ZCA1996-00002
' ~ •
Return completed questionnaire to:
Center for Population Research and Census
Portland State University
Portland, OR 97207-0751
No later than September 26, 1996 for certification on September 30,
1996.
A N N E X A T I O N Q II E S T I O N N A I R E
' City of 1 l G~,~2.~ County of ►NCTO ~
Annexation Ordinance Number or Final Order Number . 3 Sq~
Effective Date of Annexation 5- 3~'" c1'~ •
NOTE: Enumeration of annexations which involve 200 or more housin
g
units must be conducted under the supervision of the Center for
' Population Research and Census to be certified. Complete the
following section if there are less than 200 housing units in this
annexation.
Attach completed confidential census schedules for all housing units
both vacant and occu ied. There must be one sheet for eac
P h
inhabitable housing unit.
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION AT TIME OF ANNEXATION
TOTAL OCCUPIED VACANT PERSONS
UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES :ZSt~'►raIeL
UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURES
MOBILE HOMES OR TRAILERS
TOTAL POPULATION OF ANNEXED AREA / DATE OF ENUMERATION
ENUMERATED BY } ' • ~.L t ~ '
POS ITION ~ C 4!~lrn~ ~.:.7c•~' .
. TELEPHONE NUMBER 4'~~
,
This questionnaire and the completed census schedules are the only
data used to certify annexed population. Please DO NOT send maps, ,
copies of the final ordinance, lists of addresses, etc. to our office ~
unless you.are.requested to do so.
If there are any questions, or to schedule a census, contact Howard I,
Wineberg at the Center for Population Research and Census (503) 725-
3922. '
THANK YOU.
•
CONFIDENTIAL I
,
City of
Address I,7f
~
IiOUSING TYPE TENURE
Single Unit Structure Owner Occupied
wa. b
Multiple Unit Structure Renter Occupied -fh;s 'y
Cn S r
Trailer or Mobile Home Vacant
Seasonal ( )
RESIDENTS
Last Name First Name Sex Age
Respondent dC
2-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Portland State University School of Urban and Public Affairs
Center For Population Research and Census (503) 725-3922
~ NOTICE TO TAXING DISTRICT
~ ORS 308.225 ~ ~
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE This is to notffy you that your boundary
Car•t.nnlrZpliic Uni t. change in WashiricAtvn County, for
955 Cen¢er Sf.►•eef, NE ANN[::( TQ 'f'Hf CZ1'Y OF
Sal.em. Oft 97310 TIGARA, ldiTl•111FAtJ rr,aM
(50'3) 9=15-..8287 Idsa>HItJGTON CQUidTY
FAX (503) 945•-•11737 ENHAN[;f D :+I4F. RIf F P!`1' e
TT1D f543> 943•••8617 FINr1L QlZJ1CR 5 3595
has been:
CITY OF TIGARD ~ Received 6"'10"96
FZNANCC AIitt:CTOR
13125 SW HAI. I_ EI. VU
TIGARb OR 97223 ~ Approved 6--11-96
Notes:
❑ Disapproved (see notes)
FOR MAPPING UNIT AND ASSESSOR USE ONLY
Department of Revenue file number: AQR 34-1 13l, -96 i`f ab.e !•lu0es
I Boundary: [3 Change ❑ Proposed change ❑ Planned change
I The change is for:
❑ Formation of a new district [5 Description ~*~~~~'~~u~"~~~~~~~'}~~~~~~•~'•~~~{u~t~xN~'~
0 Annexation of aterritory to a district [Y Map ~Dt: SCRIPTZOtJ APlA firaP APPRAVI•.A ~C
El Withdrawal of a territory from a district ~ 6-11 -96 ~
❑ Dissolution of a district ~K il> PER OCtS 30go?25 IY
❑ Transfer
❑ Merge Received from: P - K o 11 o C.
150-303-039 (Rev. 12-93)
Dlstrbullon: Whfte - taxlnp olst. Canary - county asseseor Plnk- Dept. of Revenue Goldenrod - couny commisslonera or Caunty CouNBoundary Commlsabn (H approprlate)
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON June 18, 1996
Msyor
' Jbn NcoG
City Couna7
Michael and Joyce Ruff . Pad HWnt
12150 SW 124th Ave. ~ Brim Moore
T%ard, OR 9'7223 'Bob Rohl[
gm Scheckla
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ruff: We received official notification that the annexadoa prnposal you requested for 9275 SW Locust St. became
final. The effective date o[ the annexation was Ntay 30, 1996. - • - ,
On behaif of the City Council, I welcome you to the City of Ilgard. Ibe County Electioas Departrnent has .
been notified; they'wffl update your voter registration so you can vote on'ISgard issues and candidates. • •
. .
.
Emergency public safety services can be reached by dialing 9-1-1. The Fire Distiict continues to serve you as ,
before. The 15gerd Police Deparm►ent will now respond instead of the Sheriff's Department. Please call the
Police Deparhnent for any public safety concerns you may have.
'Iigard is proud of its well-run facilities. Street maintenance and sewer line services are prnvided by the City.
Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible [or sewage treatinent through a rnntract wit6 the City. Your sewer
, billing will be handled thrnugh e City billing process iastead of through the County tax bill. Water service will
continue through the Mgard Water Department as betore. The City of Tigard's Iabrary and its association with the Washington County Library Service offers you first-
rate library service and access to just about any subjed. Our Funance and Administration Deparhnents are
oriented to good citizen service and we ask that you not hesitate to ca11639-4171 if you have any quesHons or
CO11C@RLS.
Once again, I wish you a sincere welcome.
7ames ely,
Nicoli
.
