Hearings Officer Packet - 06/25/1984 - Unified Sewage Agency 1640 HEARING OFFICER DECISION
6/84 Unifed Sewerage Agency
M 3-84 changed to SL 3-84
"EXHIBIT I"
CITY OF TIGARD
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER
File No. : M 3-84
Applicant: Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
Proposal_: To construct a 30-.inch sewer trunk line in the Summer
Creek floodplain
Date Application Filed : April 6 , 1984
Decision Rendered: June 25 , 1984
Last Date to Appeal : July 9, 1984
Staff Recommendation: Approval , wit!, conditions
Staff Representative: Keith Liden
_Public Hearings : The public hearings were held as follows : On
April 26, 1984, at 7 :00 P.M. , in the City
Administrator' s office at the Tigard City Hall ;
on May 24 , 1984 , at the conference room at the
Durham Waste Treatment Plant, at 7 :00 P.M. .
The matter was taken under advisement for a
written decision.
Speaking in Support of the Request: (1) Robert Cruz
(2) Terry Chamberlin
Speaking in Opposition to the Request_: (1) Paula Rossi
(2) Elizabeth Swan
Exhibits: (1) Planning Department Staff Report with attachments
(2) Background information foi M 3-84
(3) Engineering maps of proposed trunk line development
(4) Stream Diversion Details mat)
(5) Application for M 3-84
(6) Area Map for proposed project
(7) 9 pictures with explanatory map
(8) Section 18. 57. 070 of Tigard Code (highlighted)
(9) Section 18. 84 . 020 of Tigard Code (highlighted)
(10) Page III-142 of Tigard Code (highlighted)
(11) Page 10 M3-81 transcript (highlighted)
(12) Section 18. 84 . 050 of Tigard Code (highlighted)
(13) Section 18 .150 of Tigard Code (highlighted)
(14) Last page of Council decision M3-81
(15) 2 page newspaper article (highlighted)
(16) Letter from Dena Charles Whipp, Jr.
(17) Park Board approval dated 4-12-84
(18) Map showing entire Scholls Tr.
FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 1 of 5
FINDINGS :
A. Subject Property:
1. Description: The proposed trunk line crosses the property
of several individual owners, as set .forth on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The
property is not owned by the USA, nor will it ever be.
Rather, USA must negotiate and purchase permanent and tem-
porary easements for the construction and placement of a
trunkline. The hearings officer takes judicial notice of
their statutory authority to acquire such easements. In
such acquisitions, there is no issue of whether they are
able to acquire the eas- vent, only an issue of the value
and payment of that eas ent.
2. Location: The proposed trunkline is between 121st Avenue
and Tiedeman Avenue. It begins at 121st Avenue approximately
300 feet north of Katherine Street. It proceeds east, para-
llel to Katherine Street, crosses 116th Avenue, then
travels 1000+ feet to the southeast before it again heads
west to Tiedeman Avenue. The entire route is within the
100 year floodplain of Summer Creek.
B. v. . it Information: Except for three houses on the east side
of 116th avenue , t•ie proposed line will not be in close proximity
to any developed areas.
C. A22licable Ordinance and Plan Considerations:
1. This application is governed by the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan sections on Public Facilities and Services, particularly
those sections .regarding Storm Drainage and Wastewater Manage-
ment and Sewer Service. Particulary, Sections 7 (introductory
material) , 7 .1 , 7 . 2 and 7 .4 govern this application. Those
sections are incorporated by reference herein, and LCDC Goal 7 .
2. This application is also governed by the Tigard Code,
Chapter 18. 84 . 040. That portion of the Code is incorporated
by reference herein.
D. Issues Regarding the Application:
1. The applicant is not the recorded owner of the property, or
an agent authorized in writing by the owner.
2. Will the proposed development result in erosion, stream
sedimentation, ground stability or other adverse on-site
and off-site effects or hazards to life or property?
;. Does the application contain a list of the names and
addresses of all persons who are property owners of record
within 250 feet of the site?
FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 2 of 5
4 . Do the drawings Fhow the site locations of trees with
6" caliber or greater measured four feet from she ground?
5 . Will the removal. of trees during development adversely
affect the aesthetic character of the area?
6. Does the application meet the applicable statewide planning
goals, spe-ifically Coal 7?
E. Discussion of Issues Raised:
1. All parties concede that the applicant is not the owner
of the property in question, nor their authorized agent.
However, as noted above, due to the nature of the applica-
tion and the applicant, such authorization will be avail-
able to them at any time they wish, regardless of the
wishes of the property owners. That is substantially a
different situation than the ordinary application where
ownership is critical .
2. Mr. Whipp testified through his letter, and his wife Ms.
Rossi, that they have suffered from up-stream development
in that Summer Creek receives the storm drainage for the
area. He reasons that develo;:)ment within Summer Creek
will aggravate the problem, r,ither than serve to alleviate
it. He analagized that Sumner Creek could be considered
11
ke a flower box with a finite capacity, and that the
addition of the sewer pipe will absorb part of that capa-
city, thereby raising the level of the water during flocding .
The engineer for the USA disagreed and testified that with
the bed of gravel. which acts as a drain for the ditch holding
the pipe and thereby a conduit for the storm sewer, the
water will flow faster through the area, reducing the
problE!m. USA plans a bed of 12" of gravel under the trunk-
line pipe, together with that gravel in the ditch up the
sides of_ the pipe to the half-way point. He testified that:
with that addition, there should be more, riot less , capacity
to accomodate storm sewer in Summer Creek.
3 . The ordinance requires that the applicant submit an applica-
tion on forms provided by the Director, and that application
shall be accompanied by the list of persons who are property
owners of record within 250 feet of the site. The hearings
officer did not have access to the complete staff file, but
staff assured the hearings officer that such a moist was
provided and in the file. The additional list attached to
the application was not intended to be the list in question,
but only the list of property owners whose property will be
crossed by the proposed trunkline.
4. The drawings do not show the location of trees with 6"
caliber or greater measured four feet from the ground ,
however, those trees are protected by the Tigard Code section
requiring a permit to cut any trees, which section is cited
by Mr. Whipp.
FINDINGS AOD DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 3 of 5
5. Mr. Whipp argues that the removal of trees during devel-
opment will adversely affect the aesthetic character of
the area. It is possible, of course, for a property owner
to argue that the removal of aiv, tree would be adverse and
therefore, no trees should be removed. However, the hear-
ings officer does not believe that is the intent of the
Code, but .rather the intent is to balance development against
the aesthetics of the area. It is the stated intent of the
USA to preserve as many trees as possible during development,
and the hearings officer will require that as a condition of
approval, if necessary.
6. As to whether the application meets the statewide planning
goals, specifically Goal 7 , the hearings officer considered
primarily the language of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,
those sections noted aboe, which incorporate the provisions
of Goal 7 . In this applic;aticn, the stated goals of pro-
viding sewer service appear to conflict with the timing
of the provision of storm sewer service. USA is now ready
to complete their trunk line which will allow a significantly
large area of the Tigard Planning Area to be served by sewer,
but the City Council of Tigard has recently questioned
whether such development should go forward until the storm
sewer system is .in place (see E.:hibit 1.5) . The issue becomes
one of which is more important, sewer service or storm
drainage service? Ane if sewer service is more important,
can it be provided now without adverse on-site and off-site
effects to life or proverty? The USA engineer believes that
it can , and that while this project is riot a storm drainage
system, it will serve a dual function to some extent by
enlarging the drainage capacity for Summer Creek with the
gravel bed and the overflow channels as required by staff.
The opponents provided no engineering evidence to the con-
trary.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . While the applicant is not the owner of the property in
question, under applicable statutes , they will have the
right to acquire the property when needed . This require-
ment is irrelevant to the application.
2. The engineering submitted for this development has persuaded
the hE+arings officer that the development will improve the
storm drainage in the area with the use of the gravel bed
and the overflow channels required by staff. Therefore,
this application will not result in adverse on or off-site
effects or hazards to life or property, as conditioned.
3. The application was complete as submitted .
4. The drawings do not show the locations of trees as required ,
but that requirement will be satisfied by the condition of
approval noted below.
FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 4 of 5
5. Removal of the trees is a necessary evil for development
such as this. The number of trees removed will be minimized
by the conditions of approval set forth below. At the time
an application is filed for permits to remove trees, each
permit will be required to meet the applicable criteria of
the Code. The applicant is not required to meet those
criteria as a part of this application.
6. Applicable statewide planning goals have been met, and the
hearings officer finds that it is more important to provide
adequate sewer service to the area dae to potential health
hazards, than to further delay this project until the entire
storm drainage system is in place.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, with conditions.
DATFjD thi 25th day of June, 1984 .
AR DIGS OFFIC
FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 5 of 5
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Department April 25, 1984
FROM: Public Works Director
SUB.TECT: Sensitive Land Permit - Lower Scholls Trunk
After having reviewed the plans for the Lower Scholls Trunk, I would offer the
following comments:
1. The City's inspector should be contacted prior to uncovering and
covering existing City sewer lines.
2. The roadcrossing shall be reconstructed to as good or better
condition and in accordance with existing City standards for
interim street improvements.
3. A detour plan shall be submitted to the City 24 hours in advance
of any street closures on SW Tiedeman Street. Plans shall include
methods of signing and controlling traffic and shall state times
and dates of closure.
4. Considerable public input concerning mitigation of future runoff
has been expressed in the past.
Design the overflow channels shall be in accordance with the
general guidelines of the Tigard Master. Drainage Plan for
Stormwater Management shall be included in the construction
Plano. The City of Tigard will apply for a nationwide permit from
the Corps of Engineers if necessary. (Overflow channels are in
the general vicinity of station 1+00 to 2+00 and station 35+75 to
station 44+50.
5. Provision shall be made to connect all flows upstream from the
pump station located in the floodplain at approximately SW 113th
Avenue into manhole #7.
(FC:pm/9419P)
Tile Tigard Parks and Recreation Board voted to recommend approval at its
April 19, 1984 meeting.
Other agencies and NPO #2 and 7 have not responded.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The approval standards for development within the 100-year floodplain
are noted in Section 18.84.040 of the Community Development Code.
Primary emphasis is placed upon the impact of development or land
alteration upon flood levels. The U.S.A. proposal will have virtually
no effect upon the topography of the Summer Creek floodplain.
The channel modifications suggested by the Engineering Division will
improve the hydraulic capacity of the Summer Creek floodway. A
representative from the Division will be present at the hearing to
answer questions.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Tile Planning staff recommends approval of Sensitive Lanis Application M
3-84 subject to the following conditions :
1. The City's inspector should be contacted prior to uncovering and
covering existing City sewer lines.
2. The roadcrossing shall be reconstructed to as good or better
condition and in accordance wi::h existing City standards for
interim street improvements.
