THE FOLLOWING AS AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT i ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. a. SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS; b. AREAS HAVING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH VALUE, SUCH AS GEOLOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT LANDS; AND C. AREAS VALUED FOR THEIR FRAGILE CHARACTER AS HABITATS FOR PLANTS, ANIMAL OR AQUATIC LIFE, OR HAVING ENDANGERED PLANT OR ANIMAL SPECIES, OR SPECIFIC NATURAL FEATURES, VALUED FOR THE NEED TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS. 3.4.2 THE CITY SHALL: i a. PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS BY MANAGING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND CONTROLLING EROSION, AND BY REQUIRING THAT AREAS OF STANDING TREES AND NATURAL VEGETATION ALONG NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AND WATERWAYS BE MAINTAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE; -15- Autinutm o Although Scheckla Park has not been accepted by the Park Board, the land was dedicated to the City for park purposes. o Due to recent cut-backs in revenues to the City, the City has substantially limited its park maintenance program. o The City's Park System Development Charge is acquired through new development and is used solely for park acquisition, development or major capital acquisition. Park maintenance is paid for through the City's general fund. POLICIES 3.6.1 INDIVIDUAL PARK SITES, AS DEFINED BY THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES: a. FACILITIES WITHIN A PARK WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) DISTRICT RESIDENTS AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE. PARK AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN GREATEST DEMAND AND LEAST SUPPLY SHOULD RECEIVE THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES. b. PARKS SHOULD BE PLANNED TO INSURE MAXIMUM BENEFIT TO THE GREATEST NUMBER OF LOCAL RESIDENTS. FOR THIS REASON, ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY LEVEL PARKS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. C. DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WILL HAVE A LOWER PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC FUNDING AND ARE ENCOURAGED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. d. NEW MINI PARKS HAVE THE LOWEST DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AND SHOULD BE SUPPLIED AT THE DEVELOPER'S OR NEIGHBORHOOD'S EXPENSE AND MAINTAINED BY A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CREATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. e. PROVISION OF REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL PROJECT; AND SHOULD HAVE A IOW PRIORITY UNLESS UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE. f. ACCEPTANCE OF ANY LAND DEDICATED FOR PARK PURPOSES SHALL BE BASED UPON ITS USEFULNESS AND ADAPTABILITY TO THE ADOPTED PARK AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. 3.6.2 THE CITY SHALL COORDINATE WITH OTHER PUBLIC, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND AFFECTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED PARK PLANS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall continue to seek revenue sources to facilitate in the implementation of the adopted park plans. The adopted park plans are: This chapter addresses the Statewide Planning Goal #10: "To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state." The plan policies focus on five basic areas: 1) Housing needs ; 2) Housing costs; 3) Established residential areas; 4) Housing condition; and 5) Urban Expansion. Detailed information concerning housing in Tigard is available in the "Comprehensive Plan Report: Housing." 6.1 HOUSING NEEDS FINDINGS a The residential housing in Tigard has been developed as 55.6% single family detached dwellings, 42.7% attached units, and 1.7% manufactured homes. o The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum' of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies- to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. o The rapid increase in housing and land cost over the last several years has excluded many households from obtaining suitable housing to meet their needs. o Many of the households that do not desire or are unable to afford conventional single family detached dwellings rely on the rental market or attached dwellings to meet their housing needs. o The rapidly changing housing market will require the City to periodically reevaluate its housing and land use objectives to provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the needs of future residents. o Approximately 19 percent of the households in Tigard are inhabitated by senior citizens. t o Undue concentrations of public assisted or subsidized housing serves to isolate the recipients of such housing from the mainstream of the community, its full range of basic services and the diversity of its neighborhoods. For this reason, the city should take steps to disperse such housing within individual neighborhoods and throughout the City itself. POLICIES 6.1.1 THE, CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. -31- i the Comprehensive Plan. The CIP shall emphasize the policies of provision of needed services in established districts and hose areas passed over by urban development. 9. The City shall cooperate with Washington County and all special districts share in the exchange of information on planning actions which have interjurisdictional impacts. Ample opportunity for review and comment shall be given prior to final action by a city, county or special district policy making body on a matter of mutual concern. 10. The City and County will negotiate the existing Urban Planning Area f agreement which responds to the needs of both the City and County. POLICY 10.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES 10.1 AND 10.2 AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 10.3.2 THE CITY SHALL DISCOURAGE' EXPANSION OF THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN IRREGULAR PLANNING AREA AND INEFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. 11. SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN The purpose of this chapter is to address those areas within each Neighborhood Planning Organization that are of special concern to each particular area. This chapter is divided by Neighborhood Planning Organization. The subsequent policies address a broad range of issues and relate directly to the main Citywide policies in Chapters 1-10. The larger, bold number adjacent to each policy refers to the City-wide policy of Chapters 1-10- 11.1 Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 A. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FINDINGS o The downtown area contains a broad mix of land uses, meeting the needs of many people within the planning area. o A major concern of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain existing business in the downtown area, and expand the economic potential of the downtown area. i -67- ® o The Central Business District is the major commercial area in the planning area, and it provides professional, governmental, financial, and cultural services. It also provides entertainment and open space. o The City of Tigard has an adopted Tigard Urban Revitalization Area (T.U.R.A.) plan for the downtown area. o To successfully operate as a unified area, a Central Business District needs to: a. Be compact; b. Have ease of access to all facilities; C. Have a broad cross section of appropriate commercial uses; d. Have adequate free parking in proximity to shopping; and o The Tigard downtown area is effectively served by mass transit facilities. POLICY 11.1.1 THE REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ORDER TO MAKE IT COMPLEMENTARY TO NEWER SHOPPING AREAS. CONVENIENCE, APPEARANCE AND THE NEEDS OF THE SHOPPING PUBLIC SHOULD BE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall continue to implement the adopted Tigard Urban Revitalization Area (T.U.R.A.) Plan in accordance with the City's economical capabilities. 