Loading...
City Council Packet - 06/28/1977 MINUTES Tigard Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting June 28, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. Tigard City Hall 1. CALLED TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order, by Cooper at 7:40 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: Present - Cooper, Payne, Zumwalt, Bellinger, Deas and Hirl Excused: Buckley, McKee I o rn Unexcused: Choruby, Lewis Staff - Altman 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no minutes as the last meeting was cancelled. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 5.1 Cooper reported on expenditures to date on Liberty Park: Income - 41000 - BICENTENNIAL COMMITTEE GRANT $1500 - Match from Friends of Tigard Parks $ 400 - Local Merchant donations $1000 - (pending) Payless $3900 - TOTAL Expenses 871 - Irrigation �i 930 - Trees & Shrubs $ 220 - Plaque & Sign $1000 - SOD $3021 - Sub Total (Owing) 204 $3225 - TOTAL The remainder of funds will be used for next phase of development including benches, etc. Additional funds will be sought from local businesses. 5.2 Liberty Park: July 30, 1977 was suggested and approved as the tenative date of dedication. The dedication would kick-off the Town and Country Days Week. The date is to be verified with Mayor Bishop to insure his attendance. All Council members are to be invited. Bellinger will check on Color Guard from National Guard unit behind Fred Meyer. The American Region:: will be contacted as an alternative for the Color Guard. Payne will take care of publicity once final date is set. 5.3 Town and Country Days fund raising: Town and Country Days Committee will meet July 6th at Sambo' s. Cooper, Payne and Zumwalt will attend to represent the Park Board. The Park Board will again provide Chicken Barbeque and Beer Garden. Cooper reported that the Sherwood Elks will help provide people to help man the barbeque. Zumwalt will chair the Beer Garden which will run from Noon until 9:00 P.M. both Saturday and Sunday. A beer sausage booth was discussed at length but Deas stated the Kiwanis has already requested a booth for sausage. Cooper suggested a cooperative effort with the Kiwanis linking the sausage both with the Beer Garden. It was also suggested that a portable sausage booth be set up by the River during the scheduled Canoe races. 5.4 Pinebrook property: Cooper asked the the Board' s opinion on disposal of the Pinebrook property. Nirl moved, Bellinger seconded - to write a letter to the City Council requesting that the Pinebrook property be declared excess and sold, the proceeds to be used for park acquisition and development. Motion passed by unanimous vote. 5.5 Status Report on Open Space Plan: Altman reported actions and concerns of. the City Council regarding the Plan. The Plan will be reiliewed again at the July 18th Study Session. Cooper requested the Session be joint with the Park Board. Altman stated he would notify Bruce Clark. Altman stated the Council requested that the specific park site designations be removed and only the park district boundaries be shown for planning future parks. The Council also will review the systems charge proposed. They requested revenue projections for a lower rate for initiating the charge. Altman reported that the City of Tualatin had requested that Tigard show a bikepatli bridge across the Tualatin River at Cook Park. The bridge would link Cook and Tualatin Park. Y r Zumwalt moved, Deas seconded to place a bikepath bridge on the plan map connecting Cook and Tualatin Park. The motion passed 5 to 1 - Hirl voting no. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 6.1 Liberty Park Plaque: Cooper showed the plaque made for Liberty Park and asked for ideas on its location. 6.2 Hirl asked that some action be taken to establish Dave Lewis' intention for continued membership, as he has exceeded his allowed unexcused absences. Cooper stated he would contact Lewis and request that he attend or submit his resignation. 6.3 Hirt and Deas reported on the City Council's study session discussion about Board members attendence at Park Board meetings. Deas emphasized he had requested that the Council allow the Board to straighten out their own affairs. He stated that the Council has requested minutes from all Board meetings and that they will review the matter again in October. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned 9:25 P.M. PEGuL.4R PLAIi,i1,ITIM COs.u•iISSIO I I- ; ll—,G OF April 19, 1977 EY.CIIRPTS CONCERNING ZONE CHALNGE 10-77 POLLOCK STAFF: .. . . . . . . . .the difference be-LA;!een the time of development and pattern of development which has shown up has been as a result of changing over from septic tank development to sewer. 15-inch seti•rer line is in the creek, 8-inch water line exists in Walnut and Pathfinder, both systems are adequate to serve the properties pro- posed. There are a couple of different concerns that have come up during prior reviews of the property, one being the stability of the soil and the whole determination whether this property is buildable. The soil conservation service generaliZed soil mans show this property to have moderate to severe development restraints due to ;•retness, low strength and high shrink-swell potential. TI.e applicant in this case has responded by showing on the third -page of the plans that you have, locating the houses on the natural grade, rather than on the fill ti-fnich would leave a compound problem. Also point out that any foundations that. . . .any building permits that i-!ould be issued would be required to have a soils test or compres- sion test to show that they can be built and we can take ;;ust a minute to explain how the building code treats these. The st nC".ard buildable lot, the standard footings we put in place of standard X% as the soils become weaker, these foundatio.ls Wi h foota e for those become wider to where you get to some points Here for example, less than 700 psf would require in essence a cement raft for a foundation. Of equal concern, it's come up during the past, has been the flooding characteristics that are on this property. As pointed out, the Army Corps of Engineers determined the flood- plain as they studied it in 1973 and which we subsequently adopted, that study as our basis for flood plain regulation, shooed the flood plain discontinuing at "alnut Street. The inference from that is that the flooding caused on this property, or that affects this property as a result of poor drainage, not of backup, not of urLnecessa:cy retention low spot, but really is the damming effects being created by ..alnut Street. In this case you have to propose to install 36-inch culvert to help drain the ~rater off. I would like to leave the draina`e question open for the applicant to exmlain. Little of the existing vegetation can be expected to remain - lot of brush on side, there are a couple of large mature fir trees in this area, there 's a let of smaller trees down in the lower area. By the way, this is shovm to a large area, the area is sho:•'n colored is to be dedicated, 2.4 acres to be dedicated to the City for open space retention. There was a point brought up at the last meeting as to situation regarding septic tanks draining on the property. Since that meeting, :•re've contacted the County health Department. Their report is that the smell as a result of decaying vegetation and rotting soil is not a result of septic tank failures on abutting properties. 1. PC I•I^1G 4-1`^' 7 Zone Change 10-77 Pollock STAFF: (cont'd) The lotting pattern proposed creates 15 lots from 8,075 square feet as the smallest one, to 12,000 square feet as the largest, with an average lot size of 9,300 square feet. This is well within the density limitation of the hP III. I mould also point out if you recall the subdivision Watkins Place which was approved Preliminary Approval at the last meeting, brought a the creek came in this gray. - they kind of - it i•:as a very small stream that wanders through this lot. That developer proposed and we approved bringing a bike path to this point for eventual connection thrcugh. 1,1it`.h the stream coming through here there's apt to be some culverting that will be done and our proposal is stream through this area of the City be treated the sarrLe bray that the Watkins Place Subdivision was beinghandled, and that was through open drainage and not cu-verting, not p',p' In regards to bike path that would be going through the greenway area, the appli- cant proposes utilizing Pathfinder Court and then building a neer section of a bike path through the backs and sides of these lots connecting into the Pathfinder Iday then continue that down the street. This appears appropriate for this particular part since it would mean less disturbance of the natural vegetation or less modificot-i on to the retention ability of the green,;:ay area to main- tain the runoff waters. This appears to be an appropriate or acceptable alternative. ITP III reviewed the proposal in February and recom:,-�nded approval of the 18-unit development, provided that sewer easements are made available to the adjacent properties in this area and that the greenway area be maintained as permanent open space. They were notified that this proposal -,.;as coming, for-vrard and they didn't choose to hold a meeting. I'd like to offer the following conclusionary findings, Mr. Chairman. First the proposal does conform to the NP III and that the density . is within file limitations of Policy 4, paved streets, gum , be provided, adequate water and sewer facilities are available, f acilities are being provided for pedestrian_ bicycle traffic, natural state of the greenway is being protected by dedication to the City. Also offer that the superior design beyond that pro- vided in the standard subdivision is being achieved, with less environmental impact by grouping the buildings a portion aside from the average lot size, less than standard lot size required by the underlying zone. In conclusion, I think in reviewing this property we should probably start with the assumption that the property is zoned R-10, there is a certain ability of this property owner to convert that zoning to place structures on the property and a total prohibition of any kind of reasonable use of the property should partly be handled through purchasing the property and not through fruslurations and attempts to develop. 'ibere's a couple of comLm-nts if I could also - these lots are large, but not lar;;er than the adjoining subdivision to the west, that by going to the PD we're achieving retention of the open space. That' s all I have. 2. PC .•IiG 4-1 -77 zone Change 10-77 Pollock, POPP: All right, thank you Hr. Daniels. :-:ay we have a presenta- tion by the applicant please. BRAINARD: My name is Dick Brainard - I represent the owner of the property, Donald Pollock Investments. ,� e hope some day to be able to develop this property, or else have the City buy it from him please. As Rick mentioned, the 15-lot planned develop:ient what we are proposing here is well within -the neighborhood density policy for planned developments. That policy would allow up to 25 homes, and we're almost down to cutting that in half now as a planned development. Our reasons for sticking with the planned development after lengthy discussions with the staff over the last month or two are - 1. An assurance to the City that the open space area will be preserved and dedicated to the City. 2. Preservation of the drainage qualities of this same open space. 3. Preservation of existing stands of trees on '�;ne site by building of the one road out to 4alnut Street at the upper level and also by trying to keep the houses as far at:ay from that lower open space area where the existing stands of trees occur. As Rick pointed out, there are taro culdesacs, one coming in from Pathfinder Street, the other in from 1.1alnut. They are both :within the 400-foot maximum length specified by the Code. tiIe also do have and are requesting a 10-foot pedestrian right-of-war connCD ecting these two culdesacs so that children will have both pedestrian and bicycle access through the area. ;de are asking for two vari- ance.-: in this planned development approval. The first variance is for t, , :s 1 through 6. . .I will show where they are for people in I av ience - Lots 1 through 6 are these lots right here. .ie are asking for a request fora 10-foot building setback', rather than a 20-foot building setback, with exclusions of the odd portion of each of those houses and leaving those at the 20-foot setback.. The purpose of this variance is to save the trees in the backyards and also to avoid having to place extensive fill in -the backyards, and thereby we can continue to save even more of the natural area that will be within the property boundaries of each of these homes. The second variance we are asking for is in the right-of-t:ay of Pathfinder Court., -the street that comes in from .•;alnut Street - we would like a 28-foot roadway, rather than your 34-foot roadway with a 5-foot sideeralk on the west side or on the side the houses are on, with the whole street offset to the west side so that we can minimize the amount of cutting that we would do into the bank along the east right-of-way line - I don't know if you are a,-,are -whether there is a bit of a slope there and Staff did recommend to us lthat we should look at the alternative of coming in to you with this variance, and we feel that it's a very .workable solution; too, the alternative of having to have a cut slope there where we can instead leave some of the natural slope. As Rick mentioned, the existing natural features on the area are a small creek .hich meanders through the oven space area. 1. do intend to make an effort to preserve all mature trees on the site, even the large mature trees in the buildable area by site in the houses in such so that the trees don't have to be cut down. The owner intended '? to deed open space, the 2.4 acres to the City of Tigard. Rick, j should I speak novi to the conditions of ~the Staff Recommendations, =, or, excuse me, 1-1r. Chairman, shall 1 wait until they are presented? PC iiTG 4-19;_7 Zone Change`_J-77 Pollock POPP: I .could prefer that you Vrai t until they are presented. BRAI�?ARD: All �- At this time I would like to introduce. . . . . �. rioh�. who will spew: on some of -the engineering cons i derati ons. pt�IAi�?: Tom. Chat r..a_n, members of the CowLQission. I would like to confine my comments for right now just to the drainage question. I think Rick has covered the status of the soils and -the sewers and some of the Questions that •orere raised earlier. At a previous meeting and in an earlier report that I have prepared on this property I examined the flooding during the occurrence of the 25 year storm and 25 year runoff, and at the request of your CouLnissi on at the other meeting, we reexamined that and the cor.