3. A detour plan shall be submitted to the City 24 hours in advance
of any street closures on SW Tiedeman Street. Plans shall include
methods of signing and controlling traffic and shall state times
and dates of closur( .
4. Design the overflow channels shall be in accordance with the
general guidelines of the Tigard Master Drainage Plan for
Stormwater Management shall be included in the construction
plans. The City of Tigard will apply for a nationwide permit from
the Corps of Engineers if necessary. (Overflow channels are in
the general vicinity of station 1+00 to 2+00 and statioa 35+75 to
station 44+)0.
5. Provision shall be made to connect all ilotos upstream from the
pump station located in the floodplain at approximately SW 113th
Avenue into manhole #7-
6. Plans for flo-)dway improvements shall be reviewed and appro.-,d by
the Engineering Division.
1. This app oval is valid for the period of one year from the final
d($-ie1 q� to noted below.
1 1 /
PREPARED BY: Keith Li en A PROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning h
Development
(KL:pm/0419P))
STAFF REPORT - M 3-84 - PAGE 2
HEARINGS OFFICER
APRIL 24, 1984 - 7:00 P.M.
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. General Information
CASE: Sensitive Lands Permit M 3-84
REQUEST: Sensitive Lands Permit to allow construction of a 30-inch
sewer trunk line in the Summer Creek floodplain between the
Fan. Creek interceptor near SW Tiedeman Avenue and an
Agency Pump Station on 121st Avenue, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax
Map/Tax Lots 2S1 3AA 100 and 101; 2S1 3AB 100 and 300; 1S1
34DC 3602; 1S1. 34CD 100, 1200, 1202, 6400, 6500, and 6700).
APPLICANT: Unified Sewerage Agency (U.S.A. )
150 N. First Street
Hillsboro, OR 97124
REICOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval subject to
conditions.
2. Background
The sewer trunk line was proposed in 1982 (Sensitive Lands Permit M
3-81). The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 7,
1981 and September 8, 1981 and approved on March 2, 1982. This decision
was appealed to the City Council and on April 11, 1983 the ;ommission
decision was reversed and the application was deniod (Resolution No.
83-39).
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
The U.S.A. does not own any of the property involved in this application
and the Agency is in the process of acquiring the necessary easements
for the proposed 30-inch sewer line. The line and easement begins at
121st Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Katherine Street. It
proceeds east, parallel. to Katherine Street, crosses 116th Avenue, then
travels 1000+ feet to the southeast before it again heads west to
Tiedeman Avenue. The enclosed map illustrates the route of the sewer
line.
The entire route is within the 100-year floodplain of Summer Creek.
Except for three houses on therAside of 116th Avenue, the proposed line
will not be in close proximity to any developed areas.
4. Agency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has several comments that are contained in the
atta4hed memo dated April 25, 1984.
STAFF REPORT - M 3-84 - PAGE 1
,t�I
CITY OF TIGARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION BA�K.GkPUFJU ;►JFC,
rc� /►�1 'S• Q'�
1. The final_ decisioi was filed by: CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL .�
Concerning _M 3-81 on April 11 1983
Case Number Date
2. Name of Owner: D. J. Swan, et al / Unified Sewerage Agency (Applicant)
3. Name of Applicant: Mr. D. Charles Whipp, Jr.
Address 11880 S.W. 116th Street City Tigard, State Oregon
4. Location of Property: RREIRHHEITIM, .HHH�HHHH&Hi�)�HH�HHHHHH�SSHHH
Address from SW Tiedeman west to S(d 121st Avenue
2SI 3AA, lots 100 & 101 ; 2S1 3AB, lots 100 & 300; ISI 34DC,
Legal Description lots 3601 `3602 & 3500; ISI 34CD, lot 1200, 12C2 & 100_
5. Nature of Application: Appeal. to Planning Commission's approval of M 3-81
for construction of a sanitary sewer trunk line. Requesting denial.
6. Action: Approval as requested
Approval with conditions
0 Denial
7. Notice : *Notice was published in the newspaper & was mailed to:
XX The applicant & owners
xx
Owners of record within the required distance
[—�xd The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization
xx Affected governmental agencies
*If there are questions regarding the names of the persons or agencies who
received notice, this information is available at the Planning Department.
8. Final Decision:
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be
obtained from the Planning Director, City of Tigard, City Hall, 12755 SW
Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
In the case of a decision on an application for a variance, the applicant
must acknowledge this form and return it to the City of Tigard, Planning
Director, before any building permits will be issued or engineering approval
given.
C� ,( Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Agent I)atF
CITY OF 1IGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 39
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON COUNCIL REVIEW OF M-3-81 ,
USA TRUNK LINE AS PETITIONED BY D. CHARLES WHIPP, JR.
WHEREAS, This matter came before the Council at its meeting of March 28, 1983.
upon the filing of an appeal by D. Charles Whipp, under IMC Sections 18.84.2'.0
and 18.84.160.
WHEREAS, t'le Council had before it the entire record of the proceedings before
the Tigard Planning Commission wnich approvFd the application request with one
dis.4enting vote on March 2, 1982. Mr. Whipp, i person entitled to notice=
under TMC Section 18.84.070(b)(1)(A) 2. has sought review of that decision by
filing a timely Notice of Review on March 26, 1982.
WHEREAS, the applicable criteria to this decision are the following:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5 and 7.
I'MC Section 18.57
WHEREAS, based on the record in this case the council makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE II RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:
Section 1: The Subject site is located within the corporate limits of
Tigard, Oregon between S.W. 121st and S.W. Johnson and along
Fanno Creek, also identified as Washington County Tax Map 2S1
3AA, lots 100 b 101 ; 2S1 3AB, lots 100 a 300; ISI 34DC, lots
3601,3602, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, and 6900; ISI 34DC,
lots 1200, 1201 and 1202.
Section 2: the subject site is within the Greenway/Floodplain on the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map which is applicable to this case.
Section 3: The surrounding area has been developed primarily as single
family residential.
Section 4: The proposed trunk alignment falls within the floodplain loodplain and �
greenwa,y areas which are both regarded as resources to be
protected under Goal #5 of the Statewide Planning Goals.
Section 5: The floodplain which would be traversed by the proposed trunk
line periodically floods adjoining residential properties thus
constituting a natural hazard area as defined in Statewide
Planning Goal 7.
No detailed plans drawn by a professional ^-igineer were
submitted to the City.
RESOLUTION No. 83-_ j�1
Section 6: 18.57.060 Section 1 (A) of the 'IMC requires that:
"All applications for special use permits shall be supported by
the following information to enable the planning commission to
determine whether the proposed use is located in the floodplain
or drainageway district and if so, whether the proposal, if
approved, will conform to the purposes and guidelines as set
forth in this chapter."
( 1) Floodpl"in:
(A) Plans drawn to scale, submitted in triplicate as prepared by a
registered professional engineer with experience in hydraulic
and geohydrologic engineering and processes, showing the nature,
location, dimensions, elevations and topography of the site; the
location of existing and proposed structures located upon the
site, existing and proposed areas to be filled or otherwise
modified, and the relationship of these to the location of the
stream channel, and proposed methods for controlling erosion.
The Council also makes the following conclusions of law:
( 1 ) The Council concludes that because the plans prepared by USA
which were available to the public were no,' submitted as
supporting information along with their application, the
application did not meet requirements set forth in
18.57.060(1)(A).
(2) The Council concludes that because the plans submitted as
supporting information were not drawn to scale by a professional
engineer and did not show items listed in 1.8.57.060(1)(A) they
did not meet the application requirements set forth in
18.57.060(1)(A).
(3) The Council concludes that because the area proposed for the
trunk line is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek
which floods onto adjacent properties and �_he proposal does not
address safeguards to protect the residents of this area and
their property there is insufficient evidence to show compliance
with Statewide Planning, Goal 7 as stated in Findings of Fact 116.
the Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referred application
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
The Council FIIRIHER ORDERS that the Directo- rif Planning and
Development and the City Recorder send a copy of the final order as a
notice of final decision in this case.
PASSED: This _day of .Lf �� , 1983 by the Council of the City
of Tigard. /
Mayor - City of 'ligard
A'I7 E S 7 :
Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 83-.2_
STAFF REPORT
AC;i VDA ITEM 5.2
TIOA RD PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2,__1282 - 7:30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High School
10865 SW Walnut, Tigard
February 18, 1982
No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this Public
Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, un-
requested, -the item will be tabled until the following hearing.
DOCKET: M 3-81 Sensitive Lands Permit - Unified Sewerage Agency NPO X17
APPLICANT: Unified Sewerage Agency
150 North First Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
OWNERS: D. J. Swan
Tigard School Dist. 23J
J & M Glaubke
D & COtt
L. Barnum, C. Tibbets
K. Kelberry
D. C. Whipp, P. Rossi & J. Karius
J. A. & J. Patterson
REQUEST: For a Sensitive Lands Permit to install an underground sanitary sewer
line.
APPLICA'T'ION DATE: June 12, 1981..
SITE LOCATION: Various properties North of SW Walnut between SW Tiedeman and
SW 121st Avenue (Washington County Tax Maps 231 3AA, lots 1.00 &
.101; 2S1 2AB, lots 100 & 300; 1S1 34DC, lots 1200, 3500, 3601
3602: lots 100 & 1202)
PREVIOUS AC'T'ION: On September 8, 1981, the Tigard Planning Commission tabled
this Sensitive bands request until the following conditions
were met:
1. Installation to be re-aligned to avoid destruction of existing trees. Public
Works Director to supervise this installation. Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) to
coordinate this project with Tigard School District in relation to actual location
of the proposed line in the Tiedeman, Tigard Avenue area.
2. USA to present final plans to the !Tanning Commission in the future which
address the concerns voiced by property owners at the September 8, 1981 meetirig.
3. No construction to commence until the engineering plans have been approved
by the Public Works Director.
M 3-81
Page 2
FINDINGS OF F/.CT:
1.. The Unified Sewerage Agency is proposing to construct the sewer .line within
the 100 year floodplain and greenway area as identified on the City of Tigard
Cou prehensive Plan.
2. Section 18.57. 140 of the Tigard Municipal Code reads:
18.57.040 - Use's and activities allowed with a special use permit.. The
following uses and activities are allowed only by special use permit granted
by the Planning Commission and based on the standards set forth in Section
18.57.060:
(1) Within drainageways, greenways and steeply sloping lands:
(A) Fill, grading, excavating.
(B) Structures.
(C) Off'-street parking and maneuvering areas, accessways and
service drives located on the ground surface.
(D) Roadways, bridges or utility facilities.