2. The City shall coordinate and cooperate with the private sector to promote their participation in the implementation of the T.U.R.A. plan. B. ASH AVENUE FINDINGS o The extension of Ash Avenue is expected to increase traffic from the downtown area to the adjacent neighborhood; thus potentially increasing +, the adverse impacts upon the adjacent neighborhood. E o Improvements to adjacent street, e.g. Hill, O'Mara, etc. can alleviate traffic impacts on Ash Avenue. i POLICY 11.2.1 ASH AVENUE SHALL BE EXTENDED ACROSS FANNO CREEK, E14ABLING ACCESS , TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS COMMERCIAL AREA WITHOUT USING PACIFIC HIGHWY. DESIGN FEATURES SHALL BE USED TO SLOW TRAFFIC AND MAKE THE STREET AS -68- SAFE AS POSSIBLE. ASH AVENUE SHALL BE DESIGNATED A MINOR COLLECTOR IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER STREET PLAN. DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL HOLD TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO THE MIDDLE LIMITS OF A MINOR COLLECTOR. 11.2.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W. ASH AVENUE FROM S.W. HILL TO FANNO CREEK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR COMMERCIAL SITE WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC ON ASH. A BARRICADE SHALL BE PLACED AT HILL STREET APPROXIMATELY AT THE END OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS FROM THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. 11.2.3 METHODS OF MITIGATING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHALL INCLUDE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION: a. IMPROVING S.W. MCDONALD STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH OF MCDONALD TO USE MCDONALD TO EXIT TO HALL AND/OR PACIFIC HIGHWAY. b. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF ASH FROM HILL TO FREWING. THESE IMPROVEMENTS COULD INCLUDE LIMITED PARKING, DELINEATION OF TRAFFIC LANES AND SIDEWALKS ON ONE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. C. THE EXTENSION OF S.W. HILL TO S.W. O'MARA AND/OR THE IMPROVEMENT OF S.W. ASH FROM FREWING TO GARRETT. d. THE EXTENSION OF S.W. O'MARA TO S.W. HILL PARALLEL TO S.W. ASH. e. REMOVAL OF THE BARRICADE IN PLACE ON ASH AVENUE AT S.W. HILL. f. IMPROVEMENT OF S.W. O'MARA STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE STAND'�ADS TO ENCOURAGE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE. g. INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC INHIBITORS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF ASH IF AND WHEN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXCEED THE MIDDLE RANGE FOR A MINOR COLLECTOR. TRAFFIC INHIBITORS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO PLANTING ISLANDS, SPEED BUMPS, BUTTONS, TURNING RESTRICTIONS, LOAD LIMITS AND ENFORCEMENT. 11.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #3 Many of the older residential neighborhoods in NPO #3 were developed along country roads that were lightly traveled, but which are now more heavily traveled. Some of this increased traffic results from local development, and some of it is through traffic which must use these roads since no arterial route has been built. Further increased in traffic, and consequent widening of these roads, may adversely impact the quality of the residences along these roads. This is particularly the case with 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street, which have right-of-ways of 40 to 50 feet that are offset in some places. -69- i The comprehensive plan for NPO #3, adopted by the City of Tigard in 1975, supported and implemented the conclusions of Carl Buttke, the consulting engineer who performed the traffic studies for the various NPOs. These conclusions were that 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street should be developed as two lane roads limited to a total of 30 feet "to avoid motorists from forming a third land, but providing sufficient roadway width for turning vehicles." The 1975 plan included provisions for these roads to have pedestrian-bicycle paths, and to have restrictions on parking. Also, low densities were planned for the neighborhoods serviced by these streets ; one reason was to avoid further overloading of these streets with additional traffic resulting from higher densities. The City of Tigard, in the 1975 plan for NPO #3, opposed a proposed Murray Boulevard Extension through NPO #3. It has been the opinion of bath the City and the local residents that the Murray Boulevard Extension to Pacific Highway should be located to the west of Bull Mountain. Completion of this arterial linkage could remove much of the through traffic from what should be neighborhood collector streets. FINDINGS o The development along most - of the collector streets in NPO #3 is predominantly low density residences which are in good condition. o The present right-of-way along much of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde street is 40 to 45 feet wide, with offsets in some places. Widening these f streets to major collector standards would impact some of the existing homes on these streets. o Some of the traffic now using S.W. 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street is not local, but rather through traffic, which could be better provided for by a properly located arterial connection between Murray Boulevard and Pacific Highway. o Future development on the land along 121st and Gaarde will add to the I traffic volumes on those streets. o S.W. Gaarde Street and S.W. 121st Avenue south of Walnut both have many uncontrolled access points; this condition will require special design attention when street improvements are made. o A direct connection between Murray Boulevard, or Scholls Ferry Road, and Gaarde Street and/or 121st Avenue has been proposed many times in the i past. A direct arterial connection proposal was considered in detail ;.-n the 1975 NPO #3 Plan and was emphatically rejected by the City of Tigard. It has also been rejected by the current NPO #3. POLICY 11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT AFFECT S.W. 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. -70- a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND i 2. NOISE IMPACTS. j b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS. C. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREET AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. 11.3.2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCROLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. S.W. Gaarde Street and S.W. 121st Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall be developed as two-lane roads with pedestrian bicycle paths, restricted f parking and left turning lanes as needed at congested intersections. i l 2. The undeveloped land along S.W. 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall be planned for development in accordance with the locational criteria policies that apply to locating medium and higher densities close to arterials and in accordance with the policies for "Established" and "Developing" areas. 1 3. The Tigard Community Development Code shall require site design review for any development other than a single or two family structure. The site I design review shall include review of street right-of-way and pavement location. 11.5 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 FINDINGS I o As Tigard has continued to develop the locational advantages associated I with the the i-5 freeway, Highway 217 and the two railroad lines traversing the area have led to a considerable amount of office and industrial development along 72nd Avenue, south of Highway 217. o The established res<dential area abutting the industrial area in NPO #5 has been adversely affected by the individual use, due to increased smoke, noise, odor or visual pollution. o The polution of existing vegetation and trees, and the planting of trees, provide an excellent means to both separate and buffer residential areas from industrial areas. These vegetative buffers exist along the western -71- 12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA INTRODUCTION This section contains locational criteria policies with respect to: o Housing o Commercial uses o Offices o Industry o Public utilities and facilities The policies and locational criteria apply to both legislative and quasi-judicial land use actions. Conformance of quasi-judicial land use actions with this section of the Comprehensive Plan shall be determined by evaluation of the relationships between the proposed action (e.g. , zone change, conditional development) and the applicable locational criteria. The applicable criteria are determined by the scale of the proposal, measured according to the scale standards found in the charts which follow. It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance of the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan should vary with the degree of change and impact on the community: the more drastic the change and the greater the impact, the more strictly the criteria should be construed. 