�pu- tations that .re have now made and the desig of the site reflects runoff for the 100 year flood. Briefly, what we find is 1•rith the 48-inch culvert that is under Walnut Street, if ;•re Frere today, or next Creek, to experience a 100 year storm or runoff of that intensity, water would virtually co-we right to the very top of Walnut Street and over the top of 1-ialnut Street. That's rea) l; an untenable level for this project and I think for the adjoining properties as well, and to relieve that and still t provide for the 100 year runoff, we are proposing that the addition of a 36- inch culvert under Walnut Street to act as an overflow or relief valve for the retention basin. The total storaEe that can still be provided behind the dam, if you will, that is created by .-:aln:zt Street, will be about a 70,000 cubic feet in excess of r:i:at it would be under normal conditions, and '.'hen I say normal conditions, I'm saying if Walnut Street weren't there, and if we didn't have the damming effect of ,•Talnut Street, we would have 70,000 cubic feet less storage titan we will have with this proposal. I mention that because we can just look at the plan view of the project, the appearance is that ae are encroaching considerably upon the flooding area, but because of the vertical storage of :rater above these logo culverts, we still will have considerable flood levels. . . . . .If you have any questions, I'll ans,;rer them. POPP: All. right thank you. Is there anyone else :•:isl-±ing to testify in favor of this proposal? is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to this proposal? yes. ZtTi;;;ALT: Passing out written testimony. . . . . . . POPP: All right. ZURI'JALT: This testimony is presented by I•1r. & Krs. Roger T. Zu-mwalt, residents of 10665 S. Pathfinder :Tay, Tigard, Oregon, to the Tigard Planning Commission at its meeting of April 199 1977, with very strong objections to the proposed land develop- ment of a 15-lot residential subdivision on S. Z Pathfinder „ay and S. i•Talnut Street. -Te find the proposed development of the above land objectionable and urgently request that she Com*nissi on deny the proposal for the following reasons. Under subtitle - Environmental. •rTe feel that unjust dest:vction of the natural vegetation would be a certainty and a proposed 15-lot homesite, along with the accompanying vast amounts of fill dirt required to support any type of structure is surely absurd. This naturally preserved area for years has been enjoyed because of its pleasing 4. PC I•iTG 4-19- , 7 Zone Change 10-77 Pollock M-ULT: (cont'd) and aesthetic view value. In addition, vegetation without a doubt serves as a key and essential factor in the process, invoiving water runoff and erosion control. It would take a multi- tude of years to replace 'she vast growth of trees and shrubs that now grow on the property in question. Along with the devastation of the natural vegetation, ue fear it would be a severe loss of natural wildlife. This parcel of property houses numerous bird species and small animals. Development will surely adulterate and alter the natural habitat. Our concern has been drawn to the Dossible destruction of the formally desi.nated Ereen;•ray and its natural flow of bodies of water on the above-mentioned prouerty. This area holds nu_vrerous underground seri n_gs and standing bodies of water, (swamp). Often in the past, develoDme-nt has been allowed to occur along natural bodies of water and drainage ways that are period- ically subject to severe and disastrous flooding. By development on such a site, we face the reduction in `the natural present capacity as the land control runoff and erosion. If culverts are the ansti•rer, what would be the final destination of the creek as it meanders thxoug 1 the proposed development site. With what end result? I•lore flooding elsewhere? .±-hat would be done withL tine underground springs (so numerous) and the bodies of standing eater? One rust ask ti;hat would be the causes and effects? Can i•ir. Pollock satis- factorily demonstrate without a doubt that the proposed develop- ment will not adversely affect the natural environment or create severe problems for the established properties surrounding -the site, upstream and downstream. 'rlhat would be the ecolo-ical and environmental consequences if we literally challen f-e and slar_der the laws of nature against tons of fill dirt. Under the subtitle - Sanitation. On the subject of drainage, we feel obligal.ed to question the sanitation position of `the property site. I•;os L liomes surrounding this parcel of land are not connected to the City sewer system. i+e have personally observed raw sewage flowing upwi property site and we find it very difficult indeed to believe that the stench that penetrates one's nostrils is merely decaying ve�-etation matter or `gnat the material our daughter brings home on hr rubber boots and clothing is that excretion from dead shrubs and trees. I refer to Exhibit 1. If anyone prefers to take a .%riff, be ;y guest. Exhibit 2. One paid of trousers. Does anybody care to inspect? Be my guest. As the population of Tigard innreases, the need for new housing also increases, but must our suturally cultivated and aesthetically pure areas be the inevitable e:,-Dense of such develo-.mems - but isn't it really about time i:,,e all sit up and really evaluate proper areas in which to develop residential subdivisions and/or multi-falmily d:relli ngs and identify -those sites adversely suited for development, such as the proposal noir being considered. It appears obvious to us and to many of the area residents that the area being proposed by Kr. Pollock is not appropriate or prime land for development. We wish to additionally comment on traffic and our public schools sthat are of c r-^ern to our area residents - that being traffic safety hazards and scilool overcrowding. Some of our overtaxed traffic areas are in particular S. Fonner and S. Z•T. Walnut Streets. These two streets, as anyone can testify, obviously are tremendous traffic hazards, especially during peak traffic hours. Added 5. PC :.iTG 4-19-1, Zone Change '10-77 Pollock Z R-!::ALT: (cont'd) traffic flow from an additional housing develop- ment such as Kr. Pollock's proposal will increase this potentially disastrous situation, because these streets are in a substandard state of disrepair. In addition, these arterials have no side- walks or if present are located on one side of the street for safe pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Je are also concerned about housing developments which are surely to add to the presently exist- ing overcrowding situations in our area'spublic schools. Ir. Pollock's proposal is surely to add to this perplexing problem as well. Our summary. We strongly urge and sincerely hope that the members of the Tigard Planning Commission will unanimously deny I•2r. Pollock's proposal for a 15-lot residential subdivision between S. W. Pathfinder .Tay and S. J. 71,11alnut Street. fire feel the conse- quences of this effort will mean total destruction of one of the few remaining aesthetic areas in our neiohbarhood. It would appear that our natural areas are increasingly being devoured very rapidly and being replaced by asphalt without much thought to the potential future disaster of flooding, erosion, loss of ve-etation, loss of natural t,•ildlife, increased traffic safety hazards, creating greater burdens upon our educational systems, etc. Once more, we sincerely urge our commissioners to a`_ain, not to look favorably upon this proposal - to logically conclude that it must be denied, denied, denied. Respectfully submitted, Fir. & I.Lrs. Roger T. Zumwalt. POPP: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Yes sir. HEIdDEPZON: INy name i_ Jim Henderson. I live on 12855 S. W. 107th Court. I'm due west of the proposal. i•iy concern is a little bit repetitious of hers, but not partly quite the same. I thin'.: ;,,hen you consider this proposal you must consider the whole area in total and not this by itself. Above us they are considering an area where I'u; not sure of the number, but I believe it's close to 100 homes. Oviginally, when that land had no homes on it, where we are now the houses are below and above us, and things ;:mould grow and die and form a mat - the water would rest on the mat and kind of absorb it like a sponge. As v,e clear that land continually and put more houses in, that creek is caused to carry more and more water. .Tith what they are proposing here and the new culvert across the street, they ::-ill be allowing some of the water to go up but then when you nross the road,they are creating another problem- downthere. I just don't think that you can consider this all by itself. You have to consider what's going on above and belo;•, it". r• 6. PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock POPP: Anyone else. Yes Sir. MARZENIK: Yes, my name is Maurice Marzenik. I live at 10725 S.W. Fonner. I've got a couple of comments. First off, I think to talk of dedicating a natural, beautiful greenway to the City, a 2.4 acres, I think it's a farce. It's a swamp, it's unbuildable, and they are going to give it to the City and dump it on the City to be maintained, and I don' t really think the City's really capable of maintaining the natural greenways that we've taken from our sub-division friends over the years as it is. I don't believe we need another swamp, a stagnated piece of water to put the mosquito control on and be responsible for, added to our greenway system if you will. The first variance that the applicant asks for, I think that it's nothing more than a cost cutting tool for him, when he asks for a variance to allow yourself to move in because of the fact that you would have to add more fill to put that street in, I think that's just a smokescreen to allow the builder to not have to go to the expense of putting more fill in to develop that street. Another thing, I would like to know if at this point in time if the builder or the applicant is assuming liability for any additional water pressure developed on that water table through this sub- division. I think those of us who have septic tanks that he's assuming liability for the condition, the operating condition that may or may not exist due to his direct cause and results of this sub-division. And I would like to have him clarify that. I think in general I'm pretty much opposed to him along with the other people for the obvious reasons, and I know that Rick got a statement from Washington County that what was in that swamp was definitely not human waste and I talked to Washington County also and they said that the only way they could clarify, they told me that there's no way they can take a water sample and verify whether it's human waste or not. That the only way they could verify a problem with that swamp in relation to human waste is to come and dye each individual toilet that has septic system, adjacent to that swamp. They told me there was no way they could go out there and take a vial of water, take it to a lab and verify that that was coming out of a septic system. So. there seems to be some conflict between what they told me and what they told Rick. So I'm not at all convinced that additional building, additional back pressure on the water table will not affect those septic systems currently in use in that area. Thank you. POPP: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Yes ma'm. JOHNSTON: Yes. Kay Johnston, 12900 S.W. and I would like to go on record being opposed to this development, and I would also like to make the statement that I happened to be out walking down the area of the lower level of Pathfinder and was there the day the person from Washington County tested for sewage and he only went like 10 to 15 feet beyond the barricade of Pathfinder, and you have to go a lot farther than that into the property before you get into the problem of where it's. swampy and muddy, and I would also like to remind the Planning Commission of previous testimony, as I have been to almost all of these meetings, of one person who built a home in the area where it is swampy and the trouble they had to go through to make a stable foundation, at quite a bit of added expense .. ....... .. ... ...... ... .. ... .. . ..... .... .. .. . . .... ...... . .. .. ... PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Mr. Zumwalt. ZUMWALT: I have testimony here, it's not mine. A lady that intended to be here but couldn't make it. Would you like to have me read it or would you like to have me give this to the POPP: This is a written statement? Is this signed by the woman? j ZUMWALT: Yes, it is. Do you want me to read it? POPP: Well, if you would just put it in ZUMWALT: Okay, I'll just read it. j POPP: Give us her name and address first please. ZUMWALT: This lady's name is Gale Havens, she resides at 12750 S.W. 107th Court, Tigard, Oregon. She writes: I would like to testify as to the drainage conditions that are present at my home, which is very close to the proposed development by Donald E. Pollock's homesite development of 15 unit housing project located between S.W. Pathfinder Way and S.W. Walnut Street. Since purchasing our home in August of 1976, the house which we were told is placed on landfill has settled to the point that some of the doors in my house will not close. In addition, drainage from the side hill