(E) Removing any live vegetation other than poison oak, tansy rag-
wort, blackberry or any other noxious vegetation;
(2) Within the floodplain/greenways only:
(A) Any temporary structure which by its nature cannot be readily
removed from the floodplain area during periods of flooding and
which would impede or interfere with the flow of floodwaters
within the district.
(B) Any change in the topography or terrain which would change the
flow of waters during flooding periods or which would increase
the flood hazard or alter the direction or velocity of the
floodwater flow.
(3) The City of Tigard Engineering Division has reviewed the engineering
plans for the project as submitted by the Unified Sewerage Agency and
has recommended minor changes. Particularly, the engineering staff
has asked the Unified Sewerage Agency to propose another option for
crossing the creek which would involve an open trench and would not
include the dam.
(4) The proposed Scholls Trunk Line will have the capacity to replace the
existing Leron Heights line in the future. The proposed Scholls
Trunk Line will accommodate anticipated development west of 121st.
(5) The engineering plans have been made available for interested resi-
dents in the area to review.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Section 18.57.040(1 ) of the Tigard Municipal Code allows utility facilities
within designated greenways.
2. Section 18.57.040(2) addresses uses allowed with a special ;permit in green-
ways and floodplains. The proposed sewer trunk line will not imi.ede or interfere
with the flow of floodwaters within the district. The const.ructiol of the sewer
M _t-fil.
Page 3
.line will change the flow of water and alter the velocity somewhat. However,
these changes will occur during construction only and will not be permanent.
3. It is anticipated that the existing Leron Heights trunk .sewer line will be
abandoned in the future and that the City of Tigard will tie erxisting and pro-
posed lines into the larger capacity Scholls Trunk Line.
REICOMMFNDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Sensitive Lanos Permit, for con-
struction of the proposed Scholls Trunk Line within the 100
year floodplain and dedicated greenway based on Findings as follows:
1 . Tigard Municipal Code allows utility facilities within a designated greenway
with a special use permit.
2. Construction of the Scholls Ferry Sewer Trunk Line will. not permanently im-
pede or interfere with the flow of floodwaters within the 1.00 year floodplain.
Further, staff recommends the follow:inrr conditions be attached to approval of
Sensitive Lands Permit M 3-81:
1.. City of Tigard Inspector shall. be contacted before existing City sewer
lines are uncovered and covered to insure proper care is taken to protect these
facilities during construction.
2. The contractor shall restore the street to acceptable city standards after
construction.
Prepared by: G� Approved by:��
Eliieth A. Newton Frank A. Currie
Associate Planner Public Works Director
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 2. 1982
Page 2
• Commissi no er'-&peaker inquired if applicant would agree to approval under the
condition if they should change the type or scope of their business they would
have to return to the Planning Commission for approval; Applicant agreed.
• Commissioner Bonn moved for approval of CU 3-82 per Staff Findings and
Conclusions including the following additional condition:
2. Application is approved for permission to supply Veterinary Clinic Services,
should any significant change be contemplated in type or scope of business
conducted, they shall return to the Planning Commission for amendment of
the Conditional Use Permit. Seconded by Commissioner Speaker.
Motion carried unanimously.
/ Co=issioner Owens arrived 8:00 A.M.
V 5.2 SENSITIVE LANDS PER14IT M 3-81 - Unified Sewerage Agency NPO 11 7
Request to install a underground sanitary sewer line from S.W. Tiedeman Wr_st
(a) Staff Report was read by Associate Planner, Newton. to S.W. 121st Street.
(b) APPLICANTS PRESENTATION - Robert Cruz and Paul Klope, Unified Sewerage Agents,
were present to answer any general qurstions the Commission might have. Mr.
Cruz informed the Commission, since t original hearing of September 8, 1981,
they had been working with the City of Tigard, Corps of Engineers and property
owners addressing concerns. They specifically worked with Mr. Ott , which
brought about some major changes. Mr . Cruz stated they agreed with the Staff
Report .and would have no problems meeting Staff's requirements.
(c) PUBLIC TESTIMONY
• Dale M. Ott - 11900 S.W. 116th, Tigard, Oregoq, stated he had no problem with
alignment. Howe% _r, he wanted to raise a question as to when the pump station
would be eliminated. His main concern being the pump station which keeps
over-flowing onto his property.
• Commission requested applicant to respond to Mr. Otts concern; Mr. Cruz
stated pump station was privately owned and even though this line was in the
design it was not in their contract and suggested Planning Director would
be better able to respond to this than USA.
• Planning Director stated that elimination of this particular pump station was
not one of the aims, but something that would be completed in the future.
Further discussion followed between Commissioners, Staff and opponent
regarding raw sewer problem.
• Commissioner Speaker suggested Mr. Ott contact the C iy directly regarding
his concern as it was not directly connected with applicants request .
• Mr. Ott then raised a question in reference to Section 18.57.070 (a) ( 1)
regarding, the affect this project would have on the watershed; Mr. Cruz
stated this project would have no permanent affect however, upstream
development might and Staff would have to respond to that issue.
PLANNING C01414ISSION MINUTES
March 2, 1982
Page 3
• Discussion followed among Commissioners, Staff and Applicant regarding affect
construction would have on floodplain, time construction would occur, how
they would accomplish installation and how the CH2M Hill study would be used
in the evaluation of this and future projects.
• Public Hearing Closed
COMMISSLON DISCUSSION AND ACTION:
• Mien commented that the need is there and in order to prevent tearing up the.
'floodplain more than once, make sure a large enough line is use.� to carry
future development.
• Moen moved for approval of Sensitive Lands Permit M 3-81 for Unified Sewerage
Agency subject to Staff Findings and Recommendations, seconded by Commissioner
Herron.
Motion carried unanimously.
5.3'\ CONDITIONAL USED STANDARDS - moved to end of Public Hearings
5.4 COi�a.J'rIONAL USE CU 6-82 Tri-Met NPO N 1
A request to locate a Tri-Met bus time-transfer center in a C-3 General
Commercial zone. (8960 S.W. Commercial Ave. WCTM 2S1 2AA .lot 4800)
(a) Staff Report'\Was read by Associate Planner, Newton.
(b) APPLICANTS PRESENTATION - Lee Hames. Capital Development, representing
Tri-Met , explained how they had been looking at locating a transit center in
Tigard for the past two or three years. They analyzed several sites and
determined Mr. Kadel's property would be the most appropriate. She explained
Tri-Met has filed for a grant which will pick up approximately 80% of the
cost of this project with funding available sometime in August . She stated
Steve Smith, from Tri-Met, was also available to answer any questions.
Discussion followed between Commissioners, Applicant and Staff regarding
issues of parking, traffic congestion, pedestrians crossing railroad tracks,
feasibility of busses (especially articulated ones) nel;ctiating turns on
specific streets and possible reed for installation of traffic light .
Public Hearing Closed.
(C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION:
• Commissioner Christen inquired what overall cost would be; Applicant
responded, estimated cost 1.2 million with half of the cost for the land
and the remainder for removal of existing building, construction of new
building and landscaping.
• Commissioner Herron moved for approval of Conditional Use, CU 6-82 per Findings
of Facts and Recommendations by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Helmer.
4 Motion Carried unanimously.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION to/V
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: M 3-81 Sensitive Lands Permit application of Unified Sewerage
Agency. (USA))
On July 7, 1981 this item was brought to you without detailed engineering
plans. You requested that Staff obtain engineering plans and re-notify
affected persons to allow them an opportunity to comment . Staff did
this and the issue is before you again. The Summary Statement is very
complete. A representative from USA will br, present at our meeting to
answer any questions you might have.
Sincerel ,
Aldie Hoyta�
P ing Director
A
(see map reverse side)
t F
SWIMARY STATEMENT FOR
APPLICATION OF SENSITIVE LANDS PEFZi-lIT
The following is a summary stat,ment regarding the effect that the installation
of the underground sewer pipe will have on the flood plain area:
The proposed work consists of constructing a major undergound sewer
pipeline. No dikes, dams, permanent fills, or permanent excavations
are required or allowed as a part of the proposed work. Diversions
or rechanneling of the stream will not be allowed. The physical
character of the flood plain will not be altered. Areas disturbed
by the construction will be shaped, graded, and restored as near as
practicable to their original ground elevations and contours. Filling
or w2stinq of excess mater•i it within the flood plain ti,lill not be
a 'd„ The proposed work will not hydraulically affecL the flood
plain capacity. Since filling or :pasting of excess material will not
be permitted within the flood plain, no land use not already permitted
will be established.
Contractors are required to take whatever precautions are necessary
to prevent damage to or hazard to any structures adjacent to the
construction areas, and must also comply with OSHA requirements
pertaining to hazards of health, safety, and welfare. No immediate
or long-range hazards as a result of the project will al"fect adjacent
properties. Since no filling will be permitted within the flood pl�iin,
no impacts or public safety problems associated with subsequent high
water in the project area will occur as a result of the proposed work.
During construction in all traffic areas, the contractors are required
to comply with the State of Oregon and Washington County traffic control
and safety requirements. During construction in nontraffic areas, the
contractors are required to notify property owners 48 hours in advance
of construction on their property.
CIni ing ah, rdd of tko trc'n,-hinj od)�rationcS will h-2 lhAiLed sr)
entire .9-mile long project area will not be cleared when the project
begins and be left unrestored until it is completed.
L'�tck; ill r'�pi.rniinj, err, l Lire pipe l:,ying
will also be controlled within specified limits. these limitations on
clearing and restoration will minimize the length of disturbed area
and the amount of time which an area is impacted.
Considerable emphasis has been given to redeeding and replanting in an
effort to reestablish essential plant growth necessary for wildlife
use and to minimiie erosion. Areas along the project have been classi-
fied as residential pasture land , cultivated fields , (Irld creek hanks.
r,5 Y
Topsoil must be removed and replaced throughout the entire project.
All areas disturbed by the contractor, whether presently seeded or
not, will be reseeded upon completion of the backfilling operation
to provide for grass cover to prevent erosion. The preponderance
of land along the project route is Tigard School District property,
residential , pasture land, or cultivated fields. Pasture lands
and cultivated fields will be reseeded and will not change from
their original use as a result of this project. No significant
land use change is anticipated within the limits of the project.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1981 - 7:30 p.m.
Fowler Jun{.or High - Lecture Room
10865 SW Walnut St. , Tigard, OR
President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:35•
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bonn, Christen, Moen, Speaker, Tepedino
Commissioner Owens arrived at 8:40.
Excused: Helmer, Herron, Kolleas
Staff: Howard, Newton; Ken Elliott representing Counsel Ed
Sullivan
The i ALTES of the August 4 meeting were considered, and on motion
seconded and carried they were approved as submitted.