12.1 RESIDENTIAL The allowed housing types will be determined by the locational criterias, allowed densities and Community Development Code provisions related to each zoning district. POLICY 12.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH: a. THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. b. THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. C. THE APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS. 4 -73- (2) Access (a) The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, i number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in the zone. i (b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following: I : i i (i) An arterial. i (ii) A collector street which will not direct traffic through local neighborhood streets. (3) Site Characteristics. The site shall be of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not i interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 2. Linear Commercial Linear Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses classified as linear commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Varies -78- (2) Site Size. Depends on development. (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street.- (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or r general area. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 3. Professional Office Commercial Professional Office Commercial areas are intended for a diverse range of office uses and supportive uses; and to promote user convenience throughout ` the City. -79- A. Scale (1) Trade area. Varies (2) Site size. Varies (3) Gross leasable area. Varies B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The Comprehensive Plan map fixes exact boundaries of the professional office commercial area. (b) The professional office commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed use or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected needs. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. (c) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES i 1. The Community Development Ordinance shall: i a. Include a neighborhood commercial district, a general commercial ` district, a highway commercial district, and a professional office commercial district area. -80- March 2, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Department of Planning & Development SUBJECT: Home Builder's Alternative Densities Proposal Attached is a copy of the Portland Home Builder's Alternative Densities proposal. At this point, staff has not had adequate time to discuss this alternative with the Home Builders. We request that adoption of the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies be delayed until March 7, 1983 to allow additional time for staff, CCI, and Home Builder discussion. We believe that this proposal has merit. We anticipate that representatives will present their alternative in more detail at tonight 's Council meeting. f pm �i (0051P) all M HOME 3UILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND THE HOUSING CENTER March 1, 1983 Ci T Y OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. During the 1970' s the City of Tigard went through a period of very healthy changes as its percentage of home ownership went from 44. 7% in 1970 to 50. 5% in 1980. During the same period of time the City' s mix of single-family to multi-family housing type changed from 47 . 9% single family in 1970 to 55. 6% single family in 1980. The Washington County Chapter of the Portland Metropolitan Home Builders has proposed its alternative to the density designations put forward by the plan- ning Commission because we believe that the proposed plan will reduce the opportunity for home ownership and reverse the healthy trend in home ownership in Tigard. Unfortunately this will occur at the very time that demographic information available to our Association pro- jects a strong increase in the demand for home ownership during the 1980' s "baby boom" generation. As proposed to the City Council, the plan could result by the year 2000 in an increase in multiple family to over 570 of the City' s housing stock. Based on our most optimistic projection for ownership of multi-family units , this well result in approximately 52% of the community' s housing stock being rental housing. This will occur because the proposed plan suggests that only large lot in-fill develop- ment occur in the "established" areas , while a belt of multi-family housing encircles the City in the developing areas. The association' s demographic information demonstrates that such a pattern of development and mixture of housing types is clearly ill-advised in the face of the growing demand for owner-occupied housing projected for the 1980 ' s . Moreover, the projected mix of housing for Tigard of almost 8000 multi-family units to only 4800 single family homes runs directly contrary to the desires of home buyers for a smaller, smarter, more affordable single family home. Mr. Fredrick J. Napolitano, 1981 President of the National Association of Home Builders, in an article entitled "Housing in the 80' s - a Quiet Revolution" , made the following points in discussing housing trends and home builders responses to them, which we urge the council carefully consider in reviewing our proposal. 1. It has been known for years that the 1980' s would require a major readjustment in housing to accommodate the 41 million Americans who would reach age 30, the prime first- time home buying age, sometine during the decade. 2. These new home buyers are molded by a recent history of conspicuous prosperity, cyclical but increasingly longer business downturns, fuel scarcity and inflation. If the home buyers of the 1950' s shaped by two decades of depression and war , could be characterised as people k �MW (2) f` testing and expanding their housing boundaries , the buyers of the 80' s will be people learning to live within them. 3 . Demographically, the American home buyer will have changed markedly in one generation. In 1960 fully 43% of wives were full-time home makers, by the end of the 1980 ' s only 14% of women will not be working full or part time to support their families. Married couples will account for only 17% of all new household formations between 1975 and 1990 compared with 41% from 1960-1975. Furthermore, almost two-thirds of all 1990 households will be without children under 15 years old. 4. The homebuilding industry' s economists project that, when housing finally does rally from its worst economic down- turn since the depression_, the upper middle class home that created an investment bulge in the market during the 1970' s and was the biggest casualty of the recent downturn, is likely to trail far behind. In light of these trends the survivors in the homebuilding industry are charting the following course - First, the size of new homes will decline to suit the needs of America' s family. Second, to deal with the long term trend of increasing costs for energy, new homes will be more energy efficient through innovative site design, efficient heating systems and concentration of insulation. Third, and most important, while new home prices have Increased 194% during the 19701s , while land costs on the average increased 268%. To deal with that rise, more housing will be built on less land, because by the begin- ing of the 1980' s land which had contributed 1/5 of the cost of a new home in 1970 constituted 1/4 of the cost of a new home. The Housing-Comprehensive Flan Report prepared by the City of Tigard demonstrates that the same trends hold true for Tigard. Combined with the housing preference information and the land use control in- formation attached as exhibits to this memo, the report demonstrates the illogical and potentially regressive land use course that the proposed plan set Tigard on. In essence, we believe zoning the majority of the land area for large lot homes is neither practical nor affordable for today' s home buyer. It will result in a deterioration of Tigard' s position