Mayor enclosure -
~ i:aft\lo~wdcme.a«
13125 SVI/ Hall BNd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
r
MEMORANDUM '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ron. Goodpaster, Amanda Bewersdorff, Nels Mickaelson, Cathy Wheatley, ;
Greg Berry, Randy Volk, Jill Aldrich, Kathy Davis ,
FROM: Ray Valone
DATE: June 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Final Order on Annexation 3595 ZCA96-0002 (Lundmark)
We have received the final order on Annexation 3595 ZCA96-0002 (Lundmark), effective
May 30, 1996. A map of the annexed property is attached. Census information is as
follows:
Final Order 3595:
Owners: Michael & Joyce Ruff 1 S126DC-05203, 1 SF dwelling
12150 SW 124th Ave. Property address - 9275 SW Locust St.
Tigard, OR 97223 Est. Population - 1
i:\cdadmyerree\annex\annexmem
. ~ ~
d SENDER: I also wish to ~eceive the
~ ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. '
m■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ~ following servlces (for en
f 4) ■ Pdnt your name and address on the reverse of this fortn so that we can retum this gXtr8 f89
~ card to you. ~j
~•AttBCh this fortn to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space doas not 1,0 Addressee's Address •2
~ permit.
d■Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on ihe mailpiece helow the article numbec 2. 0 ReStriCted Delivery
~ I
~ ■The Retum Receipt will show to whom the aAiGe was delivered and the date
~ deuvered. Consult postmaster for fee.
0
v 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Articte umber g
d MILLER'S SANITARY SERVICE: INC P 1 aS E
E pp gpX 217 4b. ServiCe Type
u ❑ Registered 1J'certifled ~
N BEAVERTON, OR 97075-0217 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured E
W y
❑ Retum Receipt for Merohandise ❑ COD ~
fl 7. Date of elive
0
Z ~
¢ 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addres e's A dr ss ( n y if requested ~
~ ,4M uI T'~ ~I-S and fee is paid) A
~ 6. Sign : (Addresseeent
~ Ps Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
~ .
m SENDER: I also wish to receive the ~
'o • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
m ■Complete items 3, aa, and at. following services (for an ~
m • Print your name and address on ihe reverse of this form so that we can retum ihis BXtffl f88):
~ card to you.
~ ■Attach this fortn to the froM of the mailpiece, or on the badc if space does not 1, p Addressee's Address
~`m ■ Wnte Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the aAiGe number. 2. ❑ ReStflCted D@Iivery N
~ ■The Retum Receipl wili show to whom the artide was delivered and the date a
~ aeiivered. Consult postrnaster for fee. ~
°
Is your RETURN ADDR 4 . Article N mber ~
V 3. Article Addressed to: 5 q%ab
ESS completed on the reverse side?
c TCTALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT c
w ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CO)
~ ~ ~ m~ a ~ ~ m 4b. Service Type
~ d
~X~ ~ H t~n ; D m 3 ~ a~o~o D Z o AZ`TN: GARY PIPPIN
r oc
m O tn H a m o a ~ ❑ Registered B.ertified ~
a r m~ y o= m m m~ rn PO BOX 745 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured ~
cnz HH
a m , ~ z z d D n ~`dmm.. W B rl, oR 9~0 ~
• a m 933 ¢ ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD ~
j ~ m N N O
7d H m fD~ o ~ 7. Date of Delive y
a O aC , am ~A9
~ ~ ~ Z (l~ v a ~•a ~ m m o 23 ~ a~ ~ o m° 0 5. ceive :(Pri t Name 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested ~
R an d fee is pai d) r
lo H L~ oa m~~ n W ~
~ o; 3 m g 6. Signature: (Addressee or Agent) '
~ co °
X I
A 3~ a°.
m !
~ ~ m aD~ o o ~ Ps Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt ~
C77 ►C m m O =r N ' _ _
r~-y f2 3 y -
v N W m 6
H a7 ~ o
m 5 1-- -
rz mm
a -
N ~
~ e ~ m d SENDER:
oc v A A n~ a y ~ ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I 3150 WISh t0 f8C@IV8 th8
~ y v~~~~ • m 3 g' ~ •Complete items 3, aa, and ab. following services (for an
Q m~ x m~ D d~ 0 m ~ ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this extra fee):
m c v~ o card to you. U
m m 3 m vi ?~Q 3 ~ ■Attach this fortn to the front of the mait iece, or on the badc if s ace does not
y. m j o~ y m m~Z permit. p p 1. ❑ Addressee's Address ~
m m m-~ ~ ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
~
~ N~' A~i, n~ n m o- « d ■The Retum Receipt will show to whom the aRide was delivered and the date ~
•
~ a a~ o- m f rig y~v 1~ o 0 o detivered. Consult pOStmaster fof fee.
~
~J '
m~~ ~ m:E• ~
~
~ v 3. Article Addressed to: 4 Article N ber d
• 4
o ~ D m~ m • 2
~ p ~ y ti a m o a I~W NATURAL GAS CO ~
~ ~ ~ ~j m'' y m o CUSTOMER ACCOtJNTING DEPT 4b. Service Type ~
~ , p~ m a m fA m " 222 NW SECOND AVE ❑ Registered Certified ~
~p e ° m PORTLAND, OR 97209 ❑~Press Mail p Insured ~
~ h O y m m m a ~ m ¢ ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchan~ise ❑ COD '
m Q ~ m ~ m'Z y
a o 7. Date of Delive
'p a v,
~ Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. n 5. Received B: (Print Name)
8. Addressee's A r~
~ Y ~ (Only ifj% ' S~~ ~
andfe"e•is paid) ,
~
, g 6. Signature: (Addressee orAgent) ~
lXt+~.9.~ ~ ~
1
PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic#4eturrfReceipt
+ ~
m SENDER:
'o ■Complete items 7 and/or 2 for additional s. I also wish to receive the ~ •
~n ■Complete items 3, aa, and ab. following services (for an
d ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this extra fee :
0
card to you. ~ d
j ■Attach this form to the froM of the mailpiece, or on the badc if space does not 1.0 Addressee's Address ~
m permit. ~
m■Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ ReStflCtBd DeliVery U)
Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side? 6 ■The Retum Receipt will show to whom the artide was delivered and the date a
~ deiivered. Consult postrnaster for fee.