CO14MUNICATIONS consictod of the minutes of the September 2 meeting
of NPO #1. The inventory of citizens sheets o;i eigbt applicants for
positions on NPO #6 were passed among the Commissioners. The President
stated the draft of the administrative procedur.as prepared by Legal
Counsel would not be considered, but urged they be studied before the
next meeting.
The President then opened the PUBLIC HEARING by reading the usual
statement of authority for and procedures to be followed in the meeting.
He stated that Agenda Item 5.5 had been withdrawn and would not be
heard.
5.1 SJ21SITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 3-81 USA SEWER TRUNK LINE NPO #7
A request by the Unified Sewerage Agency for a Sensitive
Lands Permit to construct the Scholls Sewer Trunk Line
for S.W. Tiedeman West to S.W. 121st Avenue. (Washington
County Map 2Sl 3AA, Tax lots 100 and 101; 2S1 3AB, Tax
lots 100 and 300; 1S1 34 DC, Tax lots 3601, 3602, 3500
and 1200; 1S1 34CD, Taut lots 100 and 1201.)
Howard referred to his brief memo to the C:Ommiesion, and read
the Summary Statement submitted by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) .
(This did not constitute a staff report.) He stated engineering draw-
ings thought to be available by this time are not yet availabla, and
referred to a map of the project on the wall.
Bob Cruz of USA acknowledged their application may have been a
little premature, due to an incomplete understanding o2' the require-
ments :or the sensitive lands permit.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY was presented by --
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1981
Page 2.
*** Dale Ott, 11900 SW 116th, who recognized the project would
go forward, but objected to the alignment indicated on the sketch USA
submitted. He pointed out that the alignment indicated would impact
a number of large trees. He suggested an alternate route which would
eliminate at least two crossings of the creek and lessen the impact
on large trees, illustrating his proposal on the map.
*** Charles Whipps, 11880 SW 118th, who distributed copies of
excerpts from TMC Chapter 18.57• He objected strenuously to the
sketches submitted as qualifying for the documentation called for by
the ordinance. He urged approval not be given until complete engineer-
ing drawings have been submitted showing there will be no change in the
flood level by reason of this construction.
Howard stated the hearing was called on the assumption engineer-
ing drawings would be available, which they wera not, and that thore
was no staff report nor recommendation. Cruz stated the full engineer-
ing drawings would be available in about two months; that there had
been informal meeting with the property owners, and numerous meetings
with individual property owners regarding easements. They did not
want to prepare engineering drawings until they had established the
easements.
After some further discussion on alignment details, the President
closed the public hearing; portion on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Speaker MOVED tabling until the
engineering drawings required by Chapter 18.57 are available and USA is
able to discuss the route in the detail contemplated by the ordinance.
Topedino seconded the motion. Howard offered some conditioT�8, but it
was felt that these would automatically be taken care of before the
applicant's return to the Commission. The motion to table carried
unanimously.
Ken Elliott, representing Ed Sullivan, City Legal Counsel, stated
his firm had represented Alpha Engineering, the applicant on Item 5.2,
in other matters but not on this one. Discussions of the possible
conflict of interest within his firm indicated there was nothing which
would disqualify him from serving as the City's Counsel in this hearing.
5.2 COMPRF.H%§JVE FLAN REVISION, PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL PLAN
REVIEW CPR It- !ALPHA ENGINEERING NPO #6
Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECO14MENDATIONS, and pointed out
the physical features on the map on the wall.
The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Hans Vatheuer of Alpha
. � CITY OF TI6A RD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON \
C:I::i -'RAL. Al PL I CA'H ON FORM CASE No.�
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Asti , PO Box 13397 RECEIPT No.��
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
I. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS - SEE ATTACHED LIST Associated Cases:
LEGAL, DESCRIPTION-- SEE ATTACHED LIST -
INTERNAL PROCESSING:
SITE SIZE - SEE ATTACHED LIST Accepted for Pre-App. :
PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER*-- SEE ATTACHED LIST By;
ADDRESS
PHONE
Pre-App. .
CITY 'LIP
APPLICANT* UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) Date b Time :
ADDRESS 150 N. First St-eet _PHONE_ 648-8621 Accepted for VV-
CITY Hillsboro, OR ZIP 91124 _ --�— e
*Where [Lie owner and the applicant are different people , the By:
applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in Hearing Dat? :
possession with written authorization from the owner or an
agent of the owner with written authorization. The written Hearing Resot To:
authorization must be submitted with this application.
2. REQUIRED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS ATTACHED 11 YES XD NO Decision: filed 6 mailed
,3. _THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: AFP.
FEE FILED PAID Accepted for Appe ��
Comprehensive Plan Amendment -
-- from to I By:
quasi-judicialI_ II
legislativeDate of Hearing:
_ Zone Change from to
quasi-judicial
legislative DESCRIPTION:
Planned Unit Development - -- - Comp. Plan Designation:
concept plan detailed plan
_ Subdivision NPO No.
Major Partition —`--
-— Minor Partition - - Zoning District
Design Review
Conditional Use Zoning Map No.
_ Variance to Zoning Ordinance
(Title 18) Quarter Section No.
Variance to Subdivision Ord.
-- �-"—
(Title 17)
Sensitive Land Permit I ISTAFF NOTES:
X Floodplains � �
Drainageways -
_ - Steep Slopes
Other --
TOTAI.
02-
1)
General Informaticn
PROPERTY ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA PROPERTY OWNER/ADDRESS
12060 S.W. Tiedemen Avenue 2S1 3AA 100 3.68 Donald J. & Elizabeth E. Swan
Tigard, Oregon 97223
13137 S.W. Pacific Hwy 2S1 3AA 101 22. 10 Tigard School District 23J
Tigard, Oregon 97223 2S1 3AB 100 11.38 Fowler Jr. High
11405 S.W. 92nd 2S1 3AB 300 5.84 John A. & Martha Glaubke
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Rt. 4 Box 404 1S1 34DC 3602 1.02 Larry Barnum, Cecil Tibbetts
Sherwood, Oregon 971.40 & Kim O'Kelberry
11880 S.W. 116th Avenue 1S1 34CD 1202 0.90 Dena Charles Whipp, Jr.
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Paula Rossi & Janet J. Karius
12700 S.W. Pacific Hwy 1S1 34CD 1200 0.54 J.A. & J. Allen Patterson
Tigard, Oregon 97223
12700 S.W. Pacific Hwy 1S1 34CD 100 4. 29 J.A. & J. Allen Patterson
Tigard, Oregon 9722
1S1 34DC 6700 0.07 City of Tigard
111460 S.W. Dawn Ct. 1S1 34DC 6500 0.05 Ash, Malcolm L.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
11480 S.W. Dawn Ct. 1S1 34DC 6400 .07 Rohrbach, Shirley A.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
2. Required Letter of Authorization
The applicant, Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County (USA) ,
is a regional service district that provides sanitary sewage collection
and treatment to urbanized Washington County and portions of Multnomah
and Clackamas Counties. USA is not the owner, purchaser of record,
nor leasee in possession with written authorization from the owner of
the eleven lots across which this application applies. USA is not
proposing to develop these lots. Rather, the application proposes
to install a regional underground, gravity sanit'ry sewer line within
permanent easements across these eleven lots. The easements have been
appraised by an independent land appraiser. Two have been purchased,
and negotiations are on-going for the remaining easements.
f1
f
GE-NERAL, APPLICATION, F•0RM % GE 2 CASE No.
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Asti, PO Brno 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
SUPPLEMENVYAL INFORMATION (TO BL PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Notice of Response
4 . DISTRICTS Sent
es. o es
Recelved
SCHOOL DISTRICT Tigard School District 23J
WAI ER DISTRICT Tigard Water District
FIRE DISTRICT Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District
PARK DISTRICT
t
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY - Sewer Available : YES NO EJ
OT11ER
5 . PUBLIC UTILITIES
ELECTRICITYPORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
NATURAI. GAS N.W. NATURAL GAS _
TELEPHONE GENERAL TELEPHONE
OT"FR
6 . PUBLIC TRANSIT (TRI MET)
NEAREST BUS ROUTE AND STOP Greenburg line near Pacific Highway
Hw 99)&Greenbur2 Road '
7 . OT11ER INTERESTED AGENCIES (SPECIFY)
See attached narrative
CI_iARACTER OF THE AREA
F`;ISTING LAND USE PLAN ►`FSIGNATIO"? ZONE VERIFIED BY STAFF
NORTH I Residential Low R-4.5
SOUTH Residential Low R-4.5
EAST '
Residential Lew R-4.5
WEST Residential Low R-4.5
GO
Future development that occurs as a result of availability of sewer provided
by the Scholls Trunk, will eventually require expansion of services and
capabilities of the Tigard Water District, Beaverton Water Department,
Tualatin Fire District, and the Beaverton Fire District. Additional
schools will undoubtedly be required in Beaverton and Tigard to absorb the
demand created by the additional population growth from the new development.
I
7. Other Interested Agencies
The proposed route of the Lower Scholls Trunk lies within the City of Tigard.
Approximately half of the total service area lies within the urban growth
boundaries of both Tigard and Beaverton. The remaining service area lies
west of the two cities in the unincorporated areas of Washington County.
City of Tigard. The City has expressed support for the project for a number
of reasons. The availability of sewer service will allow the immediate annex-
ation and development of new subdivisions (approximately 700 dwelling units)
in Tigard over the next few years. It will also provide the City a tool to
encourage annexation of large areas of land which are curr.:,,�'y surrounded on
three sides by the City. This type of annexation will allow the City to
"square up" its boundaries and more effectively provide city services.
Approximately half of the trunk's service area is currently residential . The
remaining area is planned by the City for residential development. Staff also
indicated the possibility of formation of sewer local improvement districts in
the unsewered areas within the urban growth boundary as soon as sewer becomes
available.
City of Beaverton. Presently, the service area within the proposed urban growth
boundary oT Beaverton is primarily rural and devoted to agricultural uses. ?he
City is currently in the process of modifying its urban growth boundary in this
area and has identified land uses in a plan called the West Beaverton General
Plan Amendment. It calls for residential development in this area and assumes
availability of sewer service. The City anticipates three major developments
(approximately 3,000 dwelling units) in this area spread over the next few
years. These development plans coincide with construction of the Lower Scholls
Trunk, Scholls Trunk: Extension and Weir Trunk (an extension of the Scholls Trunk) .
The Scholls Trunk Extension and Weir Trunk are currently under construction.
County of Washi_ ngton. Washingt�ri County has developed a compre_!p--sive plan
for land use. Currently, the Lower Scholls Trunk drainage area is rural in
nature, but it is designated urban in the County's Plan. Urban development
would be contingent on extension of sewer service from Tigard or Beaverton. With
this qualification in mind and considering the County' s stated policy to encourage
developing land to annex to incorporated cities, it follows that much of %he
urban development in the Scholls Trunk Drainage Basin should occur by systematic
annexation to Beaverton and Tigard.