as a desireabie community for home ownership opportunities vis-a-vis other adjacent communities. The most important statistic regarding the housing type preferred by home buyers is found on the attached chart marked Exhibit A. (All the attached charts are copies taken from a recent publication pre- pared by Professional Builders Magazine entitled "Smaller, Smarter, NUNN - -- Mill (3) More Affordable" ) , that demonstrates that even for first time home buyers , the preference is for a single family home. This again is supported by the Housing Report (page 24) . The problem for those first time home buyers, as demonstrated by the charts labeled Exhibits B and C, is affordability. The same conclusion can be drawn from statistics on the cost of housing at pages 26-37 of the Housing Report. The most telling statistic regarding the issue of increased density in low density areas is found on page 37 which shows that better tnan 50% of total estimated demands will be for homes which can be produced on 7500 to 5000 square foot lots which the Home Builders believe should be permitted within low density areas. A careful analysis of those statistics will also demonstrate that homes in this price range meet the needs of the people who, a few short years ago bought the homes in Tigard developed on 15,000 square foot lots. What are the implications for Tigard of creating density designations that limit the development of the smziller, more affordable single- family home on 7500 to 5000 square foot lots? First it will aggravate an already serious situation in land prices. Within the Portland Metropolitan area prices on land in con-nunities which allow such development are bid up to acquire this land. Exhibit #1 shows how the urban growth boundary concept has driven up land prices in the Eugene area. Of course, the same dynamic is at work in this area. If Tigard adopts the proposed plan a further cost factor will be introduced; that is, the land designated for High Density development may well be priced too high to permit development since experience has shown that except in specialized housing, development in the suburban Portland area is not feasible at over 24 units to the acre. More importantly the plan as shown will result in a decrease in Tigard' s position vis-a-vis other communities in terms of the amount of development which will occur. While some people will say that' s just fine, Exhibit #2 demonstrates that in and of itself the con- struction of housing has tremendous beneficial economic implications for a community. Moreover, it is obvious that businesses base their decision to locate in a community on the availability of a wide and complete range of housing. The attached Exhibit #3 demonstrates even more clearly this fact, as it shows that communities which adopt restrictive devices definitely do lose out to nearby communities which avoid them. The implications of this factor are especially important when one remembers that Beaverton, the community most similarly situated to Tigard, allows 5000 square foot lots in its Urban Standard Density Zone. Beaverton' s reason for doing this is set forth in its comprehensive plan: "This is specifically to induce a greater variety of housing types or other approaches which reduce construction costs -through smaller lot sizes , presumable at lower costs and at a higher density. A change to allow 5000 square feet per dwelling unit density should occur only upon demonstration that adequate public facilities are available and capable of serving the increased densities" . Ultimately the City of Tigard' s decisions to provide the possibility for 5000 square foot lots in low density areas and to reduce the numbers permitted in the high density zone must stand or fall on its (4) effect on the Buildable Land Inventory and LCDC' s requirement that ` Tigard must provide for 10 dwelling units per acre on its vacant buildable land. When we made our proposal we recognized this would be our greatest hurdle. However, the current proposal unreal- istically assumes that all land zoned R-7 , permitting 5000 square foor lots , will be taken through a PD process to build attached housing at 12 units to the acre. Although We were faced with this obstacle the attached exhibits demonstrate that our proposal will work and in fact produce a slightly better unit per acre count. (10. 13 units per acre) Our proposed revision to the density ranges requires minimal changes to the plan and zoning maps. It provides realistic opportunities for the type of housing Tigard wants - single-family detached - to be built at costs which match the public' s ability to pay. It meets the LCDC requirements on density and housing mix. We respectfully ask the Council to adopt it. Sincerely, Kevin L. Hanway Gary Reid Staff Attorney Chmn. Washington County Chapter John Gibbon Washington County Chapter Member f 1U N l0 co A 1 kO I�w O N H N N m r1 N x a M LO U] 1-1 N cr O 1 w o ch LO co a x - A N z of ul O rz Q E-4 z H H ::3U -r-1 O A rL3 o r-I rn U) ri M I— U) tp M ON m M m W r i —i LO N Cl) W W r-q ON aLn r-t A FC N M o F-I co ko co GA `J CD Ln Ol Cb I Ul t11 N M ON I— O M .--i x4J N U] ul � En U +i Fy' t!) •rl A 4) aM kD � o z (1) U I lO r-I aN r-I r� fd RS r-i r-I N clf rtf S 1 -u -r' N �4 O O N E E FG 134 N t!) fs � U N +3 U � U W 4J 4-1 m p .-I 04 A I o - — - i . J111A11111fflillMIR i Family size affects price range of house i , iPotential buyers would consider �n The price respondents would consider shows relation of household size to paving for a home is affected by a the price range considered.As a number of fuctor9--income,family group,the average price respondents size and region of residence.Table would pay for a house is 857,7 10. House price range.%respondents Total 1 2 3-4 5- f`1 Under 535,000 10% 1% 8% 15% 23% I $35.000-539,999 12 6 10 16 20 540,000-$44,999 9 7 15 7 6 $45,000-$49,999 14 14 13 14 15 $50,000-$59.999 20 26 20 19 9 t 560,000-$69,000 14 14 15 12 15 $70,000-$84,999 9 16 7 7 3 ` r $85.000 or over 12 16 12 10 9 Despite price tags, interest rates and Potential first-tithe buyers dream Those who have looked at homes inflation, potential first-time buyers cling to of house located in rural area are turned off by high prices the American Dream of a single-family detached house.There are, however, more potential buyers interested in attached Almost half of the respondents would Survey respondents who have visited housing in the first-time market than in the prefer their house to be.located in a new model homes recently have been general home-buying market surveyed by rural area,but the suburbs are still discouraged most by the high prices the recent PBconsumer survey. the top choice of a substantial and poor workmanship.Few number. complained about sales tactics. Location preference.%respondents Discouraging factors,%respondents Suburbs In-Town Rural Units too expensive 48.9% East 44% 15% 41% Poor workmanship 21.5 l Central 39 19 42 Units too small 13.4 South 30 23 47 Salespeople who avoid first-time shoppers 5.3 West 28 17 55 Hard sell tactics 4.0 Total 36 18 46 Have not shopped recently 33.8 127 rr - a t 'r t y-+K 5 I P ht �.,, �tl�R��1�tiPtli;�gjLsEt8tiC$�Ofj6 ,r.r-�, .> b�lali9: ^+„ a 77"- 71 s ?. > .. i 4. fpI 1 II I AhL A- AM r - 5 r i i x _ _ The average maximum monthly payment Household size affects how budget would be respondents to the survey say they can afford is$409.That average monthly adjusted in order to finance a new home payment could finance a house costing anywhere from$35,889 to$58,125, Respondents realize they would hale cut rack on entertainment, clothes depending on the mortgage interest rate to make sacrifices in order to afford and vacations. But large families and the down payment required. a new home. All would would need an additional income. i Budget adjustments. respondents !1 Household size(#of persons) ! Total 1 2 3-4 5+ Cut back on entertainment 49% 57% 58% 39% 21910 Cut back on vacations 39 44 46 29 24 Other sacrifices 26 24 26 28 29 Cut back on clothes purchases 26 28 30 23 12 Add second or part-time job 22 17 23 23 32 Wife would get a job 18 4 18 28 35 Would postpone starting family 8 5 16 3 3 None 12 17 9 12 9 125 v �;f 1 s What happens to land,housing costs and density when a boundary is drawn Building permit totals show upward trend in last 3 years Building permits for Lane County. Eugene and Springfield show an Price of raw land,suitable for building $5000 $25.000- upward movement in last three years. $30,000 Single- Apt. family Duplexes units Total IDeveloped building lots within city F .? _E S7uo0 s .y. $27,000 1974 1284 234 788 2306 I 1975 133t 246 359 1936 1976 538 352 596 2756 ! Density of housing units per acre 3.2(approx.) 