~ rn cn . . . . . •fA o ~
w
cn (1) m D<~ m 0 3 3 Z m 3. Articte Addressed to: ~ 4a. Article Number ¢
o x~ c~i' m~33- g' ~ o o m~m a a VE%11~.`XGlSLr'~~Y l0~/ w; / V V V "1 SCJ I ?
w c t-~ m n 3 m ~ c; m• m• m E 4b. Servi Type m
D N
~ ~ ~ a m ~ 0 ~ N w " 0 • ❑ Registefbd Certified ~
' g a a a- > Express Mail ❑ Insured y
CD a r G~ m m~ ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise O COD ~
~ y ~ O 3 LT1 a q, nm o C ° •
~
3 ~ 2 %d Z~ o o~ ; w a N 7. Date of Delivery ~
v ~ Z. l0~ fy ~-J ~j
om
r' 3 m a ~ 5. Rec ived By: (Print N e) ~ . Addressee's Address (Only if requested ~
m 101. txj 3 ~ a ; and fee is paid) m ~ ~ m m g 6. Sig at . (Addres ee r ent) ~ • ~X ~-g` ~
o~ Q~ o0 3~, X~ ~~u~'~ Tx 7~'bl 5'
O H m~ ~ E " ~
N ~ ycr m o Ps Form 38 1, December 1994 Domes tic Re turn Receip t
ao Q ~
mf m '
m r 5~ om
m
a G1 N ~ "
,.Z C
50 ~ m
G m
m ~ SENDER:
m D o ° ~ w m - 3 m' da I also wish to receive the
~ a 3) mM U) D a o H m ~ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
a e a m m a m m o c ~ ■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following Sen/ices (for an
~ m o 3 m vi - C) 3 ~ ■ Prim your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this extra fee):
m y ~ y m 0 m =r ~ cardto you. ~
v• m m m~' m~ Z fA j ■Attach this fortn to the front of the maiipiece, or on the badc if space does not 1,0 AddreSSee's AddrBSS
$ ~ n ~ - ~ Permit. y
0 ~ m'~ m Q p N~ m n~ w m ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the artide number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
N ~
~ a n ,,.z o m, • o y t ■The Retum Receipt will show to whom the aRide was deiivered and the date «
~ m; m~• ~ ~ deiivered. Consult postrnaster for fee. a
d
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~
sa y~ y y n~ m» 0
0
n m ? cc, g2-L-,~
(D ~ a ~ y m m E 4b. Service Type
m ❑ Registered ertified m
~ m;. o y o ~
~
rn
~ O N m m m a ~ m ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured ?
0 ~ o=~ m.~ m I9115 N ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchancfise O COD
n U If- q L('C)(p 7. Date of~ Mf ~ ~
Tha nk you for using Return Receipt Service.
5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. A dressee's Address (Only if requested Ir
and fee is paid) t
~
g 6. Signatur ~(Addressee orAgent)
T x
~ Ps Form 3811, December 1 4 Domestic Retum Receipt
m SENDER: I also wish to receive the '
'o ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. .
a ■Complete items 3, aa, and ab. following services (for an
Prird your name and address on the reverse of this fortn so that we can retum this extra fee): m
~ card to you.
~ ■Ariach this fortn to the frorrt of the mailpiece, or on the badc if space does not 1. O Addressee's Address ~
rrTg.
y
m■ W e tRetum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the aAide numbec 2. ❑ ReStriCted DeliVery
t ■The Fietum Receipt will show to whom the artide was delivered and the date
Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side? ~.deiivered. ~nSUIt Postrnaster for fee. m
W ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ y 0 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. 'cle Number ~
o x~ ~1 H w~a ~Dm~~~~3~z d P~crw~~r~ar~~ aa- ~
~ ~ u"'i ~ m ~ ~ m_~ ° 2 m m m E c,~ KL~,HE CR P~' P~ 4b. Service Type ~ ~ a«',
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ll~ ~ ❑ Registered I~YCertifed co
~ a •c ' _ m ID m p- . ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured ~
v c ~2 ~ y ~ n A~ ~U~~', ~
m ~ ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandse 0 COD ' •
o
3 -m ~ ~ ~ a a o ~ 3 7. Date of eti~ry ~
m N H f `ocO ~
Z _
° m T
N H
v LO o~~ a m 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's A dress (On y if r ested r.
A j and fee is paid) L
~
` cn m 3 g m~ g 6. Signatur • e orAge )
. o g 0` X
~ ws 0, z y CO
PS Form 11, Decem er 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
z n SENDER:
; si d f m
a m $ m '0 ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
°D .4 p❑❑ A a~ ce ■Complete items 3, aa, and ab. foilowing services (for an
fn D m c CD 3 m • PdM your name and address on the reverse of this fortn so that we can retum this extra fee): m
m card to u.
4 a m c ~ co a c
■q~~ ~}o~ ro tFe trorrt of the mailpiece, or on the badc if space dces not 1. ❑ Addfessee'S Addfess ~
o ~ m 3 > ~
y m ~p Z ~ ; m • W~Retum Reaeipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the artide number. 2. ❑ ReStriCted DeliVery N
p, c t ■The Retum Receipi vrill show to whom tlie artide was delivered and the date
o a D m Q~ N w ~ de~iverea. Consult postrnaster for fee. a ~
~ ~ ~ 0 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~
~ ~ ~ ~~o a m m PRIDE DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC ~c►~ ~
n (A ~ m 3 o E PO BOX 820 4b. Service Type m
~ y (D C) ° SHERWOOD, OR 97140 Registered •Bertified ~
❑ ❑ W m o y ^ ~ = O~EiiP ess Mail ❑ Insured 5
m D o m ~ p~m~teoeipt for Mercharsdse 0 COD ~
n vmi O 7. Da of'pelivery
~
cp '
o a a a 2 o
5 ived By: (Print Name) dd{essee's Address (Only it r ted ~
Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. 09 2 e~ p~d) t
~ i ture: (Addressee orA ent) \ . _
~
Domestic
P o rm3811, December 1994 Retum Receipt
~
0 .