alongside S.W. Walnut has collected under my house to the point where we have had to have a pump and more drainage tiles installed and we still do not know if this has cured the problem. The area of proposed development is much lower than our lot and nearer to the creek. ' It seems to me that the drainage problem will be great and that landfill will only serve to denude the natural vegetation thereby destroying the beauty and increasing runoff and altering the existing water table. Additional, the traffic is already heavy on 107th and with the addition of more houses creation of an even more hazardous situation is inevitable. Therefore, I would like to go on record as opposing this development. POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Okay, may we have the staff recommendations. STAFF: Mr. Chairman, before we do that there are a couple of questions in regard to the drainage and flooding situation that I would like Mr. Brian to address if he could. The first would be with the addition of the culvert, and the locations of the foundations, is the flooding level or the level of water that could be expected during normal times, is that being raised or is that level being main- tained by the addition of the culvert? We're adding some fill as shown on the plans is that causing the water to raise to the point where it will then drain off or are we adding to the level of onsite retention? `i ,y K h } PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock BRIAN: I'm not sure if I really understand your question thoroughly and I'm not sure if .I did I could really answer it specifically; the condition that was designed for and as the Commission has asked to consider last time. . . . . . . . was the 100 year flood and in a previous examination of this flooding we looked at 25 year flood. We found under 25 year the 48 inch culvert was added we could with a storm that occurred once in 25 years the 48 inch culvert under Walnut Street would have accommodated that flow and would have kept the level at a level we could live with with our development. When we had to go to a 100 year flood, the water comes virtually to the top of Walnut Street, and 2 feet higher than what we wanted to place a minimum flooring. So I'm not sure I'm answering your questions, but the 36 inch culvert that we've added is simply to take.the . . • difference between the 25 year runoff and the 100 year runoff in this . STAFF: What I'm basically trying to determine is by the development as you are proposing it, is the level of water that the neighbors are experiencing right now - is that being raised or is that what we're displacing by placing the fill in there the minimal amount that we are is that being compensated by the additional ability of runoff? Let me come at it again. Is the development going to raise the water, the flooding level that we are experiencing out there now? BRIAN: During what period of storm, that's the question, that you have to STAFF: Well, you've already said the 100 would take it up over the top of the road. BRIAN: Right. In a 100 year storm, we're going to have a lower level than what it would be under the condition that would exist today. In a 25 year runoff we'll have essentially the same as what it would have been under STAFF: Okay. If this property were developed under standards, Mr. Chairman another question. POPP: Yes, go ahead. STAFF: If this property were developed under standard sub-division, what levels of fill would be required as opposed to what are being proposed in this development? BRIAN: You see before you on that third sheet, we've shown a proposal that includes a standard sub-division. In the P.D. proposal, 712 flood storage provided is about 70,000 cubic feet of storage. In a comparablestandard • • sub-division proposal is 20,000 feet in addition to what we . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . so in both cases we are providing storage in excess of what that added runoff is going to be produced by the project ...... . .. ... . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . STAFF: So in essence we are looking at by developing in the manner that you are proposing, 50,000 .......... BRIAN: 50,000 cubic feet more fill in the case of a sub-division PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock STAFF: That's all . . I understand. POPP: Okay, I just wanted to go back here on one question. You stated that under the 100 year flood plain that if this area is developed that the 100 year flood plain would actually diminish 2 feet in this area. Did I hear you right? POPP: By the addition of the 36 inch culvert under Walnut Street, and during the currents of the 100 year flood or runoff, we will be maintaining the water surface level with 2 feet below the top of Walnut Street. Without the addition of the 36 inch culvert, it would rise to the top of Walnut Street. POPP: Okay. This would add on the culvert on Walnut, right? BRIAN: On the opposite side? POPP: Right BRIAN: Well, obviously, there's going to be more water going downstream than the currents of that 100 year flood, but let me back up for just a minute. To leave the property just as it is and do nothing to the culvert and if we do nothing to develop the property, what you really have is quite an effective flood control structure but it's there with the expense of the property owner, and what we're proposing to do is something in between utilizing the whole property as a flood control and we are still providing flood storage far in excess of what would have been there naturally POPP: Okay, by the same token isn't the flooding downstream? BRIAN: During the occurrence of the 100 year flood there would be more water doing downstream. During the occurrence of the 25 year flood it would be about the same. POPP: Excuse me. Hold off just a minute please. I will proceed now unless there's some additional questions for the Commission. I wish to proceed asking for the staff recommendation, which is where I was when Mr. Daniels started his questions. STAFF: Well, I just had one more question. The way I understand it then, that the locate^n, this is the question, is the location of the floor levels of the build;tigs as proposed, are they outside your projected 100 year flood? BRIAN: T:-re will be a minimum of l foot above that. POPP: All right. Excuse me, before we get any additional questions, we will have a se:—Zon here for additional cross examination and rebuttal questions. I would like to have Mr. Daniels give us the staff recommendations, first, if you ple:+�e. STAFF: W:•1l , this piece of property has been through a lot of long scrutiny and I would like to go to the plan .. ... ... . . ... l � PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock POPP: All right. STAFF: It seems that the Planning Commission has three options. One would be to set precedent in the City as probably anywhere in the State would be to declare the property unbuildable and then through one proceeding or another make steps towards acquisition of the property. Should that not be an option and the City not decide to do that, then there appear to be two different types of development proposals which can be handled on the property. One would be, and the Staff's position is that the development proposal as submitted by Mr. Brainard is the most environmentally sensitive which can be done on the property assuming some development of it that involves the outline of the development as shown here. The other end of the extreme is something that is on your agenda for standard sub-division request following this request would be a lotting pattern which envisions more fill, envisions locating filling in not just filling for streets but filling for on a lot down in the property. Your options are to deny the request, which you are in essence saying the property is unbuildable, that it should be acquired and then be able to set forth some timetable which Mr. Pollock could expect to receive some compensation for the community asset for receiving both open space and greenery retention or flooding retention, against the second problem most favorable is if the property is developed, that it be developed in this manner which is far superior than any other plans that have been approved or denied. And the least favorable is the approval of sub-division. If the planned development is approved there are four conditions we would like to see attached. One would be that Lots 14 and 15 be combined in such a way as to allow the creek area or the stream which more or less goes right through the middle of that lot assuming the plan is correct, combine those lots, make one buildable lot out of it and to keep the drainage open system and continuation of the bike path which the Watkins Place Subdivision is bringing to the property. Two, that an overall landscaping building siting plan be included in General Plan Program. This is based on our concern great changes that we are looking at over good portion of the property that most of the existing vegetation will be lost, with water retention level on this property we feel that it is important to get that vegetation established back on the property and would like to see how the buildings are going to be sited on rather than the cement forms shown here. Three, that design for the signing and marking of the bike path in the portion of the street right-of-way, that signing and marki-i- be also included in the General Plan Program. The fourth and last point would 5e there's concern as we. get into some grading on the property for along southeast property line that we've got these properties down here on septic tanks -end there's some concern that if there's grade changes thrcugh this area, and e:•pecially so and one reason why did favor shift in street over, Mr. Brainard's explain,-,i, was that to move any grade changes or any modification of topography ::way frvu-i ' t.:..;e areas so as'not to disrupt those systems whether they are functioning or nol ai: Lh is point in time. And also to go to lengths to make sure that we don't set up a drainage, a natural drainage system such as that erodes off that bank. POPP: Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Is there any further rebuttal. Yes sir. 1 PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock MARZENIK: Yes. Maurice Marzenik again. I'd like to kind of go into the reason for my stand on this. I live on the west side of Fortner. Now we've watched Pathfinder coming in and several other proposals on this and my neighbors and myself have been there. I've been there 6 years, and we have seen a change in the water table to the point it affects my septic system at this point in time. Pathfinder had a very great amount of effect on my septic system - it backs up in the winter time, this year right here under my house, surface water. So I went to Washington County Health Department and I said okay, fellas, what do we do about this - how do we go about solving this problem. So they told me, they said, look, you've got one of two options. You and your neighbors can form a local improvement district and get sewerage or you can to the City and get sewerage, both of which end up in the same thing, you annex to the City and get sewerage. Now, they also, I asked them then if in fact the backup of water in our area could be attributed directly to the fact of building fill, and he described it to me very much as you are aware of Governor Straub's principle of putting the brick in the toilet tank of displacement of water and what happens as they explained it to me at Washington County Health Department, you put a fill in and create a back pressure on the existing water table, and I wish we had a topographic map to illustrate this because that whole area is like a big basin, immediately adjacent to this property that Mr. Pollock proposes building on. And what happens when you put Pathfinder on it creates a back pressure on that water table hence causing us who are residents of the area now to have a problem with our septic systems. This is not a supposed problem, this is a problem that currently exists. So the solution Washington County has for me is they will come out and drop the litnus dye in my stool, flush it, if it comes up on the surface, I'm stuck with the problem. I'm stuck with correcting that. I'm stuck with the liability of making that septic system work, item number 1 or number 2 hooking up to sewerage. So I think probably it extends further than in consideration or the apparent club that Mr. Pollock has over your head. Rick proposed three things to you. Number 1, you could deny any building on that and acquire that property. In other words, Mr. Pollock is saying that if you don't let me build on that in some form or fashion, you're going to buy it or I'm going to take you to court and sue your tail off. So what in fact (end of tape) .. ... ... ... .. . . .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEW FASANO: (continuing) At this point in time we don't have any idea what kind of house a persons going to want to particularly going to want nor where exactly on this lot he's going to want to put it. It's a practical difficulty to give you a building siting plan. We can do what we've done up there with the conceptual and give you some approximation maybe even give you some tolerances, but to actually say on lot such and such we're going to have a 1,400 square feet of 1,60'1 square feet going to be sitting right here, we just can't do that. It's ; ike any other sub-division that you handle. It's a practical impossibi?41-y. The landscaping plan, and maybe it's ,just that I'm not sure what Rick -:--at by landscaping plan. Again, you're going to have individuals building !'. r ;r own homes with their own type of landscaping in mind. So we can't pres!!