4.91 I 1977 2662 624 919 4205 1978 2759 644 866 4269 1 1979^ 1342 274 461 2077 Trend is upward in these categories listed for the 7972 to 1979period 'Through September Figures in table above are for Eugene. Housing and land costs were drawn from budder So.•ce L,e e Corr, Ho• e 5;,;ne•s sources. Population and density figures are from the.Lane Council of Governments " x 0- Household increase Rate of growth Size of households in all three areas expected to ease off shows steady decline Households in Lane County,Eugene Projections of Lane County popula- Size of households in Lane County. and Springfield have shown a steady tion show a long-term decline in the Eugene and Springfie!d have shown a „rease in 1974-78 period. growth rate by 2000. steady decline from 1974-78 Lane Co. Eugene Springfield Population 5-Year Annual Lane Co. Eugene Springfield at end of growth growth 1974 83.300 34,900 12.600 period rate rate 1974 2.87 2.73 2.82 1975-80 262.800 .8.911. 1.8% 1975 85.700 35.700 13.100 1975 2.82 2.68 2.73 1980-85 292.500 11.3 2.2 1976 88.100 36.300 13,200 1976 2.82 2.67 2.73 1985-90 323.000 10.4 2.0 1977 90.800 37.000 13.300 1990-95 352.000 9.2 1.8 1977 2.79 2.65 2.71 1978 93.900 38.400 13.800 1995-00 379.500 7.6 1.5 1978 2.77 2.63 2.69 Sc 'Iceu••e-pec:�'e•G.,,v'. So::r .. Lcr,E C c,i G. ._ -.r,• : =••• Eugene-Springfield M6 ",v Area ,er ....... Adopted 1990 Plan Urban Service Area Boundary • ' Urban Growth Boundary: 1990-2000 Source-Lane Council of Governments 195 f 1 Growth Limit Costs Davis 744 Housing Units In 1978 Alone Units 1200 _ :�'L"`- - "i .moi -1:T:i - _... - ' .-..• Chart at left compares actual permits issued in Davis.Calif with hypothetical number that f Potential { would have been issued without restrictions Housing i In 1978 for example 355 permits were actu- 1 I 900 -•--- ' = -- ally issued Without restrictions.and following ' a growth pattern similar to the rest of the Illi western United States.a total of 1129 permits t would have been issued The difference- 774 fference- 774 units—represents an unrealized 600 housing market Hypothetical projection starts from a repre- sentative market base.i e .average number Actual of permits issued annually in Davis from Permits 1970-1974 Figures for 1975-1978 follow ac- 300 { tual Western region growth pattern.i e the i 1975 1976 1877 1978 percent change in regional permits issued each year from 1975 to 1978 starting from a Source Dav;s Commu-wy Develocment Department Construct on Rerorts PB oroter�.ens similar five-year-average market base Table at center far left assigns a total eco- Impact of lost units Single-family housing allocations nomic value to the unrealized 1978 housing on the economy is enormous in Davis show steady decline market in Davis(see color charrt) Unit total of 774 is divided into single-family and multifam- Housing units lost 774 Units Units ily segments(based on average Davis mix in Davis in 1978: allocated from 1975-78) Each segment is then multiplied Single-family portion 511 by economic impact figures developed by the Multifamily portion 263 National Association of Home Builders These April 1975 387 Total economic impact: allow for wages.taxes.material and furnish- 1000 single-family homes 5100.626.000 ing purchases directly generated by new con- 1000 multifamily units 50,400.000 August 1975 549 struction as well as indirect spending of those funds by builders and merchants involved Impact of lost September 1975 304 single-family units: p The result—an astounding 569 8 million- 511 x$110.626.000/1000= S 56,529.886 is a stiff price to pay for isolation October 1977 266 Impact of lost Allocation of single-family housing units in multifamily units: Davis(table center left)has steadily declined 263 x S50.400.000/1000= S 13,255.200 October 1978 164 Y since the first allocation in 1975 Allocations Total impact on the economy S 69.785.086 Sou,ce Da. Cc......L,•.,., D,,,,,,cr,.,.eoverlap since each covers a three-year time Source NAHB PB arolect,or,s Deo,ar ^' span The 164 units allocated to October 1978 for example.are for the years 1979-81 New housing, however limited. rises in Davis. Calif.. where an allocation system determines the number of new units to come on stream in the city's growth plan. :.0-�_ � BMs._.._... � • ^. .. ��4,r +`•- ::±:-::=fit._ -� �,_.._-. t :. _. _:•:.,--�_�_ °' •: 201 Growth,building activity beat a nasty retreat to nearby towns Permit pattern shows Petaluma falling behind i From 1974 to October 1979 Santa Rosa issued 7472 total permits.while Petaluma issued only 1579 1 Petaluma Santa Rosa f Single-Family Population I (1979) 31,923 75,200 +136% 1974 204 788 ( I 1975 192 758 ' 1976 89 7089 - 1977 414 1113 Single-family permits 1978 188 890 (1974-78 totals) 1,087 4,638 +327 1979- 216 757 1 Multifamily 1974 148 782 t Multifamily permits 1975 11 216 (1974-78 totals) 257 1,929 +651% 1976 16 298 f 11977 62 352 t 1978 20 281 To avoid growth restrictions in Petaluma.builders have shifted much of their attention to Santa 1979- 19 148 t Rosa and other nearby towns Santa Rosa is somewhat larger than Petaluma(136 percent) Yet in the number of building permits issued.it s a virtual grant compared to Petaluma i =' Builders refuse to operate in t an atmosphere of restriction Petaluma has an annual allocation of �— 600 units But most units allocated do not get built 1 (— Annual Actual Of iallotment permits quota 1974 600 352 58.710 r- i 1975 600 202 33.7 VA v 1976 600 105 17.5 1977 600 476 79.3 1978 600 208 34.7 V- City of Petaluma,Calif.Zoning Map \ ❑ Low-density single-family Q Medium-density single-family 9 High-density single-family Multifamily PUDs Commercial industrial other Source City of Petaluma City Clerk 203 ®JB INC. 11515 S.W. 91ST AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 U.S.A. (503} 639-2900 F ,„ %,, 25, 7983 fL-V,'[? DIEL7VE2ED 23, 1983 A2 -to 4e da6"xz' e .ta Coun'U Caws-r-a me-at n- an [)a—Leh 2, 1983 CE.t,,T Counc.-I-L CL&-i a/_' T t.�a�ul .c/a %xk'- n n. e,^� 12755 S. fJ.`,'Lsh T er arcd, Ona:.an 97223 Me haue t .LerAn ed .that' LorzrL,^..an.h_ Fa2d, Jnr. t h our-,, .Cet t enc da_t ec'. Fe Cnarz/uj 9, 1983 addir_eaaed t_o Ci.t�L Cocznc%L, Ci tb4 c-� Ti-r , hae a-z th-at the Zand zr✓z2aundLw, .their. deaEe�ahiy2, crrhi z zz .n.0pZ&tu cn✓ned Zjj- DA, Jnr. an the rio, t and uezt, .fie .rhLnO to C-5 z=-&m. The t o--� �l it neutera&, e.ed uz o p .thin zeau ez.t uh-ch. .iz the 4.e12-60n fz's riot 1-1-2 en. .saane'z. f that .thin i-6 t e ;,:inaf- hour Pon dzartr ea and wn-44! / tha-t .the AL(cu- .LW, Tay La%z'haus_ 41 r em t caz ed i a car j�zct inn 7 970 rare a h that .th.e s.e Tax Lata and �^—fti an a.' Vaza ed St�z ee-t�s a tore. r utJz tJzti Tax Lots ad Tonttona a� Vara Berl Sirs�ta awned ,rt s !��i, Jrz~. i e zany' C-5. LE'L5ED TO Lra:'iz';, FO), J:.�. and ,neuia�se� Cc��s ed to ',-arras Fond ani- J� Fan, Ca. L +ce 7970J (/az7S736DD 4900 EL 5000 /Lu 5700 iLu 5000 poat -an (iap 2 S 1 1 A-1- loo OLU _100 'L (Fanrrzr y 700, 100, 3001 7700 fPanti.on i:OT LCZSJ TO, Ll 1•_;l" F^=J, Ji:'C. f;a7� 7 S 1 36 DD /1-800 (J.e , uizfLoeeErs F�;'t th a a.a a �.a;L� .Gv...t zea ,zza.2��, .ecr...a.ed .ta t�.ea.Gs�arLi;rz arzc' nica;�rtr�. �c used z ;"irh�la�� D.2'.1"L'a 0JUT1r 5v 00 %a r i an aa't' L �e_' i a Lane.:;�J-, Farad, 3n.c. i'ic-^ 2 5 7 7 TL c 14-00 7307 (Fan,,•,z7 ;carat a.n 1300) 1200 (1,'ou afaa & 5400 and a- zo t rz ctc'ea Vaza.t ed S. 3. U-W� 7700 Rant,,-aa na i wed .to Land�, Fara d, -7, (7700 &u a riaalrzesz c 1500, 1600, 7700) iJae aGave ncrZed Tax Lata czronr ,�,,1 those 6a-& .ta Faad Leuz�u crzd 1��e(-0��t ��d1 /� _ , ._^ -2 a/z 0,•�_/, L 7967 (Laa2 40 /'ate 23 ay^_ Carjr kea � u c..tion & O�iL 67350. - Z) ur.da DJB INC. 11515 S.W. 91ST AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 U.S.A. (503) 639-2900 ED caw=u Page 2 FAV 25, 1983 ouz 4r,,,e:�.i-,c rr� Zd lar- aLt 4 the .Gsnd aid -in'.chi.