Potential impacts on other governmental agencieS will consist of direct and/or
indirect effects on the capacity and operation of Fowler Jr. High (Tigard School
District) , Tigard Water District, City of Beaverton Water Department, Tualatin
Fire District, and the Beaverton Fire District.
Construction of the trunk will pass through the grounds of yowler Jr. High
School in Tigard. Other than noise and dust, the effect of the construction
operation will be confined to an area along Sumner Creek and will not obstruct
physical education intruction or interfere with classes inside the school buildings. •
The most noticeable impact will occur primarily in the summer during excavation,
or when the grass fields are being restored. The path of construction will also
cross water lines of Tigard Water District. Water service from these lines
Should not be interrupted.
r 1
GENERAL APPLICA'rION FORM 'AGE 3 CASE No.
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Asti , PO Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639--4171
9. CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WHICH AFFECT THIS APPLICATION. Please Discuss :
- SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE
10. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Lot Area (A(xx%xxxxR%xxecx1m(x) 4,449 linear feet across eleven tax lots j
ll . EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE �.
Square Distance From Propert y Line
Use Feet North South East West
STA 7 + 80 shed 640 3'
STA 10 + 10 bridge 525 60'
STA 20 + 40 shed 1,176 20' 20'
STA 30 + 50 house ?
* No permanent structures within the i
proposed easements
14ATIIRAL CONDITIONS
12. Percent Slnpe : 0. 357 (0.0035)
Ii . Vegetation Types : Average Diameter Percent Of Each v�
Yes No Size Of Trees_ Per Size
Trees : x Range up to
Brush: 60,, diameter
Grass: x
14 . Floodplains: `x How much of the site is in f loodplain? 100%
15 . Water Courses x _ What type? Summer Creek
16. Rock Outcroppings x
17. Other:
18. Proposed Development : Please briefly describe the proposed development :_TO install __
an underground, gravity sanitary sewer line (Lower Scholls Trunk, 30-inch diameter
9. Changes in the Character of the Area
Topo ra h . The terrain along the proposed route of the Lower Scholls
Trunk is flat, seldom sloping more than one percent. The creek is bordered
by brush and meanders through a sparse stand of tall deciduous and coniferous
trees. During construction, brush will be cleared from a work area about 35
to 80 feet wide along the route of the sewer. It is the Agency' s policy
that the number of large trees disturbed during construction be held to a
minimum.
Construction of the sewer line may result in accelerated erosion if left
unchecked. Additionally, soil porosity and productivity may be reduced in
the short term due to compaction during construction; however, proper pro-
cedures will be used to minimize both problems. These procedures include
minimizing soil exposure, utilizing runoff cootrol , shielding soil , and
binding soil .
Soil exposure can be reduced by staging, grading, and revegetating so that
minimal soil surface is exposed to erosion. Short-term erosion is also
mitigated if c "^_L' ,:ction takes place when rainfall is low. Site runoff
due to construction, can be controlled by intercepting and diverting
sediment-laden �. u)nage, by proper grading, and by preservation of natural
vegetation. Soil shielding by using surface covers (such as mulch or, hay)
will also mitigate short-term erosion. Soil binders protect soil from rain
splash and runoff. Natural soil binders include clay, organic material ,
and roots.
Wildlife and Terrestrial Ecology. Much wildlife habitat and vegetation will
be disturbed in sewer line construction areas. During the fall and spring,
a small number of ducks and other migratory wildlife inhabit the creek;
however, impact to the habitat of the migratory birds which occupy portions
of the creek will be minimal . At the upper end of the project area, beaver
occupy a dam in the creek. It is not anticipated that construction activities
will disturb the dam since the sewer wall pass approximately 100 feet to the
south of it.
Vegetation will be retained where possible to minimize habitat disturbance
and to prevent erosion. To prevent long-teem erosion, excavated and
disturbed areas will be seeded. To facilitate this seeding opera ion, the
top eight inches of topsoil in the excavated areas will be retained and then
replaced during backfilling operations. It is anticipated that within a
year following construction, a stand of grass and brush within the work
area will be reestablished and the banks of the creek will be stabilized.
I The most visible reminder of the construction will be manholes that will
rise one or two feet above the ground every 300 or 400 feet.
Aquatic Life. Some short-term impacts on aquatic life in the creek are
unavoidable, even with special construction practices. Creek crossings
will be perpendicular to the direction of flow, whenever possible, and
sedimentation will be minimal due to low flows anticipated during the time
of construction. Following construction of each creek crossing, the creek
will be restored to its original location and dimensions.
Air Quality. Sewer line construction may have minor short-term air quality
impacts. Heavy equipment operation, and truck and automobile traffic will
increase vehicle emission and dust.
Proper construction procedures, such as watering access roads and exposed
areas, will be used to minimize dust problems. Construction and employee
vehicle emmissions are unavoidable and will not be mitigated beyond
current pollution control requirements.
Noise. Noise generated by trucks, automobiles, anL4 other construction equip-
ment is unavoidable. Effects will be felt by residents in the vicinity of
construction. Although noise intrusions can bE limited to normal work-
day hours, some disruption and annoyance to nearby households are unavoidable.
Socioeconomic Impacts. Minor short-term beneficial impacts to the economy
will be experienced during construction. Construction employees will most
likely be drawn from the local area. Construction materials will also be
purchased locally.
No extended street closures are anticipated and no open cuts will be made
across major highways during construction. Congestion (should it occur
at all ) will be short term. Truck and other vehicular traffic generated
by construction will cause a slight increase over normal traffic volumes.
Adverse traffic impacts can be mitigated by use of signs, flagmen, and
detours as necessary. With the exception of possible detours, all adverse
traffic impacts will be temporary and limiter; to normal work days.
GENERAL APPLICATION FORM - PAGE 4 CASE No .
CITY ON TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639--4 171
19. The following is 1:11 is not LJ required.*
20. Overall Site Deve lopment
Residential Coam*-rcia1 Industrial Open Space Other Roads Total
No. of acres
or sgaare
feet per use
Percent of
site
Covera e
21 . Type of Residential Use and Characteristics
0 of Bedrooms/Unit
Type of Use A of Units EFF. T-2— 3 14 Pro osed Density
72 . Where applicable , please explain how the open space , common areas and recreational
facilities will be maintained.
i . If the project is to be completed in phases , please describe each phase of the project .
•
Please submit the following with this application:
1 . Written General Narrative, number as required by Planning Department.
2 . Proof of Ownership
3. Letter of authorization if applicant is not owner.
4 . Tax Map
5. Names and address of surrounding property owners as required by Development Code .
* Staff will identify for you , whether this section is to be completed .
C/
19. - 23. Overall Site Develo ment
As stated in N2, the Agency is not proposing to develop these lots. Only
a regional underground gravity sewer line will be installed. It will not
be constructed in phases.
I
f
l
I
GENERAL, APPLICATION FORM — WAGE 5 CASE No .
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EACH HEARING.
(e .g. Attorney, Surveyor , Engineer)
Staff Notice
Notice Report Decision of Review
Name Merry Chamberlin, Project Manager
Street 150 N. First
City Hillsboro, State OR Zip 97124 X X X X
Name Gary Krahmer, General Manager, USA
Street _ - X X
City State Zi
Name Robert Cruz, Division_ Engineer, USA
Street
City State Zip X X X X
N ame
St.ree t
city State Zi
APPLICANT
OWNER
DC
C- *.,.Ll
® e�o
1� � r
V
« .2 ' 3
L`x�/�`✓ �! z11 18 . 57 .070
(1 )_x___ F�1o_ndp1ain :
(A) , Plans drawn to scale , submitted in triplicate
as prepared by a registered professional engineer with ex-
perience _in hydraulic an geo ydre,logic engineering and
processes, shcwinQ tFie—na ure , ocation, sions , eIeva-
tions and t-ornQr, a_phy of the site^ ti e location ct exis ing
n ructures located upon the site, existinc�a_nd
rog areas to be i e or otherwise mo i ie , and the,
relationship heset—o tFie location of the s ream c annel,
and propos or con roIling erosion.
(B) Any documentation , p otograp , water marks , and
similar evidence offered in support of the claim that the site
or area in question lies above high water as defined by the
regulatory flood.
(2) Drainageways :
(A) Plans drawn to scale, submitted in triplicate as
prepared by a registered professional engineer with experience
in hydraulic and hydrologic engineering and processes, showing
the nature, location, dimensions , elevations and topography
of the site; and location of existing and proposed structures
located upon the site; existing and proposed fill or excavated
areas, and the relationship of these to the location of the
Stream channel (if any) , and the proposed methods of control-
ling erosion.
(3) Steep slopes :
(A) Plans drawn to scale, submitted in triplicate
as prepared by a qualified registered professional engineer
showing the nature , location, dimensions , elevations , and
topography of the site ; the location of existing and pro-
posed structures lDcated upon the site , existing and
proposed fill or excavated areas and proposed methods of
controlling erosion. Ord. 79-73 51 (part) , 1979 : Ord. 79-46
Sl (part) , 1979 : Ord. 74-50A §l (part) , 1974) .
].8. 57 . (10 Standards . (a) A,gplication for a special
use permit 3.n floodpinin areas shall be granted or TAT-d
in accordance w, t___h rh2_followzng Stanands :
LI) 1t❑ structure , fill, excavation, storage or
of er use shall bPoermitTt�T�w it one or to c:om enation
with existing or p used uses wou r. _, y f
the _ oI d lair. area cr raise ei . er the flood surface
elevation orow rates , or a verse y ar. ect�Towcirecti_on
p upstream or downstream pro erties , C 5t�t-
or foreseeable hazard to public health , saetyan�en�eral
iwelfare.
(2) The applicant must obtain the permit required
by the state of Oregon under ORS Chapter 544. for removal or
filling of waterways , or demonstrate that the provi!.ions of
this statute do not aptly .
292-5a (Tigard 1/15/80)
3 . I.,and form alteration or- development within a drainadeway
® whvrr t her i it year, rl)und w,+ter- flow, unless:
a. The drainageway is proposod to be incorporated into a
public facility of adequate size to accommodate
maximum water flow in accordance with the adopted 1981
Master Drainage Plan as prepared by CH2M Hill; or
b. The land is not proposed to be partitioned, subdivided
or developed.
4 . Application pursuant to subsection 3 (a) and 3 (b) shall be
approved by the Director.
C. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
Chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas .
D. A use established prior- to the adoption of this Code, which
would he prohibilod by Lhis Chapter or which would be 9ubjec t to
the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter shall be
considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall be
subject to the provisior:z of Chapter 18 . 132 of this Code.