-
P 474 569 825
' P 474 569 827
US Postat Service US Postal Service
' Rece9p4 foP Cert9f@ed MaH G°3ece6p4 lop Cerrtito4ued MO
No Insurance Coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for Intemationai Mail See reverse Do not use foc Intemational Mail See reverse
nt to
t ~ reetum r
t tb % ;5~~
~ce, t8te,SZ '1
Postage L Postage s
Certified Fee Certified Fee 1•10
Spedal Delivery Fee Spedal Delive Fee
ry , Restricted Delivery Fae Restricted Dalivery Fee
V)
Retum Receipt Showing ro Retum Receipt Showing to
~ Whom & Date Delivered ~ Whom 8 Date Delivered
~ ReNm Receipt Shovring ro Whom, i ~ Retum Receipt S'
~ Date, S Addressee's Address . ~ ~ Date, & ~alA
Occ YOTAL Pos~age & Fees ~ TOTA e&~~~g~s
V) Postmatk or-DateRN", ~
€ ` I € Postrn Date
~ Q- b
~i ~ ~K~ ~
P 474 569 828 P 474 569 829
US Postal Senrice US Postal Service
Rece6p4 ~ertMed Maaa Receip$ for Certafied MaiB
No Insurance Coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for Intemational AAail See reverse Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse
Sen to ~
Street & Number ts* Street 8 Num h
ai
Offi tet & Z S ZI `dO
Postage $ G~ Postage S S
CerGfied Fee Certifled Fee
Spedal Delivery Fee Speaal Delivery Fee
Restrided DeGvery Fee Restrided Delivery Fee
LO La
~ Retum Receipt Showing to Retum Receipt Showing to
Whom 8 Oate Delivered Whom 8 Date Delivered
~ Retum Receipt Shovuing to_Wtrom, q ReNm Receapt Slaainp to Wtrom ,
<4 Date, 8 Addressee's~A~dess Date, 8 Addressee's F•
~ TOTAL P 4~e'& `\e8s $ ~ S ' ~ TOTAL Posla eS\\~~\
€ Postrnark d[ Date • ~ ~ € Posimark or Date
1i
o LL
~
a
a ~
P 474 569 820 p 474 569 821 US Postal Service
US Postal Service ReceBpQ ffop Cegtpf0ed ~IiaH
Rece9pt fOr (~ert9f9~~ MaH No Insurance Coverage Provided.
No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for Intemational AAail See reverse
~ Do not use for tn0 mational Mail See reverse Sent to Lkj
- Si et ' `w ei& Nu ber
~ ~os► orrce, ta, & ziP oda o
Cade oO
P Otfice, tate, ZIP ol
Posta9e " L~5 Postage SS
~ ✓
CeAitiad Fee , Certified Fee
t
Spedal Delivery Fee 3pedal Delivery Fee
Restrided Derivery Fee U') Restricted Delivery Fee
Lf) ~ Retum Receipt Showing to
~ Retum Receipt Showing to ~ Whom & Date DeGvered 1. Lri
c Whom & Date Delivered t~ :E Retum Receipt Sho '
ReWm Receipt ~ to Whom, 'g Date, & Addressee' re~s
< Date, & Addressee'
. O ~ 1 ~ ~ TOTflL Post74
`80~ • :r~
O 70TAL P ~T
~ aD , I M PosUnark or aTe q ~ ~
€ Pasonerk e y o ~ b~
o ~
' ~ a t .
a
~ •
t
P 474 569 823 p 474 569 822
US Postal Service w US Postal Service
G°3eceap4 4orr Cefflied 90 ~ Receup4 4Orr Car4ufled Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided. ~ No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for intemational AAai! See reverse Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse
t to S ~ J%n to % ' ~
.
r
et & M1lumber ~ Street 8 Num r
P pttice, State, ZIP Ca a 3 ~ t Otfice, State, 8 ZIP Ce ~
Postage Q '5S ct postage ~
CeAified Fee Certified Fee ~
Spedal Delivery Fee Spedal Delivery Fee '
Restrided Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
N
~ Retum Receipt Showing ta Retum Receipt Showing to
i ~ Whom & Date Deiivered Whom & Date Deiivered
:E ReNm Receipt ShoYing W Retum Receipt Showing to Whom,
$ Date, & Addressee's Address~ Whorri,
Date, 6 Addressee's
fA . . ~
70TAL Postage Fees, ~
~ , , O~ TOTAL Post es,
f,^ ,
w Pos6nark or Dato Postmark o Dat
o ,Y.~ .
j io Q- .
a j a ~ .
Y
P 474 569 824 ~
P 474 569 826 -
US Postal Service US Postal Service
Receipt for CertAfoed MaH ReceapII Vop ~ert6fied Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided. •
Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse
nt tp 1 t to
l,r V
8 Or et be~
Office, State, & ZIP e st Olfice, State & ZIP Code
jt~q
Po
Postage Postage s •56
Certified Fee CerGBed Fee ~ <
Spedal Delivery Fee Spedat Delivery Fee
Resfided Delivery Fee Restricted Dafivery Fee
cn Retum Receipt 5howing to Retum Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered ~ Whom & Date Delivered
~ Retum Receipt ~ ReNm Receipt Shoy~g1o~
$ Date, $ Address 2AM Oate, 6 Addresse~ •d'Qdress''r ,p I
0 TOTAL Po e Fees ! . J TOTAL P stQ~ l Fe~~1 C~ •
M Postrnark M Postma ' te
O U^ ~ C~ 0
~ ~ L
a
a
- '_L
/
• •
June 12, 1996
FINAL ORDER ON ANNEXATION 3595 ZCA96-0002 (LUNDMARK)
We have received the final order on Annexation 3595 ZCA96-0002 (Lundmark), effective
May 30, 1996. A map of the annexed property is attached. Census information is as
follows:
Final Order 3595:
Owners:
Michael & Joyce Ruff 1S126DC-05203, 1 SF dwelling
12150 SW 124th Ave. Property address - 9275 SW Locust St.
Tigard, OR 97223 Est. Population - 1
Please call if you have any questions.
Ray Valone
Community Development Department
i:\cdadm~erree\an nex\an nexmer
• •
PORTLAND METROP LITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
800 NE OREGON ST #16 (STE 540), PORTLAND OR 97232-TEL: 731-4093
FINAL ORDER
RE: BOUNDARY CHANGE.PROPOSAL N0: 3595 - Annexation of territory to the
City of Tigard.
Proceedings on Proposal No. 3595 commenced upon receipt by the Boundary Commission of a
resolution and property owner/registered voter consents from the City on April 26, 1996,
requesting that certain property be annexed to the City. The resolution and consents meet the
requirements for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490, particularly Section (2)(a)(B).
Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Commission published and posted notice of the public
'I hearing in accordance with ORS 199.463 and conducted a public hearing on the proposal on May
30, 1996. The Commission also caused a study to be made on this proposal which considered
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections and physical development of the
land.
The Commission reviewed this proposal in light of the following statutory guidance:
"199.410 Policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
"(a) A fragmented approach has developed to public services provided by local
government. Fragmentation results in duplications in services, unequal tax bases and
resistance to cooperation and is a barrier to planning implementation. Such an
approach has limited the orderly development and growth of Oregon's urban areas to
the detriment of the citizens of this state.