- Zattem and arnd 4 13 9 Jac. and T.. L. 5700, 1 l 36 u', =awd �, ,• Li G. Lt le- z zed Go5. Jt.ass .izaam �.. a. an -4 .that aLt .chgl J..z;W t. Landrrnarrh Fxm4 Inc. Za =ned the- 8 Fax List 400 au-c&4z aid 4 Faird L ewe and Dzus z t and twzed .ta Landmz h Fond, 3nc. as .the tzaa .f. ee alae .cizd .toyx-theme J'.t- &a Dori rrrulerx a t�andip ,What .the fvz4pzatg =wLe� Zg D;O, Jnc, and Zaaz ed to a Favad dea.L��a eh i ya .s n e�xr t h that &jz inea.a a.ince 7970 &xndd carie un -m .the zamm .tlurrt tt� ��P� Fiw�d Crw�a��k•L�orx�sa Fated, Land�na�F'�ral, J� � the raw th �� Jzc. .i.� .t.�.ed .ta #lze .eeaa.e .that s�� .e Fa�cd Lo�aiu�,, �rmdo Fazd and Liz Fa,�d had had tJ.l.�h Fain 1�R'a and �?.eue@oyun�it. in Uwuwjzy, ice Ire .the z"ziig a .r a a duy aana4ty f e7uz-&t � a,U the p4a mentia .ia .thy .Lett-en n ecez mez .the dame z-arz tng andzu-ch le- .the za a we azh that .the CL4 CmuLaiL adapt .the 4haruga at .the meat mzating. a/- a P.L the � aer zed .irr tU.6 .Letter dae a rust "-cr i r..e she- darn- G-5 zmZug, .then rre rxt�eet. Dps JNL~ f'.�.sd�P.� �.i.ce�ireb.[+clent a aa� � t � r mum a 00v 001 ,L 4r 4 - v T sad- rax j q 09 o 1'6 0, 7 =� 1 . - o A i OOOS Doi I — 1 91 • 8Z_ or,3s, 9Z 008£ 6Z i Q£ I£ _v Z£0018 1_ _£� Z£_ _ v� on £c ZD ££ 006'£ ® Ire 11 b£ 01 s£au _ 1 at 100Z£r cap 6 9€ 0009 T TTS Ills Ell RECEIVED FEB 2 8 1983 Fa.A� 25, 1983 CITY OF TIGARD fU N[? L-U3VERED FeFauaaAy 28, 1983 18m .tizcP.Ld-Lan .in, faa&w-t to t z d Zierp-,L•-d .to iII Caw:.r-a cowmix mze t ag on Naneh 2, 1983 C:� of- 72gaad 12755 S. W. A6h 7'.ugaia4 04 egori 97223' J-h ay.e j2u t .eea an ed .that Landmaah Favid, Jnc. anal Feted Wand i n ha.uz ,ted that ,the uazaat Xand tztwzen 66th arra 68th Rv�- i ZL .th a ;rA angPe aAz G.e zn e zhanrjed Awn G-' to G5. J am uz &u-M 4ha wing thz zon.eng f-,L m CP -to G5 a.a Qvng a� Tax Lat 5700, /'lad 1 S 1 36 DD, Zz aXzo champed 4a zxuw:g CP .to C-5. ' J�fou do nat zhang e .the zcvu ng ora mg Tax L.at 5700 .ta C-5, thea gEU. 'a! � •�Cts-( � G. L. L3aLL i Nil i i i all 1111 INS F January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: Residential Established and Developing Areas Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us in December, 1982. We have marked up the copy with the few changes that we feel are appropriate. Staff has not yet indicated where these sections are to be placed. NPO #3 definitely supports these measures, as modified; and we would like to have them included in the comprehensive plan, or else as part of the Community Development Code. Robert Bledsoe, Secretary NPO #3 ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS I. Development Within an Established District In an established district, a parcel of land uuly be developed in a manner essentially similar to and compatible with existing development on other parcels in the vicinity and , if appropriate, a conditional development may be permitted subject to Planning Commission approval. A proposed development is similar to and compatible with existing development if it meets the requirements of the following sections. S�II. Residential Parcel Size Consistency. ' (1) Except as provided by subsection (2D to be compatible with established eLLL.....:...• development a proposed residential development shall not cause the creation of a parcel of land smaller than the adjusted median of existing residential parcels in the area. The adjusted median parcel area shall be determined as follows: (a) List in order of increasing size the area of each parcel, any part of which lies within (250) feet of a boundary of the subject parcel. Only parcels within the established district shall be listed. (b) The area of the median parcel is the area of the parcel one-half of the way down the list, or in the case of an even number of parcels, the first of the middle two. (c) The adjusted median area is the area calculated by dividing by three the sum of the areas of the median parcel and the next parcel above and below the median on the list. (2) A land parcel smaller than the adjusted median area may be authorized under a ministerial procedure with mailed notice to abutting landowners upon determination by the Director that, for the type of development proposed, parcel area is not important to retaining compatibility. The applicant shall supply a list of the owners of property to receive notice. III. Siting Consistency (1) Building setbacks from property lines and lot coverage shall be consistent with those on adjacent parcels bi,t not less than those contained in the Community Development Code. (2) In addition to limiting building height as determined by the Community Development Code, a building that the Community Development Code would permit to be in excess of thirty-five feet in height shall be no higher than the average of the height of the buildings within (50) feet. -1- r _ i IV. Development Type Consistency (1) A proposed development shall either be of the same type as is found on abutting parcels of land or shall be evaluated for consistency by the Planning Commission as described in subsection (2) . To determine where development is of the same type, the list found under permitted uses in the Community Development code shall be used. Only development on land parcels that meet allof the following conditions shall be included in making comparisons for type consistency. (a) The parcel abuts the proposed development or is directly across a street from the proposed development. �� G G(S (b) The parcel has either been developed subdivision or is committed to a specific type of development. (c) The parcel is within the established district. (d) The development on the parcel is not a conditional development or a nonconforming development. (2) If, the same type of development does not exist on each abutting parcel to be considered, a development of the same type as any abutting development-which may be allowed, subject of approval after satisfactory fulfillment of the fronts following criteria. Determination hall be made by the Planning upon the Commission with mailed notice. The mailed notice shall include mailing same to owners of property within (250) feet of a boundary of the property to street be developed. 300 (a) New development shall be arranged and constructed to protect adjacent development that is of a different type from detrimental effects due to noise, odor, fumes, dust, glare, heat reflection, traffic, vibration, and conflicting appearance. (b) The scale of the development proposed shall not cause detrimental effects on the general area out of proportion to that due to the existing development of the same type. -2- DEVELOPING DISTRICT I . Development Within a Developing District Except as indicated by the comprehensive plan, the overall character of new development within a developing district has not been predetermined; thus, each new development proposal shall be decided on its merits pursuant to sections II & III. New development in a developing district shall be approved only where necessary and adequate services and facilities are available or provisions have been made to provide These services and facilities. A development and its use lawfully existing at the time this ordinance becomes effective is a conforming development unless it is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. II. Development in an Urban Developing District Except as otherwise provided in section III , in a developing district a development is permitted if authorized pursuant to the Planning Commission and determination that the development is consistent with any emerging patterns of area development in addition to compliance with the comprehensive plan, other requirements of this ordinance and applicable standards. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing shall be provided by mailed notice to the owners of property situated within (250) feet of a boundary of the property to be developed. 