18.84.020 .Administration and Fpprwal Process
A. The applicant for a Sensitive Lands permit shall be the recorded
owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the
owner.
0. A Pre -Application cunference with City staff is required. See
Section 18 .32 .040,
C. Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or, local
policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the
Pre -Application Conference is valid for not more than 6 months .
1 . Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any
variance application is submitted mire than 6 months after
the Pre-Application Conference.
2 . Failure of the DirecLur to pr•ovido ani of the information
required by this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver, of
the standard, criteria or requirr.ments of the pplicat:ions .
D The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or
deny an application for a Sensitive Lands permit as set forth in
Section 18 .84 .016 (B)(1)(2)(3), excluding subsections (B)(3)(a)
and (3)(b) • The Ilearincjs Officer' s decision may be reviewod by
the Council as provided by 18 .32 . 310(B) .
L . The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an ,
application for, a Sensitive lands permit as set forth in
Sections 18 .84 .015 (4) . The decision made by the Director may
be apppealed to the Planning Commission as provided by
18 , 32. 310(A) .
] I] - 140
t he 1.411,1 fill m .a11 ri A ilnl I 1 ,40t'411011111Vi)1 i n II.
wtlhIn IlIt- f loaniw.Ay
4. the land form alteration or development will not result in
any increase in the elevation of the zero-foot rise
floodway;
5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted
pedost.rian/bicycle pathway plan;
6. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that
no pathway will be below the elevation of stn average anneal
flood.
U. The I1earinr35 officer shall make findings that all of the
following criteria are satisfied when approving, approving with
conditions or denying an application requesL For a Sensitive
Lands permit on slopes of 2591, or greater or unstable ground:
1 . The extant crud nature of the proposod land fur,n alLer•at.ion
or development will not create site disturbances to an
extent greater Lhan Lhat required for the uses;
2 . The propoGed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, groi.ind
instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects
or hazards to life or property.
3 . The structures are appropriately sited and designed to
ensure structural stability and proper drainage of
foundation and crawl space areas for development with any
of the following soil conditions: Wet/high water table;
high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and
shallow depth-to -bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alLorat-iun or development, the areas not roverod by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
Nrevont: erosion in accordance wiLh SecLion 18 loo
(LANDSCAPING AND SCREI NING) .
C. The 11ear-iin3s officer shat l make findii •3s that all of the
following criteria are satisfied when approving, approving with
conditions or denying an application request fur a Sensitive
Lands permit, within drainageways:
1 . Tho e.xtenL and nature of the proposed land foim alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to thu
extent great-er than that required for Lhe uses;
2 . the proposed land form alteration or development will. not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability
or other adverse on- site and off-site effects or hazards to
10 life or property;
Ill - 1112 � `i &
14 3-81 - Page 10
t I am concerned about this, I'm not just trying to make waves, I 'm
concerned about what happens to me 10 years from now when t;-.ere is
1,000 or. 2,000 kaihasa more houses upstream basically, in the summer
creek watersheu; and 'he rains come, and they come down to me that
much quicker and I'm sitting there flooded. A week and a half ago,
I had about 6 inches of freeboard left before the water was in my house.
It's a concern to me, because I think that the effect is there. I did
pose this question to Aldi.e Howard, in fact, and what I got was scrt of
a chuckle, I means he was helpless, I suppose, in that he didn't have
an answer, but, uh, his response was well , you know we can't do anything
about that. I think that the implication was that he agreed that it
would have this effect on me. I'm raising this question - is this
sort of a project in effect, a violation of the ordinance? Without
some tempering factor included in, in this particular case . what I 'm
saying is a storm sewer system in conjuncti3n with a sanitary sewer
system to counter-balance rhe effects that it's going to have on the
behavior of the drainage. Thank you.
Tepedino : Thank you Mr. Ott. Any other parties wishing to speak against this
proposal?
Mr . Cruz, do you have a response to Mr. Ott- 's concerns?
Cruz: His last questions is something to the effect that is this project
in violation of the ordinance? The answer to that question, and I
think that he indirectly answered it is that this project in and of
itself is dot - this project will not cause danger in raising the
flood level, something to that effect. Uh, it's true, indirectly •
it could have detriment uh, with upstream development. I believe
that, and again, •xJyxWx probably Frank could answer this or redress
is better than I can, but T believe that the City of Tigard does have
within its realm, storm sewer standards that would take into account,
3 . The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not
decreased; and
4 . Where natural. vegel.aLion has been removed due to land form
alteration or the development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted Lo
prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18 . 100
(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING) .
D. the Director shall make findings that all of the following
criteria are satisfied when approving, approving with conditions
or denying an application request for a Sensitive Lands permit
within drainageways.
1 . the extent and nature of the proposed ]arid form alteration
will not create site disturbances to an ex Lent greater than
that required for the uses;
2. The proposed land form alteration will no result: in
erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other
adverse on--site and off--site effects or hazards to life or
property;
3 . The drainagcway will be replaced by a public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance
with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan as prepared by
CH2M Hill; and
4. the land involved on which the land form alteration is to
Lake place will not be partitioned, subdivided or developed
as a part of this application request.
18.84.050 Application Submission_Requirements
A. All applicat.ions shall be made on forms provided by the Director,
and shall be accompanied by:
1 . Five copies of the Sensitive Lands permit proposal and
neceasnry dala ur narral.ive which explains how the propo-tal
conforms to the standards, and
A. The siLe plan(s) and required dr,mwinr35 shall be on
sheets not execeding 19" x 74" ; and
b. flip scala for the site plan(s) shall be 20, 50 or 100
feet to the inch.
c All drawings or structure elevations or floor plans
ahall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4" or
1/8" to the foot. '
7 . A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are
property owners of record within 250 feet of the site.
3 . lhr regc+ired fpe.
[fI - 143
B . 'the required information may be. combined on one map.
C. The site plan(s), data and narrative shall include the following:
1 . An, existing site conditions analysis, Section 18.84.070;
2 . A site plan, Section 18.84.080;
3 . A grading plan, S-ction 16.84.090;
4. A landscaping plan, Section 18.84. 100.
18 84 ..060 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements
A. The Director may require information in addition to that
required by this Chapter in accordance with Section 18 . 32.080
(A) .
B . The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in
accordance with Section 18 .32.080 (B) and (C) .
18 .84.070 Sate conditions
A. The site analysis drawings shall include:
1 . A vicinity map showing streets and access points,
pedesLrian and bicycle pathways, and utility locations;
2 . the site size and its dimensions;
3 . Contour lines at 2 -foot intervals fur grades 0-10% and
5- foot intervals for grades over 10 percent;
4. The location of drainage patterns and drainage courses;
5. The location of natural hazard areas including:
A. Floodplains areas (100--year floodplain and floodway) ;
b. Slopes in excess of 25%;
y Unstable ground (areas subject to slumping, earth
slides or movement);
d. Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24
inches of the surface for three or more weeks of the
year;
Q. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential.; or as
defined by the Soil Conservation Service; '
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils.
6. Thr+ location of resource areas as sown on the
Comprehensive Plan .inventory map including:
III - 144
L .
a. Wildlife habitat ; and
b. Wetlands.
7. The location of site features including:
a. Rock outcroppings; and
�,.
b. - Trees with 6" caliper or greater measured 4 feet from
ground level.
8. The location of existing structures on the site and
proposed use of those structures.
18 .84 .080 The Sitc Plan
A. The proposed site development plan shall bo At the samo scale as
the -lite analysis plan and shall include the following
information:
1 . The proposed site and surrounding properties;
2. Contour line intervals (see Section 18.84.070 (A)(3) ;
3. The location, dimensions and names of all .
a. ExisLiny and plaLtcad streets and other public ways and
easements on the site and on adjoining properties; and
b. Proposed streets or other public ways and oasements on
thl site.
4. The location and dimension of:
a. the entrances and exits on the site;
b. The parking and traffic circulation areas;
C. loading and services areas;
d. PedesLri:,n and bicycle facilities;
e. Outdoor common areas; and
f. Above ground utilities.
5. the location, dimensioris and setback distances of all :
a. Existing sLructures, improvements and ut.ilities which
are located on adjacent property within 25 feet of the
site and are permanent in nature.
b. Proposed structures, improvements and utilities on the
• site.
]1' - 145
c Xt/i.d 7-
18. 150
18. 150 TREE REMCVAL
18. 150.010 Purpose
~ A. The City of Tigard is now benefited by large number., of Lr•ees,
both natural. growth and those which have been planted throughout
the years by Tigard's residents. These varied wooded trees add
to the aesthetic beauty of the community; help clean the air, and
provide noise barriers.
B. The purpose of this Chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary
removal of Lrops on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the
development of Lhose lots . At the time of development it may be
necessary to remove certain trees to Accommodate structures,
streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements
within the development.
18 . 150.020 Permit Required/APnlicabil.itt
A. This provision shall apply to all undeveloped land, and
developed commercial and industrial land.
B. This provision excludes :
1 . Developed residential property; and
2. Property registorod with Washington County Small Woodlands
Association and cer,LifiPd as a West Coast tree farm by the
Industrial Forestry Association, and used for commercial
log harvesting or Christmas trees.
C. No person shall cut a tree(s) upon private or public property
without first obtaining a permit from the City .
0. For the purpose of Lhis Chapter, tree removal shall not include
tree topping and pruning under power and utility lines, or
pruning of Lroes located with visual clearance areas as defined
in Chapter 18 . 102.
18. 150.030 Criteria for Issuance of _Perm.its
A. The following criteria shall be used by the Director, or designee
for the issuance or, nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To
issue a permit, the following criteria must be satisfied:
1 . The trees are diseasod and there is a danger the troos may
fall on existing or proposal structures or interfere with
utility services or traffic safety; or
2. There is a necessity to remove certain trees in order to
construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the •
applicant's property in a reasonable manner; and
3. There is riot a nerd to retain the tree(s) due to the
• topography of the land because there will be no effect from
the tree removal on erosion, soil retention, stability of
earth, floe of surface waters; and
III - 290
4. there is not a need to retrain the tree(s) to protect nearby
trees as windbreaks, and as a desirable balance between
shade ar►d open space; and
5. The aesthetic character in the area; will not: be visually
adversely affected by the tree removal; and
6. The applicant' s proposals . if any, to plant new trees or
vegetation as a substitute for the tr•ee(s) to be cut will
restore the aesthetic valve of the removed trees.
18 . 150.040__.•_Emergencies _ Authority
A. in the event of emergency conditions requiring the immediate
cutting or removal of trees in order to avoid danger or hazard
to per:,ons or property, an emergency permit will be issued,
without fee, by the Director or• designee. During nonbusiness
hours, emergency permits shall be issued by an on–duty officer
in the police department.
i
18. 150.050—^Application Submission Requirements
A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director
and shall be accompanied by:
1 . One copy of the necessary data or narrative.