"(b) The programs and growth of each unit of local government affect not only
that particular unit but also activities and programs of a variety of other units within
each urban area.
"(c) As local programs become increasingly intergovernmental, the state has a
responsibility to insure orderly determination and adjustment of local government
boundaries to best meet the needs of the people.
"(d) Local comprehensive plans define local land uses but may not specify which
units of local government are to provide public services when those services are
required.
"(e) Urban population densities and intensive development require a broad
spectrum and high level of community services and controls. When areas become
urbanized and require the full range of community services, priorities are required
regarding the type and levels of services that the residents need and desire.
Community service priorities need to be established by weighing the total service needs
against the total financial resources available for securing services. Those service
priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial
resources. A single governmental agency, rather than several governmental agencies is
, Final Order - Page 1
• ~
in most cases better ab•le to assess the financial resources and therefore is the best
mechanism for establishing community service priorities.
"(2) It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that each boundary commission
establish policies and exercise its powers under this chapter in order to create a
governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the widest
range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-
ordered and efficient development patterns.
"(3) The purposes of ORS 199.410 to 199.534 are to:
"(a) Provide a method for guiding the creation and growth of cities and special
service districts in Oregon in order to prevent illogical extensions of local government
boundaries and to encourage the reorganization of overlapping governmental agencies;
"(b) Assure adequate quality and quantity of public services and the financial
integrity of each unit of local government;
"(c) Provide an impartial forum for the resolution of local government jurisdictional
questions;
"(d) Provide that boundary determinations are consistent with acknowledged
local comprehensive plans and are in conformance with state-wide planning goals. In
making boundary determinations the commission shall first consider the acknowledged
comprehensive plan for consistency of its action. Only when the acknowledged local
comprehensive plan provides inadequate policy direction shall the commission consider
the statewide planning goals. The commission shall consider the timing, phasing and
availability of services in making a boundary determination; and
"(e) Reduce the fragmented approach to service delivery by encouraging single
agency service delivery over service delivery by several agencies.
"199.462 Standards for review of changes; territory which may not be included in
certain changes. (1) In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410
when reviewing a petition for a boundary change or application under ORS 199.464, a
boundary commission shall consider local comprehensive planning for the area,
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the
proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or
indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change or application under ORS
199.464 and the goals adopted under ORS 197.225."
"(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected
district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory:
"(a) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to a district
without the consent of the city council;'
"(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to another city;
and
Final Order - Page 2
0 •
"(c) Territory within a district may not be included within or annexed to another
district subject to the same principal Act."
The Commission also considered its policies adopted under Administrative Procedures Act
(specifically 193-05-000 to 193-05-015), historical trends of boundary commission operations and
decisions and past direct and indirect instructions of the State Legislature in arriving at its decision.
FINDINGS
(See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
REASONS FOR DECISION
(See Reasons for Decision in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.)
ORDER
I On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed in Exhibit "A", the Boundary
Commission approved Boundary Change Proposal No. 3595 on May 30, 1996.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT the territory described in Exhibit "B" and depicted on the
attached map, be annexed to the City of Tigard as of the date of approval.
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY COMMISSION
DATE: BY: '
~ c ' - gChair
ATTEST: •ti~ ~ . Final Order - Page 3
, • • •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
FINDINGS
Based on the study and the public hearing the Commission found:
1. The territory to be annexed is located generally on the north edge of the City, on the north
edge of SW Locust Street, east of SW Greenburg Road, south of Coral St. and west of SW
92nd Avenue. The territory contains .47 acres, 1 single family dwelling, a population of 1
and is evaluated at $65,960.
2. The owners wish to be a part of the City of Tigard. Their intention is to partition the
property though no application has been submitted as yet.
3. The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies states that
the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban services. Recognizing
that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the districts, the Commission states in
the second policy that the Commission will help find solutions to the problems. The third
policy states that the Commission may approve illogical boundaries in the short term if these
lead to logical service arrangements in the long term.
4. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of Metro.
5. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the following eight elements:
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document
3. Rural Natural Resource Element
4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Plan
7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
The Washington County Comprehensive Ptan was reviewed and segments pertinent to this
proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's "Roles And
Responsibilities" relative to Urbanization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and
special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to insure that
facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or
agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes identifi-
cation of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of special concern.
Final Order - Page 4
. • •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
The County community pian for this area is the Metzger-Progress Community Plan. This
Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-9, Residential 9 Units Per Acre.
This designation permits (detached & attached) residential development with densities up to
9 units per acre.
The General Design Elements of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan include such items
as encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open space, preserva-
tion of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc.. The last general design element (No.
22) states:
Piecemeal annexation of land in this Planning Area shall be discouraged because it
damages the character of the Metzger community. If annexation is to occur, then
annexation as a community unit is preferred.
It should be noted that several large scale and a number single lot annexations in the
Metzger area have occurred since this general preference was placed in the Plan. Also more
specific conditions for annexation are laid out in the UPAA and the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail concerning
the R-9 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community Development Code).
6. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning Area
Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and Tigard's adopted Compre-
hensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" within which the City
assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in which the County
agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential impacts on Tigard. This proposal
falls within the "Area of Interest" as designated in the UPAA. The following pertinent
provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest" portion of the UPAA:
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Area of Interest or Primarv Area of Interest means unincorporated lands contiguous
to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive
planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning
and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY
Active Planning Area.. . .
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development
actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the
public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of
Interest.
I
Final Order - Page 5
• . •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to
the following:
~ a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a
condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands
unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for
annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes
Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the
foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the
rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuani to Oregon
' Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY
agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which
most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of
COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this
designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the
CITY and the COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that
the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated
before the one year period is over.
7. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv 2000 program. This
program essentially lays out a long range strategic and fiscal plan for the County. In this
document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service delivery system which
distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to achieve tax fairness and
expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The County policy states that
municipal services should be provided either by cities or special districts.
8. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource Document (Volume I) and the
Findings. Policies & Implementation Strateqies (Volume II). The Tigard Community
Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances remain
applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to be
relevant to this proposal:
Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction
with Washington County and the applicable service districts;
Final Order - Page 6
, • • •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for
providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to the
extent of the City's financial resources;
d. Use the CaPital ImProvements Pro9ram as a means for Providin9 for
orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to the
level and capacity of the existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about the
property location for public facilities.
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity
including:
1. Public water;
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the City
unless the property involved is over 300 feet from a sewer line and
Washington County Health Department approval for a private
' disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the
proposed development; and
2. Designed to City standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or
such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most
intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of services
available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The
services are:
Final Order - Page 7
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
4. streets;
5. police; and
6. fire protection.
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant
shall sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement
regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the
following services that could be provided through such a district. The
i extension or improvement of the following:
a) water;
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d1 streets.
2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or the
' inclusion of the property into a special district for any of the above
services.
c. The CitY shall Provide urban services to areas within the Ti9ard urban Planning
area or within the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE
BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated
territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for
the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or
outside the city;
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to
the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a).
Policy 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON
COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY
OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS
TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION.
Final Order - Page 8
• • •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
' a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted to
the City; or
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been signed
and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that there is a
potential or imminent health hazard.
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN
THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING
AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHfNGTON COUNTY). THE CtTY SHALL REQUIRE
THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities and
standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and
e. Drainage.
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters 18.136,
Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These standards are:
A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property
to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to
provide service for the proposed annexation area; and
Final Order - Page 9
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provision
have been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's
zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map
designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing area will be
based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as either
Established Area (unbuildable or residential built-out) or Developing Area (buildable). The
code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all land at the time of
annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was consistent
with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied because
the East CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and
public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels, is
satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water Department, U.S.A.,
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District and PGE have reviewed the proposal and
indicate that adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate
the affected properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the proposal
will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police Department has been
notified of this request and has no objection; the affected land is located within the
city's urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate
services are available to accommodate the property.
1 . Code Section 18.136.030, requin ''ng approval standards for annexation proposals, is
, satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are
available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been reviewed
and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-12 most closely conforms to the county designation of
R-9.
Final Order - Page 10
~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
d. The determination that the affected properties are an established area is based
on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code. '
I
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land is ~
satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an established area i
and shall be so designated on the development standard areas map of the compre-
hensive plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the annexation and
approved a zoning designation of R-12 to be effective upon annexation.
9. ORS 199.410(3)(d) requires that BoundarY Commission decisions be consistent with
acknowledged comprehensive plans. OAR 193-01-005(14)(b)(B) gives the Commission the
discretion to make its own determination of planning consistency.
10. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Locust St. along the south edge of the territory
to be annexed.
The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the City.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency and the large
cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin and
Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to: 1) comply with the Agency's
construction and maintenance standards for sanitary and storm water sewer facilities, 2)
follow and accomplish the Agency's work program for storm and surface water, 3) obtain
the Agency's consent before issuing construction permits within wetlands, floodways and
floodplains. The agreement provides that the city owns and is responsible for sanitary
sewer lines under 24 inches in diameter within the City limits and for storm water facilities
within the City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities). The Unified Sewerage
Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and out of cities. The
Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to areas outside the
City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-County UPAA) unless
the City approves.
I f r illin the customers after service is installed and for collectin
The City is responsib e o b g 9
sanitarY and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same connection fees
and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to U.S.A. to pay for the costs
of treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm water. The City may impose higher
costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the difference to offset City costs.
MonthlY sanitarY sewer user char9es are $14.55 per month plus a consumption charge of
$ 1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City charges are the same
as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for increase on July 1, 1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to construct
district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants. Subsequent to annexation
this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per thousand assessed value, would
remain the same since the City is in the District.
Final Order - Page 11
I
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
11. This property is already served water via an 8 inch Tualatin Valley Water District line located
in SW Locust Street.
The territory to be annexed to the City of Tigard lies within the Tualatin Valley Water
District, in the area of the District formerly in the Metzger Water District. The City of
Tigard and the Tualatin Valley Water District have an informal agreement that territory in
this area (Metzger) will not be withdrawn from the District upon annexation to the City until
the Tigard Water Department is able to extend service to the annexed sites.
The Tualatin Valley Water District serves primarily the northeastern portion of Washington
County, bounded generally by Portland on the East, Tigard and Beaverton on the southeast
and south, and Hillsboro to the West, and Skyline Drive to the North. As a result of a
merger in 1991 the District includes territory previously served by the Metzger Water
District.
The Tualatin Valley Water District purchases water from the City of Portland on a wholesale
basis. Approximately 8 years remain on the current long term contract. The District owns
74.5 % of the Washington County Supply Line (WCSL), or approximately 44.7 MGD of the
60 MGD available. Tualatin Valley has 29.4 MGD of capacity available, on standby, from
the City of Portland's Arlington and Burlingame standpipes. The share of this available to
the Metzger area is 7.4 MGD which would come from the Burlingame standpipe.
The Joint Water Commission (JWC) provides some additional potential capacity to the
Tualatin Valley Water District. The JWC is a partnership between Hillsboro, Forest Grove
and Beaverton that enables each city or district member to opt into the water supply as
needed. Treated water originating in the Tualatin River headwaters, Scoggins Reservoir, and
the Trask River Dam is sold by the Commission to its members. The TVWD currently owns
6 MGD of capacity, and is committed to participation in an improvement project (the
expansion of the Barney reservoir) which will provide an additional 12 MGD to the TVWD.
Tualatin Valley Water District's total water source amount is currently 50.7 MGD. After the
completion of the Barney reservoir, which supplies the JWC, that figure will be 62.7 MGD.
The current water rates for the Tualatin Valley Water District are based on bi-monthly
charges. A residential 3/4" meter is charged $1.19 per 100 cu. ft. (ccf) for the first 50
hundred cubic feet. Additional use is charged at 52.00/ccf. The system development
charge for a standard 3/4 inch meter is $2160 per equivalent residential unit (ERU).
12. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County Service
District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population which in addition to
the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population means that the current level is
.94 officers per 1000 population.
Final Order - Page 12
. • ~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police protection to the
territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per thousand population.
Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
13. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will not
affect this service because the City is in the District.
14. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road Maintenance
District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District and
the District's levy of $.2886 per $1000 assessed value will no longer apply to the property.