­#_, to landscape those lots or dictate how they will be landscaped. °4 i j t . y , PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock If Rick is talking of our showing kind of a master of existing vegetation, in that which would possibly be removed and how we would suggest replacing that that's being removed, that's altogether different. But he didn' t say that. If we pin it down to that showing what's there today and what we will be moving out and then work toward replacing as much as possible, we might be able to handle it, but we can't go into a detail on each lot. So I think again after all the trip at this thing, we've finally got to get off the dime and move on towards some form of development. These things have a density almost half of what it might be, and I think everything is being done to maximize protection to the original site. There's no reason why it shouldn' t be approved, and then with regard to these two conditions, except for those we can live with the staff recommendation. Thank you. POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in rebuttal? JOHNSTON: Kay Johnston, 12900 S.W. 107th, and I would just like to say to the gentlemen that it's not an impossibility to do a landscape plan because I've been to a number of these meetings and heard the plans of other developers have presented and what the Planning Commission has said, and the recommendations, and these things are possible, and they have asked other developers to do such in approving plan. POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in rebuttal? This public hearing is closed. (Unable to make out the next portion at all) GOLDBACH: Mr. Chairman, I just asked Rick a question but maybe I should ask it publicly but that is under the concept of a PUD isn' t the requirement for the applicant to provide all those things that Rick has asked for in the staff recommendations? Don't you have to show generally where the buildings are going to be and what landscaping is going to be .. . . .before we can approve it. POPP: Rick, do you have those requirements.. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. STAFF: Part of the requirements of the General Plan are going to be to show some of the typical buildings to be located in the development and what we are asking for and what the condition tries to address is two points, the first is the building siting, we would like to have the information and we feel it is important to have the information of where there's going to be grading, on the area that's shown for natural grade on the cross sections. We would like to know and we feel it is important to know where there's going to be topography modific- ations in the drier portion or the upland portion of the property, and the description of what we're looking for in landscape plan is we feel the vegetation is one of the stronger points of the site and you see a lot of it being removed. We aren't looking for detailed landscape plan as per lot, we're looking at some- thing information provided to the Planning Commission and City Council which will give them a handle on what's being removed and generally what's going to be replacing that and that it's compatible with the moisture content of this site. So that I :'link that the landscape plan that's been described earlier and grading p1n n for those portions of the lot are what we are trying to get listed in conditions. And this is kind of a little bit more information that'g being that is normally required in a planned development. PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock POPP: Mr. Wood WOOD: One question of the staff and one of the applicant. We've been through this business about variances request, notice of variances, has there been sufficient public notice to approve variances? POPP: No, but there's no request for variance tonight although he has addressed it in his previous testimony there is no request for variance. As such, we won't even be hearing a case for a variance. WOOD: As far as the question about parking, the question's about the narrow street. My concern is what do you plan on doing about parking for these homes when you come by a street that's that narrow with only a 10 foot setback and short drives. BRAINARD: If you will recall in my presentation I said that we are asking for 10 foot variance for the house portion but not for the garage portion so that you still have a 20 foot driveway. WOOD: One other question. Staff trying to get what they are looking for on the building site and the points Mr. Fasano raised. Would it be acceptable to staff to have a siting which showed the limits of permissable construction on the site. STAFF: That's what we want. POPP: All right. Any additional questions or discussion? TEPEDINO: Well my points, some of them have been resolved since the last few times we've looked at this, but I still have some concerns. Primarily, first let me address the issue that was raised for condemnation of the property and whether 01'O- City should buy it. I don't think we're talking here about a taking. I think we're talking regulation, so that doesn't bother me. The second problem that I hear the applicant raising is the fact that a 100 year flood if he in- creases the culvert to 36 inches, he will be lowering the flood, the surface of the water during that 100 year flood as far as his properties concerned with passing the water down to the next neighbor. I'm not sure that's really the way out of the problem. But the thing that bothers me is that his statement that if he didn' t increase the diameter as I understood it which is presently 27 inches, that at the 100 year flood the water surface would be 3 feet above the living floor area of the houses. And I've got tremendous concern over that, and the way he's going to resolve it is to increase the diameter of the culvert so that the water goes down to the neighbors. I'm not sure that's the way we ' ought to approve something. You know as far as who carries the burden here, whether the landowner or the adjacent landowners, I think we have elements of 'caveat emptor' '::'re. You know, who is the unknown buyer that's bought the land and maybe it's true that it happened after he purchased the land, but did somebody sleep on his rights? Didn't he raise the issue at the time the City was doing this and if he didn't, we have questions of waiver here. So that doesn't at least bother me very much .. .. . ... ......but I think this land could be developed; the problems I think can be dealt with by perhaps a reduction or a relocation of the houses to get away from some of these problems to get over to a higher elevation where you are not flooding three feet over the level of the bottom floor of the house when a 100 year flood plain should strike, if it does strike. 1y PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock And again, the engineers would have to worry about that. Those are my concerns, and I can' t see approving a plan that would allow flooding three feet over the home during a 100 year flood, or the alternatives to open the diameter cf the culvert... NICOLI: Idon' t know if those statements Frank was making are true. I think the way I hear it the engineers are putting that other culvert in there so that it doesn't flood over top of Walnut and the way I can see it that even if it did flood over Walnut it still wouldn' t be three feet above the floor so at no time would it come up on the floor of the house. TEPEDINO: With a 27 inch culvert and a 100 year flood? BRIAN: Your arithmetic is different than mine by 2 feet is all. We're proposing to put the lowest floors they would be at elevation of 163 and the top of the street is 164. If the water were to go to the top of the street, it would be a foot above the floor, but to guard against that, we are proposing to make it two feet below the top of the road or one foot below the floor. TEPEDINO: By increasing the culvert. BRIAN: By adding the culvert, right. TEPEDINO: And that's what I object to because what you are doing is solving your problem by creating a problem for someone else. BRIAN: But the point that I tried to impress on you and I hope that I made that point is still in this property we are providing flood storage of 70,000 cubic feet which is 65,000 cubic feet more than they had as runoff that would come from our project, so that we still do have the upstream properties in mind and we do have the downstream properties in mind all that we can short of the entire property. TEPEDINO: What would happen if you just left the culvert as is and went ahead with your construction plan? BRIAN: We would have to build all of these houses two feet higher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . so that you kind of work against yourself.. . . .. .. .. . . .. TEPEDINO: You are saying that there's no higher elevation to which the homes and possibly reduce the number of homes. BRIAN. Sure, I'm sure we could. If you look at the plan you see that we are go;--e, Lo be utilizing the highest property that we can. BRAINAk.D: In furthering answering that question, the downstreaL flow, keep in mind pl.::.5e that if the City of Tigard hadn't improved Walnut the way it did, that downstream flow would have been there anyway. What's happened is Tigard put a temporary barrier up that for the last several years has changed things and all we're doing is moving back toward the way it was. We're not putting any new water down there. We're going back over the way it was before Walnut was improved. PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock TEPEDINO: But now you see Tigard may be objecting where the landowner failed to raise an objection. POPP: Excuse me just a minute but at this point I think this improvement that you are referring to there Mr. Saunders, referring to, is an improvement made before this ordinance became effective - in other words, basically we refer to a section of the ordinance whereby we are not allowed to alter the stream in such a manner that you will affect the downstream flooding, in other words, you are in effect by adding the culvert, you are adding flood control up above a reservoir for 65,000 cubic feet was it. BRIAN: Correct. POPP: At the same time, you are releasing the downstream flow so that actually it would be creating a flooding situation downstream and increasing. SAKATA: Are you building a pond there. BRIAN: Are we building a pond? No, the pond is existing there. It exists. . . . . . ' SAKATA: Are you creating more open space for addition - this reference to this 70,000 cubic feet of water. BRIAN: What we're building is we're comparing what it will be with our develop- ment and what it would be without one.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .we're providing reservoir with 70,000 cubic feet of storage over what it would have been without Walnut Street. We didn't construct a reservoir.. . . . ... ... STAFF: Wilbur, when was Walnut Street improved? Can you recall? BISHOP: About seven years ago, or eight years ago. WOOD: 1970. POPP: Any more discussion. WOOD: Various objections raised I felt that I had to dismiss the aesthetic objections, I think they are a very real concern to the neighbors, it seems to me that those objections could only be remedied by the neighborhood wanting the property badly enough by forming an L.I.D. to take or by the City purchasing it, and I don't see anybody willing to step forward into either of those things. Although we appreciate the problem of people with their septic tanks but it's probably the fact that when an area becomes urbanized, septic tanks frequently are replaced by sewers. That doesn't make the cost easier to bear, and I wouldn't suppose to answer between the parties who pays, but I suspect that where the common occurrence As far as the downstream flow, i am impressed by the fact that this is a property which is having imposed on it .Nilbstantially more retention as a result of Walnut Street it seems to me to be 1::: .:: ?3tg its full share of retention and will be bearing retentionn to the extent that there won't be overflow except in 100 year flood, and I don't see how and given that fact it seems to me to be reasonable to allow development under the very strict conditions that have been set up with the limitations that have been imposed by the staff. I would comment that foresee particular r , PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock problem with the suggestion proposed from Condition 1, which would be to require the easements that or specified in Staff Condition 1 and leave open whether that requires joining lots 14 and 15 the other 3 seem to me to be quite reason- able and I'm not totally supportive and my only comment is that I think that this really isn't a situation of the applicant changing the natural conditions, he's just asking for a little land above what we flooded with Walnut and I don't think it's unreasonable. POPP: Any further discussion. Questions? Some discussion (unable to decipher) NICOLI: I agree with Mr. Wood. HIEM: I agree with Mr. Wood's points there's one thing that sort of confused me in the opposition statements from members of the community, and I can't yet decide where they are, really in claiming that this is a natural aesthetically attractive area and, on the other hand, saying that the smell is offensive and that all these bad things about it. Which is it to the people in the community? The impression that I get is that with this develop- ment and the condition that are imposed on it, it's possible that it would be a more attractive area than indeed now. You would not even have some of the problems they complain about now. POPP: Any additional comments, Mr. Goldback? SAKATA: .