300 t III. Exceptions to Planning Commission Approval for a Developing District The following exceptions are made to the requirement of section II. (1) Residential development without a subdivision request shall be approved through site design review. i o- i t (2) Land division shall be approved under the land divisions sections of the Community Development Code. (3) Conditional development shall be approved in accordance with the applicable section of the Community Development Code. t t r t F f r r! f i 1 j -3- i t I F l TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COM14ITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 Wednesday - 7:30 PM TIGARD CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: 7:45 P.M. by Chairman Pat Furrer ATTENDING: Committee Members: Furrer, Krupnick, P. Hirl, Appleman, Helmer; City Staff: Bill Monahan, Guest: J.B. Bishop APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approved as submitted for September 22, 1982 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISCUSSION The committee held a detailed discussion on the central business district zone and in particular the Special District Residential District. Concensus was reached on the following: 1. Manufactured housing will not be permitted in the Central Business District Zone. 2. The density for the special district will be 20-40 units per acre. 3. The Special District Boundary will follow tax lot lines along Fanno Creek separating the southeastern portion of the CBD Zone. The attached map roughly shows the proposed boundary. 4. A discussion was held concerning the uses to be allowed as permitted and conditional uses in the special district. The Committee revised the uses as follows: Earlier Proposal 18.33.0 SPECIAL DISTRICT (T.U.R.A.) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 18.33.010 Purpose (1) Residential Use Types (A) Single detached (B) Single attached (C) Single detached: zero lot line (see Section 18.22.072) (D) Manufactured/Mobile Home (see Section 18.25.0) (E) Duplex (F) Multiple dwelling (G) Group residential (H) Group residential: Care (I) Group residential: Children's Day Care t TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 2 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 (2) Civil Use Types (A) Clinic services (B) Community recreation (C) Cultural exhibits and library services (D) Lodge, fraternal and civic assembly (E) Parking service (g) Postal services (G) Public agency administrative services (H) Public safety services (I) Public support facilities 18 33 020 Conditional Development (see Sections 18-04.0 & 18.11.0) (1) Major impact services and utilities (2) Minor impact •.itilities (3) Hospital (4) Spectators Sport and entertainment: Other Revised Proposal 18.33.0 SPECIAL DISTRICT (T.U.R.A) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 18.33.010 Purpose (1) Residential Use Types (2) Multiple Dwelling 18.33.020 Conditional Development (see sections 18.04.0 & 18.11.0) (1) Religious assembly (2) Public agency administrative services In addition, the Committee wants to allow parks as a permitted use, however, whenever buildings are proposed, the committee desires to have uses under the Community Recreation heading treated as conditional uses . The Committee intends to hold further discussion on allowing mixed uses in the CBD Zone. They would like to encourage residential and commercial mixed uses. The Committee would like to understand how the planned develop- ment process would apply to mixed uses. Subcommittee Reports and Discussion There were no subcommittee reports. mill T.IGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COM241TTEE Page 3 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 Measure 3 - Bill Monahan outlined the City's financial plan Tandpcutbacal options which could take place if Measure 3 passes. otenti impact on the Fire District, School District and County were also discussed. Discussion was held concerning memberships on the Committee, particularly representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. Alan Paterson, representing the Chamber, previously had indicated that he did not accept his appointment as a member of the Committee. The to fill Mr. Paterson's position if it is Committee would like vacant. NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 10, 1982 7:30 P.M. at City Hall ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 P.M. l MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development DATE: March 1, 1983 SUBJECT: Garages At the request of Councilor Scott, my staff contacted several Oregon communities to determine if any had policies requiring enclosed parking areas for each new dwelling unit constructed in the community. Following are the results of the telephone survey: Question: Does your city have a policy which requires enclosed parking areas for each new dwelling unit built in your city? CITY YES NO Beaverton x Lake Oswego x Portland x Tualatin x Hillsboro x Gresham x Oregon City x West Linn cover,�d, only single family x Gladstone x Forest Grove x Wilsonville x Only one of the eleven cities surveyed currently has a policy, West Linn. West Linn is now revising its development code and intends to retain the policy. The policy requires that each single family dwelling provide for two off street parking spaces, one of which must be covered. This requirement is presently within West Linn's parking requirement. Should Tigard choose to adopt a policy requiring covered parking for all single family homes, or all dwelling units, Council may wish to begin the policy as follows: The City shall require the provision of no less than two off street parking areas, one of which must be provided as a covered structure for each new dwelling unit constructed in Tigard. ' I I E f` MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development « � DATE: March 2, 1983 RE: TURA Density During the Comprehensive Plan hearing on February 23, 1983 an issue was raised by John Butler, Chairman of NPO # 1 concerning the minimum density contained in Implementation Strategy 1. h. on page 7 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Finding Policies and Ymplementation Strategies. Strategy l.h. states that the density will be forty units per arce or higher. I have researched the minutes of the TURA Advisory Committee, the original source of the strategy, to determine if their recommendation was to allow for high density residential in the 'TURA area. Staff's intent was to include that recommendation without modification within the Comprehensive Plan. My _research led me to the minutes of the Committee on October 13, 1982 (copy attached) which states that the density for the special district will be 20 40 units per acre. The Committee's intent was to provide for a minimum of twenty units per acre to a maximum of forty units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the strategy l.h on page 7 be changed to read ". . . .as well as higher density residential use up to 40 units per acre." TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 Wednesday - 7:30 PM TIGARD CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: 7:45 P.M. by Chairman Pat Furrer Leman, Helmer; ATTENDING: Committee Members: Furrer, Krupnick, P. Hirl, App City Staff: Bill Monahan, Guest: J.B. Bishop APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approved as submitted for September 22, 1982 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISCUSSION The committee held a detailed discussion on the central business district zone and in particular the Special District Residential District. Concensus was reached on the following: not be permitted in the Central Business 1. Manufactured housing will District Zone. 2. The density for the special district will be 20-40 units per acre. 3. The Special District Boundary will follow tax lot lines along Fanno Creek separating the southeastern portion of the CBD Zone. The attached map roughly shows the proposed boundary. 4. A discussion was held concerning the uses to be allowed as permitted and conditional uses in the special district. The Committee revised the uses as follows: Earlier Proposal 18.33.0 SPECIAL DISTRICT (T.U.R.A.) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 18.33.010 Purpose (1) Residential Use Types (A) Single detached (B) Single attached (C) Single detached: zero lot line (see Section 18.22.072) (D) Manufactured/Mobile Home (see Section 18.25.0) (E) Duplex (F) Multiple dwelling (G) Group residential (H) Group residential: Car,-- (1) arte(I) Group residential: Children's Day Care s t u% TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 2 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 (2) Civil Use Types (A) Clinic services (B) Community recreation (C) Cultural exhibits and library services (D) Lodge, fraternal and civic assembly (E) Parking service (F) Postal services (G) Public agency administrative services (H) Public safety services (I) Public support facilities 18.33.020 Conditional Development (see Sections 18.04.0 & 18.1Z 0) (1) Major impact services and utilities (2) Minor impact utilities (3) Hospital (4) Spectators Sport and entertainment: Other Revised Proposal 18.33.0 SPECIAL DISTRICT (T.U.R.A) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 18.33.010 Purpose (1) Residential Use Types (2) Multiple Dwelling 18.33.020 Conditional Development (see sections 18.04.0 & 18.11.0) (1) Religious assembly (2) Public agency administrative services In addition, the Committee wants to allow parks as a permitted use, however, whenever buildings are proposed, the committee desires to have uses under the Community Recreation heading treated as conditional uses . The Committee intends to hold further discussion on allowing mixed uses in the CBD Zone. They would like to encourage residential and commercial mixed uses. The Committee would like to understand how the planned develop- ment process would apply to mixed uses. Subcommittee Reports and Discussion There were no subcommittee reports. i E' TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE f' Page 3 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1982 Measure 3 - Bill Monahan outlined the City's financial plan and cutback options which could take place if Measure 3 passes. The potential impact on the Fire District, School District and County were also discussed. Discussion was held concerning memberships on the Committee, particularly representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. Alan Paterson, representing the Chamber, previously had indicated that he did not accept his appointment as a member of the Ccmmittee. The Committee would like to fill Mr. Paterson's position if it is vacant. NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 10, 1982 7:30 P.M. at City Hall ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 P.M. =0PJ=0=Kff atINDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, SITE LOCATION ez-®rpn Salem (503) 581-8904 The Equitable Center • Suite 320 530 Center St. N.E. • Salem, OR 97301 Portland (503) 639-7183 March 1 , 1983 Mayor and City Council members City of Tigard r 7 � P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 fti. tp Attention: Bob Jean ![J.. 02 1-0831 City Administrator CII r +jr I IGHrtU The purpose of this letter is to urge the mayor and cit T �� favorable consideration for a commercial (CL) zone impac _ PTty presently owned by Alex Finke (enclosure) and in the process of being purchased by my client, Invest-A-Venture, Inc. Additionally, we would ask the council to make the decision on the CL zone within the comprehensive plan revision as soon as possible so that our project can get under way. It is my understanding that the city is considering tax increment financing for the downtown area. Perhaps I should point out that my client's project will provide new "economic blood" to the business community because of the multiplier effect or turnover of dollars from the business that would be generated from out-of-town and greater metropolitan consumers being attracted to the facility. In essence, economic development stimulus may come, at times, when the normal course of approval procedures inhibits such stimulus because of hearings delays. Therefore I urge you to consider perhaps taking a "piecemeal " approach to approving the zone and allowing my client to move forward with a building permit prior to the conclusion of the hearings re- lated to the city's comprehensive plan. Reasons for doing so are as follows: 1 . Tigard's reputation will certainly be enhanced as "the place" in the Pacific Northwest for family entertainment. 2. As the president of an industrial real estate company, I am aware of tentative industrial projects in nearby communities that will enhance the industrial base-- thereby adding to increased spending possibilities via employees for consumer goods and recreational activities. It is conceivable that traveling executives and management would bring their families when visiting in the metropolitan area in order that they could spend most of the day at my client's facility while "Dad or Mom" is at work attending meetings. 3. The project would provide the impetus for a general "face lift" among commercial businesses along Highway 99 within the vicinity of my client's facility. INDUSTRIAL REALTORS SERVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST May and City Council members City of Tigard Page 2 4. Wholesome family recreation would be a welcome addition to Tigard as opposed to the alternative forms of recreation which tend to create problems for the police and fire depart- ments in terms of teenagers gathering in unsupervised areas. Our project would be supervised, no alcohol or drugs would be permitted, and grandparents, parents and children of all ages would have fun in a safe environment. To reiterate, the entire project cannot move forward until a commercial zone is designated. We have already extended the time frame twice in which our option to Mr. Finke will remain in effect, but my client' simply cannot keep their investment backers interested on an "on-going basis". We appreciate your cooperation and hopefully the support of our project. Sincerely, JA-SAfT CORPORATION David D. Sant President DDS/l h P.S. I failed to mention that the Randall Company is also supportive of a commercial (CL) zone for their adjacent acreage. cc: Mr. Merrill Haddon i t Seller hereof the S Exhibit "A" .is attached hereto and made a Par-, Agreement & Receipt No. 15161, dated October 28, 1982, and outlines the subject For Earnest Money, Sec. 36CD, IS, 1W of the W.M. property in yellow herein described, to wit: comprising tax. lots 2100, 2001, 2002 and 2000. �.a.� m CA i } CU Ito ®; ®� :� `fir'_ ( s • t ' I r L' - - r Y�v Z I J1 S`"'l�t 1 . ' .#• fig. ~� i r- '� ,. . -ASA_��,_- � ,. A ,.• -` = i `•'��-----"–�"•'� '''. ;� � •,.. a_,=}; -• -.�— s of ` ffi' `�"'� f� 1 o•w� March 2, 1983 TO: Bob Jean, City Administrator FROM: Frank A. Currie, Public Works Director SUBJ: Two items for Open Agenda (a) 99W/Main Traffic signal bids (b) 99W/Atlanta LID engineers report Item (a) is a communication from ODOT asking the city council to accept the bids for the Main Street/99W traffic signal (LID #37) . The bid is 23% under the estimate and your acceptance and authoriza- tion to pay ODOT $26,125 will enable ODOT to award the bid per our agreement. I recommend acceptance of the bid and authorization for payment of $26,125 for the signal installation, engineering, striping and ` testing. Item (b) is for information only and relates to the Atlanta/Pacific Hwy LID feasibility study and engineers report. Council asked if the $2,500 was the total cost for the study and report. I have discussed this with Cooper and Associates. This is the total for this study and report, however, there are some charges relative to design that the one owner who hired Cooper would like to recover as part of the LID. These charges would be attributed to the design fee and would not in- crease the cost of the project. Of course if the project does not "go" as an LID the owner would have to absorb costs attributable to design. No action necessary. g' RECEIVED MAR - 21983 Department of Transportation CITY Of TIGARD HIGHWAY DIVISION vlcr „prE" TRANSPORTATION BUILDING, SALEM, OREGON 97310 February 25, 1983 In Reply Refer to Fib No.: Frank A. Currie, City Engineer City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Currie: On February 24, we received a satisfactory bid from M & J Electric, Inc., dba Marine and Industrial Electric, P.U. Box 4529, Portland, Oregon 972U8 for the traffic signal installation on the Pacific Highway West at Main Street in Tigard. And, according to our Construction-Finance Agreement No. 7734, the City should now submit a advance deposit for the anticipated project cost: Contractor's Bid $19,715.00 l Anticipated Additional Items: Permanent Sighning $ 200.00 Permanent Pavement Striping 2,300.00 Amplifier Testing 100.00 Signal Turn-on 500.00 $ 3,100.00 SUBTOTAL $22,815.00 Contingencies (4 1/2%) 1,026.68 Engineering (10%) 22281.50 Estimated Construction Cost $26,123.18 ADVANCE DEPOSIT: $261125 We will award the contract when we receive your advance deposit in the amount of $26,125, which should arrive not later than March 18, 1983. You may use one of the three options for payment described in the attachment. Very,trul� Yobs, D. E. wan, P.E. Acting Program Section Manager KEH:pf Attachment Form 734-3122