15. The territorY is within the boundarY of the Washin9ton County Vector Control District.
Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be automatically
withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control District.
16. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street lights. The
District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street lighting services.
The District uses local improvement districts to finance the service. Upon annexation the
territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State shared
gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
17. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which finances the general fund.
Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided by cities,
including Tigard.
The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of $0.3788
(fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The revenues from this levy
are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on circulation. City residents pay, through
their City taxes, an additional amount to support their libraries.
18. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm drainage services of
$36 per dwelling unit of which 824 goes to the City.
Final Order - Page 13
• , • ~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
REASONSFOR DECISION
Based on the Findings the Commission determined:
1. The proposal is consistent with local comprehensive planning when that planning is taken as
a whole. The County Community Plan discourages but does not prohibit piecemeal
annexations. The Urban Planning Area Agreement prohibits the City from requiring
annexations to get urban services but City Plan Policy 10.2.1 says the City will not extend
sewer service without a commitment to annexation. None-the-less other sections of the
UPAA specifically provide for the City's right to pursue annexations and the rights of
property owners to seek annexation (UPAA (A) (4) (c)). The City's Plan further anticipates
annexations and sets criteria by which the City is to judge the appropriateness of the timing
of such proposals (City Plan Policy 10.1.2). City Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3,
10.2.1 and 10.2.3 clearly anticipate that property owners desiring additional levels of
services will annex to the City to receive those services.
The Boundary Commission believes that these policies when read together provide for
annexation and are not discouraging of annexation to the City. The Commission arrives at
' this conclusion based on the above and as allowed under OAR 193-01-005 (14)(b)(B).
2. An adequate quality and quantity of services will be available to the area following
annexation to the City.
3. The proposal is consistent with the Boundary Commission Policy On Incorporated Status
(OAR 193-05-005) and its Policy On Long Term/Long /Range Governmental Structure (OAR
193-05-015).
Final Order - Page 14
• ~
Exhibit B
~ Proposal No. 3595
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION TO
. City of Tigard
A parcel situated in Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter Section 26,
Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block C, LEHMANN ACRE TRACTS;
thence North, 176.10 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1;
thence continuing North 55.10 feet;
thence South 89 ° 56' East, 90.30 feet;
thence South 154.20 feet;
thence West 3 feet; ,
~
thence South 77 feet to the north right-of-way of County Road No. 753;
I thence West, 90.30 feet to the Point of Be9innin9.
Final Order - Page 15
PROP(ISAL ■ 3595
SW 1/4 SE1 /4 SECTION 26 T1 S R 1 W W.M. 1 S 1 26DC
Washington County .
Scale: 1 250'
..........5. .`E _-I, W _ ~ ;
• : ~o . ~r~ • , . „
~oi i xa zo: xw ':oo.
°
702 =.~JA f=F< 2~N
~ tct r. xan 1 ~ S
~ tar '
;
♦ ~
• r , , •
N..4 04
. IC1 i1f
~ k . ~ r • r < tr u ~T
':o°i.. zm,. wQ.sod' 70o
.~o•a .nr.
~ a . ~ .o.r. • ~i~ _
ti W • 01 S Z
o~ s : IpOr > xoa xoi i~ roi W
i ~
1200
. BOR,DERS STREET' i
.
.
: ieoo 'eoi . .c
~ uao" icao"~sa iaoo
, ~ - .
~ TIGARD
~ ' s ~ •i~ ° = 9
~
IOOS ••1000 • • 1004 1 t00 f I ico2 ioo, 11~ • i~ ~ . i2100 • 220i
J I r J
^ !!8
SEf ~ ~ p ~ 19 1
C ~i902
i4 i 2ff. ~ = C ~ i ud t N 01
t
~ 1006
I I f~
m
; r
.
LEHMANN STREET .
w
]]02 3200 S ]000 2600 2601
7~01
II~t ,I~a ~I4 ~l I~ • 3002 ~ .114 =.00
3soo ~ .n•c ~ N ~SY N C'~~19 IR Y .r"` t0Y
a ~ • i lwo.o ~ - ' ~ .3:
s • e 7oa . _ia:oa., ~,rsioo a - F
r~ ~ W zeoz : G~A Ra~ EZN 5• a t~°~ t W w ron
i . ' , • . t •
W PVRP
ct I - ~ A
~ - - - - - - - - - - ~soo ~ p »oo ~ xao• ••~oo• " ~ r ; z= zsoi E zsoi zeoo 00 M'
~n .
Js.e. :.t~•• 2903 n... .Jin rw
!
lB01 2800 = Z
. ~ W 3 . ts a.~a a.c .zo.• ~
5800
..fA ~ .o.
S.w : CO L STREET
- a ~ r..:..-. i ~ . .
a~pp•.aapp•• a~ aD~D 001 l70i 7502 5500 + 3702 53q1 ,!]o. $301
O` • r' JI r /)t 4200 y, I IIM l14. Ji
,
.!!IL
T' C- :
~ e -goo a
3400
{;x} • ~ 3 . C .rua I u... ,a
~a i
.:ox 3 ";i:
i a7pp 01 ~yepp ao0. agpp Vp0 ~I01 7600
.Jl601 y~pl ~ I M
~ ~ .~14. Ir. _ II4 lWC If~e IIY .:im W!;'. ~ r •
~
Ot..l~.
I .::QZ:. 1 ~7DJ ~
. ~ t n f;y1 Wp• Z;~i 52C1 , ' r602 ~~ua ~
' ~ ...Q<'• .I ' IGl
.S:W...~. ...,LgGy .&TR" ,
PROPOSAL N0, 3595
CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2
.
I , • •
May 30, 1996 Hearing
PROPOSAL NO. 3595 - CITY OF TIGARD - Annexation
Petitioner: City of Tigard, Burt & Elizabeth Lundmark
90th Day: July 25, 1996
Proposal No. 3595 was initiated by a petition of property owners/registered voters and
resolution from the Tigard City Council. The resolution and petitions meet the require-
ments for initiation set forth in ORS 199.490(2)(a) (B), double-majority annexation law. If
the Commission approves the proposal, the boundary change will become effective on the
date of approval subject to the provisions of ORS 199.519.