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (unable to make out the first part of this statement.) When you do fill an area that has underground springs, you never really settle the ground. And I think when a buyer comes in, a buyer who is not aware of the land situation, and by the time ie finds out, but it's often too late for the developers are gone. I think I'd like to go through and approve the concept plan rather than saying these are your allowed houses and this is what .. . ... . . .. . .. . . . . . .. POPP: Okay, maybe it wasn' t understood but that is actually what is being called for this evening. This is strictly a preliminary review proposed 15 unit planned development. (Some discussion in here, and I am unable to make it out at all. ) POPP: Frank, do you have anything more? TEPEDINO: Well, the only comment I would have is I don' t think the property owner should do something that would adversely affect the adjacent properties. If'he has a problem there, then he should try to figure out a way to deal with it rather than just passing it on, and I think if he's going to increase the dia-w;er of the culvert to solve his problem, I don't think that's right. You've got a water problem there with the present culvert and you want to develop it, then you should figure a way out of your own difficulties but don't be passing it on to the adjacent property owners. You should figure a way around that problem. s _ PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock HIEM: Mr. Chairman: Does anyone know if this would adversely affect the people on the other side of Walnut.. ... . . . . . .. . ... . . . .. POPP: We're going back once again to the additional culvert that would be installed in the Walnut Street area which would allow a greater flow of water down below so that it actually in effect would be increasing the 100 flood plain down below. This is one of the problems that I have in my own mind, I think it bothers me considerable. I question if we're doing something right when we are taking the problem from here and pushing it downstream. HIEM: The other problem that I have is in that do we have can we call it the 100 year flood plain when man has altered that. I don't think we, as a body, are capable of saying yes, no, or maybe. But .I do think that it's possible that he has a grievance in terms of what has been done to what was, and I sympathize on people both sides of the issue. POPP: It's true, I think they've brought up some very valid points. HIEM: Mr. Pollock and his people to clever and worm their way out of a problem that they didn't create. i POPP: On the other hand, to me I feel a great deal of concern for the entire surrounding area as well as the entire community and by that I simply mean that health and safety of this consideration are a concern for everybody in the entire community. I think we've got to be concerned about where we allow 3 building to be permitted, the type of ground it is permitted on, if we are } allowing sub-standard housing to be built upon an area that's not going to hold up, if we're going to allow a faulty type of housing, then I become very concerned about it. I think that we've got different cases before us also whereby something is not built correctly and the bad housing defects that it has. Sometimes you can have bad housing built on solid ground let alone good housing built on bad ground, so I don't know which is the worse of the two. But I guess I just need to be a little bit thoroughly sold to be convinced on the basis that first of all this is buildable, secondly, that the effects of building on this ground are not going to adversely affect the entire area and neigliuorhood including the Tigard community. I also, I guess feel that I want to be more sold on the fact that this water problem, this runoff problem is not simply a problem that is being passed downstream and is not being water over the i' dam so to speak. I think we've got to find the solution how to take care of it and, undoubtedly, each building that is constructed I can' t help but feel that we do 4lightly the 100 year flood plain, but I think that if anything, we are niakinp,. hat 100 year flood plain a little bit higher than it was before. So anyway, w.erall, I am somewhat very dubious about several things pertaining to this particular parcel of ground. i PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock NICOLI: I think the way you're going we'd stop all construction in the City altogether. This flood plain you are talking about I mean the flooding, it comes all the way from Bull Mountain, that creek. So there's a sub-division up on Bull Mountain, there's one upstream of 106 houses and there are these here, and you pick out 15 and say that they are going to flood the whole area. Now we've got two or three houses two or three hundred houses are going to be upstream, what are you going to do about those? Say no you can't build because you're going to flood between Walnut and the mouth of Fanno Creek at Tualatin? You're talking about the flood affecting people on the g to be just the other side, it's going other side of the road. It isn' t goin to be all the way down the length of the creek. So how much is this area here going to raise the flood plain all the way from let's say three, four, five miles of flood plain. If it's raised an inch that would be a lot. WOOD: just a couple of quick comments, one is these .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . the 100 year flood plain established a number of years ago, the various developments affected on this property, then seven years ago in effect a dam was created which had the effect of lowering the flood plain below the normal 100 year mark was set up by flooding the property behind. What is proposed now in effect is a culvert that partially overcomes the effect of that dam and restores the flood level not above what it was, in fact below what it was, because the property will retain 65,000 cubic feet of water that wasn't being retained when the 100 year flood plain was established on the other side of Walnut Street. So it -seems to me that this parcel is doing at least it's share in reducing the flood plain level to what was earlier established. More than any other parcel around for changing things for the better during that period. The second point is if we're concerned about the fact that these houses might catch some unsuspecting buyers C.o be mislead and make a foundation problem, one possible solution, I'd just like to throw out, is that if the great concern of that houses be say insured by H.O.W. that give's final approval would require anty on the foundation. Which would give them a 10-year warranty insurance warr the people pretty good protection, better than most existing. POPP: Any additional discussion? TEPEDINO: Let me read one section, Mr. Chairman, here of this code and I, the rationale that Commissioner.Wood-propounds is somewhat persuasive I admit. But I am bothered about this particular section 18.57.06, it says "proposed impro, •.--=its will not have a serious tendency to change the flow of floodwaters durinU +uture flooding such as to cause a compounding of flood hazards and to therr-1 ; - • -:usly interfere with the intent and purposes of the flood plain disti '•- . ations, no structure filled storage or other uses shall be permitted which _r in combination with the existing or future uses to material reduccl .� capacity of the flood plain area, or raise the flood surface elevar'. : _a adjacent properties or create a present or forseeable hazard to welfare". That bothers me, and dropping down public health safety or general to 18.57.07 reads, 'the lowest floor elevation of the structure designed for human orrupancy shall be at least 1� feet above flood surface elevation' . And I ask do we meet these criteria? I understand the rationale you propound, and it's convincing to a degree and somewhat persuasive, but I ask you, do we meet these criteria? And that's the code. PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock WOOD: One and one half? TEPEDINO: At least 1' feet above the flood surface elevation. Bore the hole and another culvert, we are seemingly violating one standard and if we don' t seemingly violate another. BRIAN: I wasn' t aware that was under Code. TEPEDINO: That's why I'm concerned. I think the property can be developed but I got some concern POPP: Well we've had a great deal of discussion Mr. Daniels? STAFF: Just a point of clarification in that the way I read the introduction to both those sections are that this is for areas within the flood plain district. TEPEDINO: That's open to areas of argument. STAFF: Right. POPP: Any additional discussion? If not would anyone care to make a motion - the chair will entertain such. WOOD: I'll make a motion for approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development based on staff findings and on staff conditions with only the following modifi- cations. Condition 1 be altered to read that easements be provided over the lots now planned as Lots 14 and 15 to provide an extension of the pathway and open drainage from the Watkins Place Subdivision. GOLDBACK: Mark, could I make one recommendation that we might add a fifth condition that says that the drainage plan be submitted to approval by the City engineers. WOOD: Sure. SAKATA: May I also add another? WOOD: All right. SAKATA: Number 6 that the greenway be developed prior to the dedication. POPP: Excuse me just a minute - could I have the fifth condition again, I'm sorry .. . . . . . .... GOLDBACK: That the drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineers. POPP: All right. I'm sorry who made the recommendation for the 6th plan - WOOD: this contemplated in the staff request for the landscaping plan? OK �i PC MTG. 4/19/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock STAFF: No, the area we talk about for landscape plan was for around the buildings. It really didn't address the 2.4 acres. WOOD: Staff have any comments on that? STAFF: Well, there's two purposes of the greenway as both are spelled out in the comprehensive plan and those are viable open space and drainage retention and for paths of recreation. This property is being used right now for a playground for the neighborhood. Any improvements that would go into the flood plain it would be our recommendation that they be minimal if anything at all. SAKATA: Didn't you say the stench was coming from rotting shrubs and anything else. STAFF: Right and that's from what Washington County has supplied us with the information, the Health Department is that that's a cause of the water table being close to the surface and decaying material so I don't know if it is really something that can be cleaned up. Probably something that will be back there in a short while. HIEM: You mean that these people are expected to buy property, build on it and live there with smell? I thought that this was supposed to be alleviated at the clearing and draining of the land. STAFF: The problem is that the lower area - this is - probably won' t be drained. The drainage, there's no plug that's being put in there and draining this into a storm sewer. This wet area in the bottom is going to remain wet. POPP: Okay, we have a motion on the floor I think everybody heard and under- stands it, do I have a second to the motion. GOLDBACK-: I second it. POPP: Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All right, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Those opposed. May we have a roll call. STAFF: Wood - aye, Popp - no, Nicolai - yes, Goldback - aye, Heim - aye, Tepedino - no, Sakata - aye. POPP: Motion is approved.- i . F a ` REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF -MAY 17, 1977 EXCERPTS CONCERNING ZONE CHANGE 10-77/POLLOCK STAFF: Chairmembers and remaining members of the audience: This is an item we have had numerous public hearings over the last six months to a year. We are looking at a 6.32 acre parcel. To orient you Pacific Highway Walnut Street - Fowler Junior High is right here - it's back on the southwest side of Walnut on Pathfinder Way and Walnut Street. The applicant is requesting general plan program approval of a 15-unit planned development on a 6.32 acre parcel. The staff report includes the applicable standards that must apply and general plans and programs in general development ordinance; also lists Finding of Fact the policies of Neighborhood Plan 3 which must be applied to protect the existing suburban character of the neighborhood by limiting the maximum overall development of 3 units to the acre, that the sub-division will be developed with paved streets, curbs and street lights, that development coincides with the Division of Public Services, (continues to read regulations • for benefit of the audience)... . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. • ... The property is R-10, single family residential. I've listed under Number 7 Past Action Planning Commission in reviewing development of project, and again on April 19th, the Planning Commission did grant preliminary Planned Prcgram approval to the development. Also I would point out that the property is not within the flood plain district, as adopted by the City Council in Ordinance 74.58. A little bit about the property. The creek flows in a northeasterly direction out of Pathfinder with an additional small stream coming in between Lots 14 and 15, heavily vegetated. Surrounding uses are single-family with large lot development to the east on septic tanks and to the west on septic tanks with the smaller 7500-8000 square foot Pathfinder sub-division to the south where it does -have sewers. Sewer mains adjacent to the creek to the Greenway and 8-inch waterlines in Southwest Walnut Street and 6-inch lines on Pathfinder both are adequate to serve the property. In the past, we have discussed the unbuildable nature of the soil on this site and have pointed out the soil conservation report which indicates the property as having moderate to severe dgvelopment constraints due to wetness, low strength and high shrink-swell potential.. I would also like to point out that the Uniform Building Code requires that in areas such -as this that soil compression tests be done before building permits can be issued. Another problem that was discussed in reviewing this proposal -- and I will leave this to the applicant and his Engineer to explain how this will function - when Walnut Street was constructed in its present configuration, it amounted to creating a small dam or a constriction of the free flow through this property, and has caused some retention basin that the City created which is a viable community asset in that the peak in the cresting of the flooding will be taken off and will be minimized on this section of the creek but at the same time what this has amounted to is raising the water table and raising the flooding elevation on this property. The applicants propose to handle this by installing