2. The required fee.
p. The necessary data or narrative shall include:
1 . The specific location of the proper Ly by address and
Assessor Map number and tax lot;
2. The numb?r, size, species, and locations of the trees to be
cut;
3 . The Lime and mothud of cuttirY3 or removal and Lhe reason
for the tree removal ;
4. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting
of new trees to replace the cut trees;
5. A narrative as to how Lhe criteria in 18. 150.030(A) are
satisfied.
C. The Director• may waive any of the requirements in subsection (D)
above or• request additional information in accordance with
Section 18 , 32 .080. ,
]11 - 299
Section 6: 18.57.060 Section 1 �A) of the IMC requires that:
"All app Iic,ilous for special use permits shall be supported by
the following information to enable the planning commission to
determine whether the proposed use is located in the floodplain
or drainageway district and if so, whether the proposal , if
approved, will conform to the purposes and guidelines as set
forth in this chapter."
(1) Floodplain:
(A) flans drawn to scale, submitted in triplicate as prepared by a
registered professional engineer with experience in hydraulic
and geohydrologic engineering and processes , showing the nature ,
location, dimensions, elevations and topography of the site ; the
location of existing and proposed structures located upon the
site, existing and proposed areas to be filled or otherwise
modified, and rhe relationship of these to the locati.on of the
stream channel , and proposed methods for controlling e+osion.
the Council also makes the following, conclusions of law:
( 1 ) 11ie Council concludes that because the plans prepared by USA
which were available to the public were not submitted as
supporting information along with their application, the
application did not meet requirements set forth in
18.57.060(1)(A).
(2) Ilie Council concludes that because the plans submitted as
supporting information were not drawn to scale by a professional
engineer and did not show items listed in 18. 57.060(1)(A) they
did not meet the application requirements set forth in
18.57.060(1)(A).
(3) The Council concludes that because the area proposed for the
trunk line is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek
which floods onto adjacent properties and the proposal does not
address safeguards to protect the residents of this area anti
their property there is insufficient evidence to show compliance
with Statewide Planning Coal 7 as stated in Findings of Fact rlt,.
the Counr.il , therefore, ORDERS that the above referred application
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
11ie Council FUR7HFR ORDERS that the Director of Planning and
Development and the City Recorder send a copy of the final order as a
notice of final decision in this case.
PASSED: This _f1 day of 1983 by the Council of the City
of Tigard. �— •
Mayor - City of 'ligand
A71ES7 :
Recorder - C1tV of 'I i uhrti
J1 nature of A 11CanL UV IA 11CtrIIL i # ens
citiZen 'n.ds he canftght cit hall
y
age Agency,which needs the permit be- hearing on his appeal.1!took a full year the sewerage,agency Asked Whipp fo A
By DAVE BAKER fore Itran build the mile-long, 30-Inch to gel the hearing because of misunder- property easement so It could build the
Of the Times pipeline. standings between Whipp and the city sewer line,he sold.
The council's decision reversed a planningslaff Until then, Whipp said,he assumed
TIGARD—Charles Whipp was pre• unanimous decision by the Tigard Plan- The rnuncll ngreed to schedule a that the city's lengthy delay In respond-
pared for the proverbial cnn'1-fight-city. ping Commission In March 1082 to grant hee.ring Inst month After Whipp told the Ing to his appeal request was normal.
hall setback. But this time, City Hall the sensitive lands permit. councilors about the chain of events Ihnt But After he was contacted by the sewer-
Agreed with the protesting citizen. had led Tigard Planning and Develop- age agency In December, he asked
However,the council added that its ment Director BIII Monahan to the den Monahan what had happened In his n
The ('lty Council unanimously con- decision was tentative and would not be. y PP p-
curred Monday with Whipp's complaint come final until city officials gather his appeal in December. peal.
that a proposal to Install An underground more Information about the Impact of After the Tigard Planning Commis- Monahan told the council Inst month
sanitary sewer line along Summer Creek the proposed sewer line. slon granted the sewerage agency's re- that he denied Whtpp's Appeal In Decem-
from Tledemnn Street to 121st Avenue, quest for the sensitive lands permit In ber because a city ordinance requires
would worsen the flooding of his and his Still. Whipp couldn't hold back an March 1982, Whipp explained, he went that an Appeal fee must be paid at t
neighbors'property In north Tigard. enr-to-enr grin during an Interview fol- to the city pinnning staff to file an ap- same time the appeal Is flied.
Afler about 21,J hours of public testi- I",ving the council's decision."1 feel ab. peal. Monahan said It appeared Whipp had
solutely Incredible,"he said.
many and
discussion,the council tempo- But Whipp said he never heard from never paid the required 5250 filing fee.
racily denled a"sensitive Innds"permit Whipp,who lives at 11880 SW 118th the city on his request for nn appeal. However, he snld he Inter discovered
sought by the countywide Unified Sewer- Ave.,waged an uphill battle to receive a Nine months later — In December — Turn to FIGHT,Page IA
t !
1�
rM
FightContinued from Page One
that Whipp had paid the fee but that the slrucllon that would effect the now of n'causal connection"b"lween flooding
city recorder's office hadn't notified the surface water on "mrisilive lands" — a d granting the sensitive lands permit.
planning staff that it received Whlpp's generally areas within the 100-year flood A court would have to determine
check. The Planning Department re- plain,within natural dralnngewnyn and l ,i;. whether development resulting from
turned Whlpp's check in December. on steep slopes. ¢ construction of the sewer line could be
Whipp said that when he went to the Whipp and his neighbors stressed % S riled as such a causal cpnnection,Sulll-
Planning Department to file the appeal that the displacement resulting from in- von mad.
In March IO82,n planner trod him not to.. slallallon of the 00•Inch line — which R� r Currie told the Times Tuesday that
pay the fee because the Tigard School would eros beneath the creek several d L Whlpp's house and about five others
Dlstrlct had already appealed the Plan- times — would Immediately Increase �W were built on the 100-year flood plain
ning Commisson's decision. flooding. ' _ before the city adopted an ordinance
Put Monnhan sold the planner told They also argued that the sewer line ,;1". ' prohibiting construction In flood plains.
Whipp only that the schnol district had Is being Installed In service future devel• + Whipp,who displayed photographs of
filed an appeal and that Whipp decided opment that wnuld occur mainly In south his entire back ynrd under water, told
not to pny the fee. Unfortunately, Beaverton and In unincorporated parts the council that Summer Creek rises
Monahon said,Whipp nppnren ly wasn't of Washington County. That develop- over it seven-foot retaining wall an
told that the city ordinance requires ap- ment, they said, would Increase storm floods homes and yards every winter.
peal fees to be paid at the same time an drainage In Summer Creek and,cone-
appeal Is filed. quently,more flooding of their proper- OF Mayor Wilbur Bishop said the coon•
lies. ` ell should consider making approval of
The planning staff later determined r the sewer line construction cnntingent
that the school district wasn't eligible to Tlgnrd Public Works Director Frank Charles Whipp upon Installolion of storm dralns. Ne
file an appeal because 11 hadn't objected Currie and Robert Cruz.,an agent for the noted lhnt the council recently required
to the permit during the Planning Com- sewernge agency,agreed Mid the trunk Gets council to agree construction of a major Ihnmughfare In
micslnn hearing. Monahan sold. Whipp line would serve development In sntdh the Summer Creek area,which has no the Tigard Triangle before d velopment
then was notified.and he paid the$250 Beaverton,north Tigard and in parts of storm drains and relles on the creek to can proceed In the area
fee on April 10. the county and that the new develop- carry away runnff water.
ment would cause more storm drainage Scheckla agreed with Bishop."I have
"1 feel like my legal rights In this and Bood!ng. Scheckla asked If the city would be walked that area and I think there's e
issue have been stomped on,"Whipp told held liable It homes along Summer potential problem there,"Scheckla said,
the cnuncll last morlh, llawever. Currie and Cruz said the Creek are flooded because of the new adding that he wanted a guarantee that
After hearing Whlpp's story, the plpe alone wouldn't cause any chnr,ge In sewer line. storm drnlns wnuid be constructed in the
council agreed that Whipp Intended to the nnw of water In Summer Creek.Qtr- City Attnrney Ed Sullivan snld it arer before he would approve installs-
file an appeal and(hat he deserved one. He said the city staff recommended would have to he proven that there was lion of the sewer line.
granting the sensitive lands permit on
"Right Is righl." Councllmnn Ken grounds that the Installation alone
Scheckla snid,"whether It's the big guy wouldn't affect water now and that the
or the little guy." city code has been sntlsfled.
About 10 people who own property In Currie said the city is responsible far
Whlpp's neighborhood shnwed up for the providing storm drnlns.He said the city
hearing Monday. Whipp and others ar- has a storm drain conlrucllon prngrnm
geed that the city code prohibits can- but hasn't allocated funds far prnlect9 In
Hearings Officer
City of Tigard
Tigard, Oregon
Dear Ms. Mason:
Thank you for allowing us to present our case. Unfortunately, I
am now working in Texas and am unable to attend the hearing in person.
Although I am presently located in Texas, my home and my wife are in
Tigard. I asked my wife to read this tonight on my behalf.
The purpose of this project is to install a 30 inch inside
diameter sewer pii,e to open up a vast area of land to 165th Avenue for
development. A large portion of this area is outside the city limits
of Tigard. According to the General Application Form filed by the
United Sewage Agency <:Exhibit 1, page 6? this would allow for
approximately 700 new dwelling units to be built in the City of
Tigard, 3000 Dwelling units in the City of Beaverton and an unknown
number in the unincorporated areas of Washington County. The 3700
units in Tigard and Beaverton is approximately the same as the total
now in Tigard.
There are no storm sewers in or near this part of Tigard or
Washington Counfy. All storm drainage is fed into Summer Creek and
Fanno Creek. Summer Creek is very small and is incapable of handling
the amount of storm drainage presently required of it without
t'noding. Each heavy rainstorm causes the creek to quickly rise out
of its basks.
This creek has been declared a sensitive lands area and a flood plain
area. A map showing the 100 year flood plain was printed by the City
of Tigard in August 1977. <Exhibit 2 is a portion of that map showing
the location of the proposed sewer line.> Due to the many
developments which have occurred in the last five years, the 100 year
flood plain as shown on the map was almost reached two years ago and
seriously threatened our home. <Exhibit 3 - Map and Pictures>. If this
project is allowed, the plan will have to be renamed the "Annual Flood
Plain Area."