a 36-inch culvert in addition to the existing 48-inch culvert underneath Walnut Street. The applicant proposes dedicating 2.4 acres to the City for Greenway purposes; that there's been considerable discussion in the past about the functioning aspect of septic tanks on surrounding properties. This proposal encompasses providing easement for sewers alongside all side lot lines; rapid development will provide the ability for those surrounding property owners to connect to the sewer. I would point out that the lotting pattern as proposed envisions 15 lots ranging in size from 8,075 square feet to 12,000 square feet with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. This is within 3 units per gross acre limitation under Plan 3. The Neighborhood Plan Organization 3 PC MTG. 5/17/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock reviewed the proposal in February when the applicant approached the Commission with a proposal to put 18 units on the property - they did recommend approval of the development provided that sewer easements are available fdr the adjacent parcel and that Greenways are maintained as a permanent open space. What I would like to do is go through the six conditions that the Planning Commission attached to the preliminary approval and address how those were spoken to by the applicant. The first was that an easement be provided in the areas of Lots 14 and 15 for drainage continuance of the bike path from Watkins Place sub-division. The easement is shown between Lots 14 and 15 for the pedestrian easement and the sewer easement shown between - both will be coming through the pedestrian ease- ment, and the drainage will be coming between Lots 14 and 15. No mention is made, though, of the continuance of the bike path. Condition Two - that an overall Landscape and Building Siting Plan be included in the General Plan Program. Sheet 3 of the Plen of last stage shows the building locations that will be available for building on each of the lots is incorporated in setbacks, it is also shown on here specifically which plant materials will be removed or by showing existing landscaping and then where the buildings are to be located - it's your assumption that everything in that building envelope will be removed. Condition Three - was that design for the signing and marking of the bike path in the street right-of-way be included in the General Plan Program. The applicants included, and I did not Xerox this for the packets, but the applicants propose to use the standard State bike path signing striking program. This is acceptable to the City Staff. Condition Four - was that French drain type of stormwater/drainage system should be provided along the southeast plat boundary to intercept run-off from the upslope development. The applicant may wish to expand on this, but they are showing that surface or sub-surface drainage from the east would be intercepted and routed as required to avoid interference with the proposed sites and street improvements. This is somewhat loose and the only recommendation we would have are with the words "as determined by the Director of Public Works", be added to that statement, because what it did, it sets out that something will happen, but it doesn't really put the City in any position to require that they be the ones to determine whether or not it is acceptable. Condition Five - the Planning Commission required that a drainage plan be submitted. This has been done. Condition Six - was that the Greenway be developed prior to dedication. The applicant's written material which was included with the Staff Report, there was mention that the Greenway area will be dedicated to the City to preserve it's natural state and that the improvements to the greenway are to be primarily in channelizing the creek and clearance of the undesirable brush in the lower portion which is causing the problem of flow. PC MTG. 5/17/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock Things that we are talking about is the General Plan that we don' t pick up on the Preliminary Plan are deviations from the underlying zoning requirements. The applicant is really requesting two code deviations, the first of which is rather than have all of the buildings subject to the 20-foot setback of the R-10 zone, they're proposing that the living portion of the building be 10 feet from the right-of-way and that, but yet keeping the garage area 20 feet back. Now a lot of the rationale for the building setback of 20 feet is to provide for cars in the driveway and still be off the public right-of-way. This objective is still being maintained by allowing the buildings to be moved closer and keeping the garages back. What that also does especially in this area in here, it allows that shifting these buildings as far around to the higher ground, the higher portion of the site as possible, and keeping them up in here, rather than forcing the 10 feet to the greenway area to the lower area. The applicant is also requesting deviations or variances of street pavement width and location of that pavement width within the right-of-way. And that's occurring in this section right here, Pathfinder 4 on Walnut Street, in that in order to maintain or to establish an acceptable slope on this portion, on the uphill portion adjacent properties, that they're proposing to put in a 4-foot rock wall and shifting the right-of-way to the east or to the west as much as possible to give them a good slope in there, and in order to keep from shifting that any farther into forcing this whole development farther into the wetter areas, they are proposing to reduce the street width 28 feet. The staff really doesn't have any problems with this due to the shortness of the culdesac and the limited number of the d,,elling units it would serve. In the applicant's proposal to dedicate the greenway area, the applicants also submited as part of the submission, deed covenants which in summary require trailers, boats, etc. to be stored in the garage, limits fence height is six feet, prohibits animals other than normal household pets be kept, prohibits outdoor television antennae, requires applicant's approval of building plans citing exterior colors, prohibits use of single family dwellings . .. . . . . .. .become a nuisance, prohibits trailers, tents, or other outbuildings to be used as a residency, temporarily/ or permanent. Would like to offer as conclusionary findings the following 9: The first of which is that the proposed development is in substantial conform- ance with the comprehensive plan for the City in that: a. the proposed density is within the 3 dwelling units per acre, as specified within the NP III b. -hat the development is proposed to have streets, curbed gutters, street lights, walkways, etc. in accordancw with City standards and utilities will be placed underground. 2. As noted in the staff observations, adequate water and sewer facilities are available as well as public streets. 3. A bi.­ path is shown through the development and easements are shown on the general plan and sub-division preliminary plat. Construction is also contemplated. - y PC MTG. 5/17/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock 4. The proposal envisions minimizing the disturbance to the existing vegetation in the greenway area. 5. The deviations to the setback variance and street design standards are warranted in order to locate future structures as far as possible from the portions of the site with drainage problems, to minimize the amount of pavement involved in the street and to provide proper slope along the eastern portion of the site where the street will be located. 6. The proposal is in harmony with the surrounding area in that it is at a lower density than that which exists on surrounding properties. 7. That by dedication of the greenway area to the City the open space will be preserved and maintained. 8. Development of the property as a standard R-10 subdivision would require extensive filling and grade modifications, which will not be necessary under the plan development and is more beneficial than that which could be achieved as developed in another manner. 9. The applicant has stated that the proposed development will commence upon approval by the City and has stated their assurance that the project can be substantially completed within one year. End of Staff Report. POPP: All right, thank you Mr. Daniels. Presentation by the applicant: BRAINARD: I think that Mr. Daniels has covered all of the items initially I would have covered. With regard to no mention of a bike path between Lots 14 and 15, that's simply an oversight. I wrote the word pedestrian rather than bike path, but I really meant them to be synonomous. I will change that to say pedestrian and bike path if that's all right. As Rick noted, we have conformed with all of the conditions of your Preliminary Plan Approval. Also, Rick's recommendation that greenway improvements be acceptable as determined by the Director of Public Works is acceptable statement - I would expect that. I don't have any other comments at this time and would entertain any questions you have and would like to reserve some rebuttal time at a later time, if it's required. Thank you. POPP: Anyur.e else wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? ZUMWALT: Ycs. ' Chairman and members of the Tigard Planning Commission - This testimony is presented by Mrs. Sharon Zumwalt, resident of 10665 S.W. Pathfinder Way, Tigard, Oregon. To the Tigard Planning Commission at it's meeting of May 17, 1977, I have very strong objections to the proposed plan development s PC MTG. 5/17/77, Zone Change 10-77/Pollock of the 15 lot residential sub-division between S.W. Pathfinder Way and S.W. Walnut Street. I find. the proposed development of the above mentioned name contrary to the best interests of the City and neighborhood and urgently request the Commission to deny the general development plan and program for the following reasons: I wish to ask at this time the members of the Planning Commission please refer to a copy submitted to the Commission of my written and oral testimony written in opposition to Mr. Pollock's proposal submitted before the Commission on April 19, 1977. I wish to again stress my concern of the environmental impact and devastation of this parcel of property if the development is allowed to take place. In addition, I wish to specifically direct the attention to some striking contradictions in the general plan and program under the sub-heading Goals and Objectives submitted by the developer. More specifically, Numbers 2 and 3. Under Number 2 - I wish to ask how preservation of drainage qualities at the site can possibly be made. The only drainage quality on this property, if one wishes to refer to it as a quality, is flooding. And the general plan proposes preservation of the flood condition? By running a culvert into S.W. Walnut Street to alleviate the drainage of flooding on the proposal site, wouldn't it appear the problem is being directly cast onto downstream property owners who have already expressed great concern with their already high water table. I, for one, fail to see how the word 'preservation' can be applied in this pretense. Number 3 - under sub-heading Goals and Objectives - preservation of natural vegetation and wildlife sanctuary. It is very difficult to believe that preservation of natural vegetation will take place if development is allowed to occur on this property. As stated in the developer's general plan and program, refer to Numbers 1 and 2, under sub-heading Landscaping. 1. Clearance of debris and vegetation from the stream (remember the developer wants to preserve natural vegetation and wildlife??). 2. Clearance of undesirable brush. Again, the developer wants to preserve natural vegetation and wildlife??. The removal and clearance of debris and vegetation in the stream, clearance of brush, removal of trees. In general, is this preservation of wildlife sanctuary? I find this most difficult to believe, indeed. Under the sub-heading of drainage, the developer's general plan program, again I must call your attention the obvious contradictions. The General Plan states in Number 1. Clearance of blackberry bushes by the creek area to assure maximum carrying capacity of the main channel. It is very evident of flooding down- stream property owners, which would also raise the question in Number 2, providing a culvert entrance to S.W. Walnut Street. I had a question on this. It had I believe, inlet, and I put in written testimony - inlet or outlet capacity, I was a little confused on this, to tell you the truth. In stripping vegetation located near the creek or any other area on the property site, are we not asking for erosic.n. I think the answer is obviously yes because the whole area acts as a natural retention basin which should be left undisturbed. Can soil be clean, native and undistrubed in the same instance? One thing the soil would be is native, but by gost, I'll challenge anyone to tell me it will be PC MTG. 5/17/77 Zone Change 10-77/Pollock undisturbed or clean. In Number 5 it states, and I quote: 'Soft, spongy soil should be left undisturbed' . Now, in Number 6, we find the General Plan stating that wet areas 'c4n be drained by a series of ditches to carry surface water away. Thus, we find that the developer now does wish to disturb soil, soft spongy soils, by diggidg these ditches. Additionally, this procedure will also create more disturbing of natural vegetation which, again, contradicts statements made on Page 1 under Goals and Objectives. Number 2, which states 'preservation of the drainage qualities on site' , and in Number 3, same section 'preservation of natural vegetation and wildlife sanctuary' . Now to substantiate and help clarify the issues involved in this proposal and some of the claims I have made, I would like at this time to quote from the Neighborhood Plan 3 adopted December of 1975 by the Tigard City Council - please refer to Page 3 under Natural Environment, second paragraph - I quote: "Fanno and Summer Creeks receive the run off of the streams, draining . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. except during more severe floods, overflow water is confined to low and poorly drained flood plain land, adjacent to the streams. These low areas are important to the community in several ways. They work to diminish the severity of flooding by providing overflow basins which receive floodwater during the periods of peak runoff. This water is stored in the flood plain area and is slowly returned to the stream as these levels subside. The temporary impounding of water also. provides a source of recharging the ground water table. Another feature of importance to the developing area is the natural habitats afforded by the tributary streams and adjacent flood plain which provide natural areas in the midst of surrounding developments. This natural asset has not been developed due to flooding hazards and drainage control, and the result is a relatively natural area surrounded by various trees, blackberry bushes, grasses, ducks and pheasants. As the area continues to develop, this undeveloped natural land will be a practical asset to the neighborhood. However, a great threat to the lowlands is caused by increased land value to be gained by filling in flood points. As vacant land decreases, the pressure increases to fill land in these areas. Once filled and developed a valuable natural asset is lost, and the flood hazard will be increased on the portion of the stream. On August 26, 1974, the City Council adopted the Ordinance restricting the filling of flood plain lands. Because of this ordinance, a minimum of property damage will result during floods. The property owners now qualify for Federal flood insurance and save tax dollars by preserving a natural drainage system rather than the necessity for construction of a pipe system." According to Tigard Planning Commission meeting Minutes of April 19, 1977, Project Engineer for the developer stated, I quote from Page 4 - "a new study based on 100-year flood necessitated an overflow culvert into Walnut". I submit that the proposed development is a viable ani undeniable part of Tigard's 100-year flood plain because plan develop- ments are "ot permitted in flood plain and for other reasons mentioned in the testimony, I respectfully request that development not be allowed to utilize this parcel of land in constructing homesites and that his request be denied. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Zumwalt. Zone Chanc-e 10-77 Pollock 5-17-77 POPP: Is there anyone else wi-shing to speak in opposition to this proposal? E11-1Y: 1,:y name is Mrs. Robert Emmy, 1121 S. .,% Forner. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Tigard Planning Commission. Our need to preserve our environmental quality should be our real concern. I would like to see this parcel set aside as open space for tine City of Tigard and for future generations to enjoy. Vegetation in this area serves as an erosion control and to remove it would place undue liability on the City. Our need to save open space is also a necessity for wildlife. Surface water in this area is poorly drained already, and with an added overload of sewerage, the chance of backup is cause for concern. Therefore, I make the recommendatin that the Tigard Planning Commission require the developer to post a bond to guarantee adjacent property coverage for dammage due to drain off of water. Putting in this additional culvert would only pass the surface water on down the line to someone else. There is already enough congestion on Walnut Street ingress and egress to this parcel since the question concerns the matter of traffic safety and health hazards. . . . . . . . . . . I recommend that this proposal be denied. Thank you very much. POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? T•S.ARZENIK: ray name is Maurice : arzenik, 10725 Fonner, and I have a question, I guess more than anything. Back, oh I don't remember the date, but back when Pathfinder as a subdivision was proposed to the Planning Commission, now I may be in error, but I'm sure that someone in your notes. . . . . .the Planning Commission will be either approved or disproved, I was in that meeting and it seems to me that the applicant stated that the area that he is now considering for planned development would be left in its natural state with a bike path only as part of a condition for the approval of the develop- ment of Pathfinder originally. Now I may or may not be correct in this, and probably like I say that somewhere in the Planning Commissicn's old notes, but it is my impression that at the time Pathfinder was originally approved that this was the condition to the approval of the subdivision of Pathfinder, and I would lige to pose that question. STAFF: First of all, there is a lot of differences between this proposal cnd the Pathfinder. S:ARZFy:T::: Right. The only thing I'm saying is that when Path- finder was built, this piece of property was considered at that same time and as a condition of Pathfinder being built, was not this piece of property to be retained in its natural state, only that a bike path going through it. STAFF: '..,ell this is someone else's property we can't let someone develop their property subject to someone else not developing their land. If it all were one parcel that might have been true. Zone Change 10-77 Pollock 5-17-77 MIARMUK: Right, I realize that. Wasn't Pathfinder and this piece of property when it -was originally proposed part of the package at that time? STAFF: No. POPP: Anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this proposal? ZUI,111ALT: I have a statement to make - my name is Roger Zumwalt, 10665 S. W. Pathfinder. I wish to call to the Planning Commission's attention a set of new passed conditions, passed on to the City Council regarding the recommendations submitted by the P.C. from the Park Board concerning open spaces. If you will bear with me I would like to read to you parts of those goals and objectives contained in those, and I have a copy he• e with me that pertains to this particular development. One of the goals that was passed in Section 1 that was entitled - The Environmental Designed Open Space Plan for the Tigard Plan area. The goal in Section 1 was to protect and promote public health and safety to regulate develop- ment in inherently hazardous areas and to preserve environmental quality. Going on, it states that people and subsequently govern- ments, face environmental problems as the result of activity, either improperly located or otherwise contrary to natural processes. Nature offers a well-balanced system of events in natural cycles. When these cycles are disrupted by human intervention, nature may react in an unforgiving manner. In terms of developing the land for human usage, there are certain physical characteristics that limit the type of activity that can safely occur. These characteristics are referred to as natural hazards or physical limitations which exist in the planned area. They are, flood plain and wetlands, runoff and erosion, soil instability. Even though these limitations to building are characteristically separate, they are linked through the interrelated natural processes that created them. These interconnections are directly related to the roles of geologic deposits and processes, water and hydrologic cycle, soil properties, slope and vegetation. In order to mini- mize potential development hazards due to physical limitations, these interrelationships require a program of coordinated growth and balance of continuation of nature's processes. The physical. limitations, talking about flood plains and wetlands, runoff and erosion, the physical features which make up any parcel of land having direct relationship to the type and density of development that c;-f� be accommodated on that property, I'm talking about carryin, .rapacity, I'm still reading from this plan.. . .a combina- tion suuh us slopes and unstable soils create severe development constrain.+G, Excessive development in such physically limited areas greatly increases the potential severity of landslides, earthquake damage and flooding. Often in the past, development has occurred along streams and drainage ways that are subject to periodic flooding. Such as the area which has been discussed tonight. This reduces the natural capacity of the land to control runoff and erosion, and consequently increases the potential for flooding during the times of peak rainfall. So the objectives that were addressed in this plan under Section 1, still under the same goal, and I'll still quote from this plan and I still thirds Zone Change, J-77 Pollock / 5-17-77 ZU:,%'ALT: (cont'd) it is pertinent. Using the detailed information gathered on the flood plains and floodlands, and areas of serious drainage problem, this plan recommends - 1. To control development and encourage non-intrusive uses in these areas. 2. Minimize runoff erosion impact on the development and surround- ing areas and downstream problems. 3. Emphasize the retention of vegetation buffer along the stream to reduce runoff and flood damage and provide erosion control. In the process of evaluating the planned area for flood plains and wetlands, several informational problems were identified. I think these should be brought to your attention. One, there are four discrepancies that were noted. Discrepancies were found between calculated flood elevations and their demarkation on the official maps. . . . . . . . .and lack of reliable hydrologic data regarding the CD flood level affected by future development. The :anno Creek drainage CD system includes numerous small :Nater courses of which this stream is on the property is in this proposal is one of them. The integrity of these natural drainage ways is intrinsically connected to the system's capacity to reduce excessive runoff and subsequent flood levels. Often, however, developers alter these water courses to suit their development purposes, usually to provide more usable land. The resultant adveYre impacts are detrimental to the entire drainage system. Vegetation without a doubt serves an essential function in the process. . . . .control. P:onetheless, it is too often removed and replaced by buildings and asphalt. POPP: Excuse me just a minute. ZUINWALT: I'm just nearing the end. I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's too long. I'm just pulling out some points that are pertinent. . . . . . .Goal Number 2, is to preserve the natural scenic beauty for the enjoyment of the community. Number 3, to preserve renewable or a non-renewable resource to protect and promote the ecology of the community and to diz,.:ourage unnecessary conversion of open space to urban uses. The major premise of this section is that development should be complimentary to the community's natural attractiveness, and that is pointed out through- out this plan. And a reminder to the Commission that you have reviewed this plan-, you have voted on it and approved its adoption by the City Council. The City Council has not yet approved it. It was tabled at the last meeting I think for further review, a►,d._I don't exoect. . . . . . .I would encourage the Planning Commission to deny this proposal,. based on this plan. POPP: Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? ay we have staff recommendation. STAFF: Mr. Chairman, much the same as when we talked about the ' Prel_rainary Plan and Program, we seem to be talking about two differ- ent possibilities. One would be to deny the development of the property, and another would be to approve some type of development. We've looked it over, the,• property is going to develop, this is the manner in which it should develop. The plan that they propose is the most sensitive of any development plan we have seen yet with minimal amounts of cut and fill, the higher portions of the property, the more stable soils are those which are being used for /d • ' Zone Change 10-77 Pollock 5-17-77 STAFF: (cont'd) building sites, they are being built back into the bank, not the real marshy stuff is being left open, and if the Planning Commission wishes to approve the General Plan and zone chan;;e, the only condition we would propose is that the floor elevations of all structures be no less than 1P -eet above the flooding area as shown on the General Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . WOOD: Before I get an idea of some of the comments some of the people are going to make, I wonder if it's a sense of the Commission, I think that as far as it is a question of whether we approve the development here or not that we've heard lengthy testimony, and it is strongly felt. I thought we had already decided that issue and I wonder if we need to continue - at some points you've got to decide an issue and go on. I wonder if we could limit ourselves to compliance with the conditions. POPP: I think mr. Wood's point is well taken because the general concept was approved last meeting and this was actually a request for a General Planned Program, and that's actually what we are reviewing this evening and calling for an approval of, and I think our discussion and any further testimony should be offered strictly in that vein, so with that I will restrict any additional comments of testimony strictly to this general planning for review. Is there anything more you wish to ask? DAVE BRIAN: Mr. Chairman, I did have one question, and I think it is - should be in line and pertains to the staff recommendation and the provision that we elevate the floors to lj feet above the flooding area as shown on the general development plan. The flood- ing level shown on the general development plan you will recall from the prior hearing was based on 100 year plus, and we have in order to get that level down to where it is, we've lowered the level 2 feet below the top of walnut Street, that is without the added culvert under 1.1alnut Street, which seems to be such an issue. The water would go over the top of ;•Talnut Street if we are asked to our -lowest floor level one foot and a half above the level or only a half foot below Walnut Street. Iaybe we should not put a culvert under 11alnut Street and elevate the floors 2 feet over what we show and leave the whole area as a catch basin. SThat I would like to propose instead, however, in our initial analysis of this we looked at a 25 year storm where we were proposing to the developer that the floor levels be at least a foot above the 25 year level which turns out to be very close to the same as the 100 year level. MTe would like to propose that we go back to that concept or that we have floor levels at least to the minimum shown. POPP: Tom, is there something you wish to add? . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' SMITH: I'm Doug Smith, S. W. . . . . Court. In regard to the General Plan on Lot 15, I guess I have a question first. In the structure site,, how much fill. . . . . POPP: I missed your question as well Mr. Smith. . . . . • Zone Change'-:LO-77 Pollock 5-17-77 SMI'Fri: Well, the reason I bring this up is that this is adjacent- to djacer_tto the. back of my lot and I am concerned that if they fill that lot to the amount that I think the cross sections are indicating that the springs which come out there will drain off onto the back of my lot, and I would like some assurance that the runoff would be taken care of. If I read this cross section correct, he has to fill -that lot which would place that lot higher than the back lower portion of my lot - this water might be converted to my property. BRIAN: Could I answer that question? What he is looking at is a section on the Sheet 2 of the General Plan which is really drawn to illustrate a driveway that would go into the property for sure - the driveway would be elevated above the 100 year flood level and the foundations of the floor level of the building would be, whether or not any other part of that lot would be filled in or not wasn't a subject of our study. I would presume that the front part of it and much of it would not be filled in so as to preserve the trees. Does that answer your question? SI,ITH: I think so, now you indicate that the trees on the buil, .ing site being preserved, and I assume that if you are going to save those trees y.-u are not going to be able to fill. . . . . . . POPP: Anyone else. . . . . . . GOLDBACH: I have a question. What elevation are you talking about? You say 1' feet above the flooding area. What elevation datum are you referring to? What was the number? POPP: I.,r. Brainard, what level do you find the flood plain at according to your stipulations? GOLDBACH: The elevation of the 100 year flood. cThat would that be? BRAII,IARD: As we are proposing? GOLDBACH: Yes. BRAINARD: With the addition of the 36 inch pipe under 111alnut Street, the 100 year flood level would be 162 feet. GOLDBACI'.: Is that what you've shown here? This elevation would be 162. f"t. BRAIN.-tiD: Right, 162 at this reach down in here - it's higher up in hers. GOLDBACH: Rick, is that what you are talking about? So that you are saying that the foundation of the floor should be at 163.5. Zone Change" l0-77 Pollock 5-17-77 STAFF: The reason for that is that people would recognize it as a flooding problem or retention problem on property if we localize flood problems, and this is a requirement that we have for areas in the flood plain and what I'm trying to do here is apply the same kind of standard to areas that have drainage problems, but are not designated flood plain. BRIAN: I'll say it more clearly, that what ae are concerned about really is that we propose to have a culvert under 1,ialnut Street to minimize the amount of fill to minimize the elevation_ at which we ;could have to build all those houses. . .under your reco*mnendation, we would be adding -the culvert but still going ahead and fill the property to this higher height. 1,7e are kind of doing both and I don't think we are accomplishing what we are set out to do. WOOD: Rick, given the idea of the retention basin, would it be preferable to build the houses one foot higher and not put the culvert in and yet retain the entire retention basin? STAFF: That would be preferable to leave to keep as much of the retention basin as possible, so I'm not an engineer and I can't make that judgment, but it would appear to be more of a community asset to keep that retention basin as it is. The concern is to keep the floor elevation above whatever water level we get to. 190OD: I wonder if Mr. Brainard could tell me - he said we might as well take the culvert out and retain the retention basin-if you are going to go that high, another 6 inches or say maybe about a foot, what about that, would it make sense to do gnat, to retain the retention quality of the land? BRAINARD: I believe you can - it can be done - again, it's a matter in many of these cases of an additional two feet of fill, and we were trying to minimize fill for aesthetic reasons for trees that might be saved. . . .1 think we could do it. WOOD: Between the staff and what it would take. . . .you are talking about maybe a foot of fill, between the staff recommendation and what it would take. . . . . .to get up on ;palnut. BOLUJ: Are the implications that by making that a retention basin the 11alnut viaduct would act as a dam during times of severe flooding? Several minutes of garbled conversation. TEPEDT!10: This is one of my major objections to this whole plan is the Ltempted solution of the water problem on this piece of proper-+:;r 'jy allowing the water problem to invade someone else's proper-.y. I can't disagree with you on that because you have an artificial situation, the road ha's created a dam there. I think in all ' e discussion in the Environmental Plan, the basin that's referred to is the natural situation as it occurs naturally. We have a situation here that's been modified already, and I think you have Zone Change'--,0-77 Pollock 5-17-77 TEPEDINO: (cont'd) to take into consideration. . and if you build a dam across there and the level that results is the result of damming the natural basin. The reason you have a basin is because of the dam that was put up years ago. Now, I agree with you that it's not a natural occurrence. . .but now we are attempting to modify what was built some years ago. I'm not suggesting that we bore another hole through that dam because you are now lowering the basin level, the ability of that basin to contain X cubic feet of water by passing that amount of water dorm to. . . . .all I'm suggesting is that in order to develop that property that he should not look at solutions on how to reduce the basin retainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOLEN: I think if we were looking at passing everything on, I would agree with you - I think inasmuch less water could be passed on -`khat would have originally been the case. I think also to look at some kind of spillway treatment which would be to the public benefit. If water goes over the top of that road, very likely you could lose that road section - I'm not an enineer. . . .but I know that in any cases where you are looking at letting water go over the road, then you have to loo}: at treatment of that slope so erosion won't occur. NICOLI: I think that some of these statements - that it's been this way or it won't go over, or this will take care of it - along this same principle, up on Bull Mountain about 30 or 40 houses, Genesis - 90 homes, and all that flooding and that :.rater is not going to go into the ground, it's going to come down and you are going to have that much added runoff that's going to go over that and that culvert is not going to take it. I think, that we're sitting here trying to figure out engineering. We have an engineer that recommended another culvert. I don't know, none of us are engineers, I don't know ;chat everybody does, but I know that I don't know anything about it. I think the Public ';forks and the City should say if that should have a culvert under it, not us. I think that would determine the floor level of 'the houses and everything. We can sit here all night and say it's going to flood - it isn't going to flood. POPP: Any more questions? WOOD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, given these other considerations, . .one question, does the statement here that the green:aay area will be preserved in its natural state and improvements will be made for channelizing the creek -and the clearance of undesirable brush. Would you want that as a condition of the approval, and I assume you want the brush cleared away, and if you do, you should require it. STAFF: No, because it is being required, it's part of what '-`,hey ha- submitted, their written material. Everything in there is ado >{_ed and that will be a requirement if they want to the way they are laid out in their General Plan and the Program. Zone Change `,�J-77 Pollock - 5-17-77 WOOD: I would move, Tyr. Chairman, for approval with staff� findings s on staff recommendations, and add only that I think the 1-- feet^is desirable, that should not turn to the 25 year flood plan_, after all, sae beat the 100 year flood this year, and I think. this i s a conservative measure that a foot and a half is a good flood plain figure. GOLDBACH: i second it. POPP• Any more items for approval? Based on the staff findings and with staff recommendations, is that right? All those in favor signify by saying aye - those opposed - The motion is carried. July 6,1.� ;7 Area. Re.vidents of Tigard S.W. Pa t,hf.1 nd�r Wray .5J. Former Street S.W. Walnut Street S.Y1. 'NaLkins Street. City of Tigard Mr. ','Wilbur Bishop, Mayor lub:j.: Cool, Lane "it;alyd, Or(,,-on L'7223 ,auto-iii dis I un on L;.9i. Pathfinder .Jay and S.W. Nalnut Street, Tigard, Ore. Dear Mayor Bishop: As arra residents and adjacent property owners to the above planned development, we wish to ask for the Council' s denial to approve the Planning Commission' s decision of May 17,1977. At this a point in time, we wish to also bring certain points of interest's to light in regard to the appeal ,you xill be conslderin on the isleventh day of July, 1.577. :ie the undersi,rned� fully undern Lurid that your decision will be based sole on t-ao transcripts f yup I pi-c!- pared by the City from the Planning Commission Hearings, elimin- ating personal tes Llinony from the people who will be directly effected from the development on Pathfinder and Walnut Street. As adjacent pr;perty owners, s:-)mo of which have been area residents for nu,iiorous ,years,we have noticed an astounding rise in the water table; resulting in flooding of back;y•,irds, bacving up of septic systems and standing water under home structures not more than two years old. We have stressed these problems to our City' s Planning Commisoion •rrlth the sincere hope it would bring to their attention the out-dated lU0 Year Flood Plain Study and the possible alteration in their decision to allow further development in this 1 troub' �I':)l)t'•'t.;j fi1.tP.. �ii1"1r ;� I, 1 . ,�,� t:he lUU i�:.ar' 11 in ;]+,'a`J.� . s cnt•s r i rvc n +.7 )rc)1 u stream. t'rt)rr! the r)r )por-t:r in .lr_:ut:Llon; t;hus, ;. .�:i;;in,. :;rrl.r.r' ! a .i.a::n-:;! r.��rm fir• ,�,r::•L J vsvrrers. ''err c.xr^ri t +rc .i ri;r one it t.h._, _. .rin Pvrt.y j sJtintlti i 1 t c hc:vi nf'l,) t i ; ? ,'J :f; b• :s!t,r: :� f LSCC C'. ils 17 PIC'' ^r r .0111,i:,r t" n 1 even ;r'c :�r•c r f']... .d.i r�� hrr:.ar is, r 1 !•i t ari ly do: n- n•,rrrr hor;. ) ..:e; fl.on: :he ^r ii •rt;' in c,,.ic:-::t: ' or.. i f' It'! rropert n;tt.:ural ve yet ti on, ticaul 'ye, _ th + s c. .i tip+ ,ort �f f i 11. :)'.1 . 'o'✓-'r'i ^,Y *, ! ,a c i under_;round springs, you, ti,i11 the n!',"G '41th the M lution of sn all dr:iirirtge ;itches incl Culver't.s t, :. el i - mina to Lhe developers problem of rtnt,uratl un Jort;r )a:: f ry; r•i nes :;n ; a bothersome croe};, wren a t w ,• see i n- •uri r; sul. , � ,i;,: ,_ • ; 9 ML v11-lo hjvn enough oroblerris h-,nd ine t,it. . 1 )0dir.E" '3 ' t .tnnds :;r_:^e :e nlsr l wish to on] t`;lttt)3r ,u t ..% crc>zJ ,: ' he r)r per+y site to establish the cul-d, -attc at the end of PaO-hrinder ";rr;) , the nrork crew ran in to great rii t'f i c'u.l V In c ierrri nC. Lho si I e due ia: the ex Lreme cvl�ttt.nczs of.' the arefr rrit,h Lhe c:nd resilJ.t of tow 1:r1.3cks being uti2iaied to remove the bulldozer on tw(-) err.^r.ts; ons. Again, we wish to r•errind you that this has teen an extremely dry winter. The fill dir': required to allow the equipment on to the site has been absolutley s tag,erg ng• i i t + ' As a; oa rc:sia��nt:s, ,tie have in the f=ast and :, Taira noN✓, arr c:xprc:Js- ing ou..- -,rcivc concorns for thc;: traffic conr;es!,ion repaired streets, Sp(,cifi c_•i1.1•y, S.W. Fonner and S.W. iJalnui, $t rc.Est. Either travc.l .inL; by car, bicycle or ar, a t;edestrian can xt.rerYlely hn',I.ardous. NB feel that by ,flowing more development t:o occa.rr in tr.i^ aron , Is only ;rein t:c. e.�cda n;:f,r r !� Ore livor, •-,nd add tc, an alrer:dy ov` - burdened ,i t,urltion. /e feel thsil a soction of Tigard " s ;�pFn Snare Pl-n shooid b- sidered in the proposed de%7el ,)•ar•!�.nt betwec ' r n . ..n S.lY. Pathfinder nm.! Walnut; Street, wi t.h the id^a of;,reservation of' 'I'i�- -, s rint.urr,l =a ��.•i+s not: only for .recreational purposes, but also t.ho .re^orva t o c loll of* _he natural system of drainage in the dreenways. Any c1--;veiopment In these greenways could damage and destroy forever this ntat.tu�al system. Ecological rnpe of an area and disruption o1' the wil.dli.fe and their 1 natural habitat will most; definitely occur .if suc• h (IEW E;lopment; is allowed to t Oke place. Ne tv 1' . 1.e 1311 1, ti.na ' 1 %e tj.,jj hope G' City Council will v) t.e to d-=nt1 +•he Plnnnin,� i7o,.)mj.ss1 lonls dec i si ori ' n allow -devc1l.op:r,.nt in a ver=yn i. e. Fiosi,ec t. rwll.v Subml4 ted, Area tesi:'_:r.t.:, cif S•`.:'. Ponner•. S tree t Walnut Street 3. ... r✓�!,;tins Str et Please refer t;o a t,tache:3 pa=re of area * nt•. have endorsed this letter 1 nFt?:n REST' ;'N'PS July 11i77 1.7AY NAf4 E' 1• .% �_``=. L• ` f./)Zll�t« �(1�rlr, cl CU !rL�lt f'It�E•L' C� L Urfa ,�• / /.r' /' �.•/':%f/�.�n7t�1, ,/ Lv1�'l•-�<i / > >S`--' i n�N'/3 ' •� r r t. G/7• c•t<'1 -�� rt,¢ .t< ,� f C'i'l `i.��c- f r r iC c L-+:' (�_�r �• /• ._.. JL4'/,��f�'t -% /_ 'i� i�i �. _r�.L.r iL r l C 11.42 76 '�.• _/l moi- \' -I�•.ry.'