This project without the additional storm drainage coming from
the future development was in conflict with the City of Tigard Zoning
and Building Code Paragraph 18.57.070 <Exhibit 4> which stated: "No
structure, fill , excavation, storage or other use shall be peri,litted
which alone or in combination with existing or proposed uses would
reduce the capacity of the flood plain area or raise either the flood
surface elevation or flow rates, or adversely affect flow direction on
upstream or downstream properties, or create a present or foreseeable
hazard to public health, safety and general welfare." After the
U.S.A. permit was denied last year due to this ordinance and other
reasons, the zoning laws were quickly changed and most of the prudent
and sensible regulations protecting the property owners were removed.
However, the current U.S.A. application is still in violation of
Tigard' s new laws in several points:
1) Paragraph 18.84.020 <Exhibit 5> States "The applicant for a
sensitive lands permit shall be the recorded owner of the
property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner." The
U.S.A. is not the recorded owner of my property and it
certainly is not m; authorized agent.
2) Paragraph 18.84.040-B-2 and 18.84.040-C-2 <Exhibit 6> Both
read "The proposed land form alteration or development will
not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property." The sewer line having a 3e inch inside
diameter would mathematically displace approximately 50
gallons of water a lineal foot when buried in the ground.
Over the length of this project - .8 mile - we are speaking of
nearly a quarter-million gallons of water being displaced. To
be extremely conservative, Summer Creek cannot handle even 10%
of that amount. This point has been made before to Mr. Frank
Currie and denied by him. However, picture this to explain
the point. Imagine a flower box in which you could pour one
gallon of water and the water would all be absorbed. Now,
tear the dirt out of the flower box, put in a slap of cement
and refill the box with dirt. When the one gallon of water is
now poured into the same flower box, it will not all be
absorbed, but will spill over the top. If this
quarter-million gallons of water being displaced plus the
unknown amount of additional storm drainage from 3700 plus new
homes is not a hazard co my property and that of my neighbors,
God only knows what it would take to become a hazard!
Mr. Robert Cruz of the U.S.A. said at the Tigard Planning
Commission meeting of March 2, 1982, "It's true, indirectly,
it couiI have detriment with upstream development." <Exhibit
7 - Page 10 of transcript>. Both Mr. Frank Currie and Robert
Cruz agreed at the March 28, 1983 meeting that the new
development would cause more storm drainage and flooding.
<Exhibit 13, Page 2> At the meeting with the hearings officer
on April 26, 1984 Mr. Currie said that 90% of the time the
creek was 2 feet or less deep and the rest of the time it
could be from 2 - 10 or more feet deep. That is true. We
have a seven foot retaining wall between the creek and the
nouse and water now on occasion comes over the 7 foot wall .
Mr. Currie also stated at the same meeting that the water
draining into the creek would increase about 40%. Do we have
to build another 5 feet on the retaining wall to protect
ourselves? Certainly when the water gets of the depth of 10
feet or more, as it presently does, the proposed skimpy
over-flow channels will not help one bit!
3) the application :Exhibit 1> also does not include a list of
the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners
of record within 250 feet of the site as required by Paragraph
18.84.050-A-2 <Exhibit 8> nor does the application or drawing
address the requirements of Paragraph 18.84.070-A-5-C through
F 'Exhibit 9 , which relate to unstable ground, areas having a
high seasonal water table within 24 inches of the surface for
three or more weeks of the year, areas having a severe soil
erosion potential and areas having severe weak foundation
soils.
1
4) The drawings are incomplete on the requirements of Paragraph
18.84.070-A-7-B <Exhibit 10> which require showing the site
locations of "Trees with 6 inch caliber or greater measured
four feet from the ground.
5) This project will entail cutting down many trees and almost
all of the trees on our ; . operty which are in the requested
easement. Paragraph 18.150.030-A-5 prohibits cutting of trees
when the aesthetic character of the area will be visually
adversely affected by the tree removal . <Exhibit 11> The
removal of the majority of the trees on our property will
certainly adversely affect the aesthetic character and
property value.
6) The drawings do riot show the proposed over-flow channels. But
it is ridiculous to think that they would effectively handle
the tremendous increase in storm drainage from the future
developments. In fact, they would be ineffective against
current flooding problems, because the areas where the
over-flow channels proposed are quite often flooded by 4-5
feet of water now during heavy rains. So how could this help
future problems.
The inaccuracy and incompleteness of the application and the
drawings plus the fact, that the sewer line is scheduled to cross the
creek 12 times in .8 miles <:once every 370 feet> shows us how little
thought was put into the planning of this project and the little
concern that the U.S.A. has for the property owners. In their
r
application <Exhibit 1, Page 8; it is stated: "Much wildlife habitat
and vegetation will be disturbed in sewer line construction areas."
No wonder! But no mention is made to the future human habitat
disturbances caused by this project.
At the hearing of March 28, 1983, the Planning Commission denied
the application because <Exhibit 12> the area proposed for the trunk
line is within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek which floods
onto adjacent properties and the proposal does not address safe ways
to protect the residents of this area and their property there is
insufficient evidence to show compliance with Statewide Planning
Goal 7. These tacts have not. changed.
At the same meeting Mayor Bishop said <Exhibit 13> "The council
should consider making approval of the sewer line construction
contingent upon installation of storm drains", and Councilman Ken
Scheckla said <Exhibit 13>, "He wanted a guarantee that storm drains
would be constructed in the area before he would approve installation
of the sewer line." Mr. Currie' s comments at the Hearings Officer' s
Meeting of April 26, 1984 were that the city had storm drain financial
capacity available now, but he also stated that it would reasonably
take 30 years to put storm drains into this area. In 30 years time,
my entire neighhorhood will be washed away and Tigard will change its
name to Lake Tigard.
The United Sewerage Agency of Washington County is not showing
anv consideration to the property owners nor the general public by
helping to create another Johnson Creek Flood Zone by going Jown the
direct widdle of this highly sensitive area. The property owners and
the Tigard Planning Commission have already said no to this project as
it is offered without storm drains.
If this project is allowed to be cc,npleted as the United Sewerage
Agency is requesting, our property and others will be sacrificed and
wiil become completely worthless and uninhabitable. In fact, after
last year's hearings on this matter, the city lowered the appraised
value on our property without our asking. Evidently they realized the
decreasing value because of this proposed project. True, this
property is in a flood plain area, and we must face the possibility of
natural flooding. But, does this justify having to face the perils of
new mar -made floou damages caused by a few people trying zo do a job
}hat they can forget about after it is finished, or through ignorance,
short-si,ntPH;-,ess or greed? We think not!
To summarize this briefly. The application should be denied
because of:
1) The plan application and drawings are in violation of nine
sections of the Tigard Comprehensive code;
2) The irreparable d,.,lare to personal property, the creek,
habitat of wildlife and trees;
3) The lack of adequate safeguards to protect lives and property
of the citizens, as required by Statewide Planni-g Goal 7;
4) The requireme,,t:s of Mayor Bishop and Councilman Scheckla
requiring this project to be approved only in conjun•:tion of
construction of storm drain sewer.,, when the prejcct was
denied previously.
We sincerely request that this permit again be denied.
Thank you. �)
EXHIBIT IIB11
aa
_ 1�.� :L�_ � 'y lair:• �` •.`�\.__'•,��;
- �` �--✓ nc, }�obinsory
�'3 �,• sem. -
0 \�1—•c_`'"�� r; �. :;;r `►�••.,. 52 sat:•:.•.��..
Ht 'o
4,r"/ l.•r SS> I zooee
I I L�`— l�"�J�-tea`\ �Ky\�' JJ Rat ' moi' - •� ; I
14
• .�•. •N>� AICD,
fill
ig
( E' „ l- 19W/ pyVM7 •Y•'•�• '� :. 1 a„ �r !, \ 110 :•• .�•.•'��"+n,,.���;�
�/^�,� /~:I�/i��:rl JIB. (( il• :�_. � ,.,,, •—rzv i�„�,�r,-;•, �.� •.•
()�1 � II�;•'�� �f�l( �I •htidi• �'"" `, �` �'i;a` 0";�,y%`,'r,"'S'�1:�`.'r^•�. /:'�+:`',.. `.-�;c
_.0 � i :. .. t' .� I ,'. �• •� nor■
�` M ,'1�� /• ' 'rte//'.• -s�.'t�.�""::.�M•=1J J••' �►�-Iir''� /.
` )$t1l i !�, 'j �^ i ��r �I/ `�.' �/ a`\'7TI��I(�i� 'U...,.r*'�..., •*,y 1' `--• f'. '� I -
q "�� �O -� , �ii"V.'�'. u� / �� �Y t�''t-�1;1i I �,1.:... .. .. `.l y0 ~�� \ _i'^�0-'•• �i.�••\,�.
'.'If/ �!r: ���i'�..,,:._•, I�I�'� ��i� �'A• �,_.�?T' .1,��) (il�' ~y �!!1i�'�(-�•. ,��j`\�)'���� ���.
SCROLLS TR.
SCALE
EORTCRSV oo IEGENU
HILI.S'dORO
REAVERTON `D DUMP STATION
"
O
SEWER LINE
TIG
ND TREATMENT PLANT
PRCJEC T
SITE
4 O • SERVICE gnuN[tARY
ttttJnnn
OIL ALATIN
M
-- PROPOSED
SWR wl9"n OI) INTERCEPI(
VIr iNITY MAP
l
�I
Zc11r.u�i�I� 1�1'��►'i:.
19,to
C.cfmawd "Rill'
A 001 gill 19
z:1► Ii�elvl� 1
0:.41 maqA1111 IMF-"
1 /
Man m I 19F
40
170 `
� .
t r Ird i 'Ir�r,C 1 'i 'I \ 1�A■1����p�`l,•' ^ !!� ���
,� errr• ♦r�'1 ��\►I�'���
Lo
.�
r �17r����I�ayrlj�t Ir/ s
r y j•. �,.;ail.j ,I,,. b• uu►J ��i•�.► � ll•,r�i
•( 1!1 hr• t ar ��n ,'I' i/wof /(/ulu�= ���1►*
' m quo 011
ot
jut • ��l % � s� .��� ,yam .. _
/�� ►yI� ■ ■Ir1�m� � ri 1/ �i �ii'li, � .1•
WIXOM 111111
bloom a�w�`�//t •rG/ �A1�tT i
�� � 11 jj�i�''r'jl'n'!���"""�R1'1��'1 ►�►'�i �j'� IA; / rj= �.! o.
rr 11.E f►`3 � �Y ��►�51�1=11'!x!Iva
ITP-Ri 9-01
Qv
MET
17
I1 i
ri ern 4
WHIR
IF
�1 vi%%/w �%Y.��i 1 �'i H\411�,`■
, r ;
/ /q//r;;.
.__
-•ori::`• :.,.u
l.i � %/1�',, I�li111
hn a
D 1-0 r)
NLP - 11niF � � cf
i