The territory to be annexed is located generally on the north edge of the City, on the north
edge of SW Locust Street, east of SW Greenburg Road, south of Coral St. and west of SW
92nd Avenue. The territory contains .47 acres, 1 single family dwelling, a population of 1
and is evaluated at $65,960.
REASON FOR ANNEXATION
The owners wish to be a part of the City of Tigard. Their intention is to partition the
property though no application has been submitted as yet.
BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICIES
The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies states
that the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban services.
Recognizing that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the districts, the
Commission states in the second policy that the Commission will help find solutions to the
problems. The third policy states that the Commission may approve illogical boundaries in
the short term if these lead to logical service arrangements in the long term.
LAND USE PLANNING
Regional Planning. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the
boundary of Metro.
Washinaton Countv Planning. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the
following eight elements:
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 1
• • ' '
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document ~
3. Rurai Natural Resource Element
4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Pian
' 7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and segments pertinent to this
' proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's "Roles And
Res on i ili i r I iv r n'
p s b t es~~ e at e to U ba ization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and
special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to insure that
facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or
agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes identifi-
cation of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of special concern.
The County community plan for this area is the Metzger-Progress Community Plan. This
Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-9, Residential 9 Units Per Acre.
I This designation permits (detached & attached) residential development with densities up
to 9 units per acre.
The General Design Elements of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan include such items
as encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open space, preserva-
tion of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc.. The last general design element
(No. 22) states:
Piecemeal annexation of land in this Planning Area shall be discouraged because it damages
the character of the Metzger community. If annexation is to occur, then annexation as a
community unit is preferred.
(NOTE: It should be noted that several large scale and a number single lot annexations
in the Metzger area have occurred since this general preference was placed in
the Plan. Also more specific conditions for annexation are laid out in the
UPAA and the City's Comprehensive Plan-see below.)
~
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail concerning
the R-9 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community Development Code).
Urban Planning Area Agreement. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered
into an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 2
4
• • •
Tigard's adopted Comprehensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area"
within which the City assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in which the County agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential
impacts on Tigard. This proposal falls within the "Area of Interest" as designated in the
UPAA. The following pertinent provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest" portion of
the UPAA:
A. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Area of Interest or Primarv Area of Interest means unincorporated lands
contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct
comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in
comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of
potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area....
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development
actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the
public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject
to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a
condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create
islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island
annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means
for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which
includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not
contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the
CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY
agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations
which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards
of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this
designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and the COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annex-
ation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be
initiated before the one year period is over.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 3
• •
Countv 2000. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv
2000 program. This program essentially lays out a long range strategic and fiscal plan for
the County. In this document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service
delivery system which distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to
achieve tax fairness and expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The County
policy states that municipal services should be provided either by cities or special districts.
Citv of Tiaard Planning. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource
Document (Volume I) and the FindinQS, Policies & Imqlementation Strategies (Volume I1).
The Tigard Community Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban
Planning Area Agreement should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
~
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances remain ~
applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to be
relevant to this proposal:
Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction
with Washington County and the applicable service districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for
providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to
the extent of the City's financial resources;
d. Use the Capital Improvements Program as a means for providing for
orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to the
level and capacity of the existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about the
property location for public facilities.
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service
capacity including:
1. Public water;
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 4
• •
2. Public sewer shali be required for new development within the
City unless the property involved is over 300 feet from a sewer
line and Washington County Health Department approval for a
private disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
~ 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the
proposed development; and
2. Designed to City standards.
AI w v
c. I ne de elopment utilities to be placed underground.
PoliCy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to adequate
capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if
. developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly
reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped
land within the City of Tigard. The services are:
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
4. streets;
5. police; and
6. fire protection.
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the
applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a non-
remonstrance agreement regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of
the following services that could be provided through such a dis-
trict. The extension or improvement of the following:
a) water;
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d) streets.
2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services
or the inclusion of the property into a special district for any of
' the above services.
Pr
oposaI No. 3595 - Page 5
• ~
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban
planning area or within the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE
BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincor-
porated territory; or
, b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it
difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether ,
the parcel is within or outside the city;
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in
10.1.1(a).
Policy 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON
COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY
OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS
TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION.
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted
to the City; or
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been
signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that there is
a potential or imminent health hazard.
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES I
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR '
ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN
THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA 1REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING
AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTYI. THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE I
THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities and
standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 6
• •
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING
OROINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and
e. Drainage.
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters
18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These standards
are:
A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex
, property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
' 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity
to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and
2. The aPPlicable comPrehensive Plan Policies and implementing ordinance provi-
'
,
sion have been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the
.
City's zoning distnct which most closely implements the City's or County's compre-
hensive plan map designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing
area will be based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as either
Established Area (unbuildable or essentially built-out) or Developing Area (buildable). The
code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all land at the time of
annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was consistent
with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied because
the East CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and
public notice of the hearing has been published.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 7
I
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels, is
satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water Department, U.S.A.,
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Disirict and PGE have reviewed the proposal and
indicate that adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate
the affected properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the proposal
will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police Department has been
notified of this request and has no objection; the affected land is located within the
city's urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate
services are available to accommodate the property.
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation proposals, is
satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are
available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive pian policies and code provisions have been
reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-12 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-9.
d. The determination that the affected properties are an established area is
based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land is
satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an established area
and shall be so designated on the development standard areas map of the compre-
hensive plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the annexation
and approved a zoning designation of R-12 to be effective upon annexation.
Boundarv Commission Review For Comprehensive Plan Consistencv. OAR 193-01-
005(14)(b)tB) gives the Commission the discretion to make its own determination of
consistency based on it's interpretation of the plans.
FAClLITIES AND SERVICES
Sewer. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Locust St. along the south edge of
the territory to be annexed.
The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the City.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency and the
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 8
~
•
large cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard,
Tualatin and Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to: 1) comply with the
Agency's construction and maintenance standards for sanitary and storm water sewer
facilities, 2) follow and accomplish the Agency's work program for storm and surface
water, 3) obtain the Agency's consent before issuing construction permits within wet-
lands, floodways and floodplains. The agreement provides that the city owns and is
responsible for sanitary sewer lines under 24 inches in diameter within the City limits and
for storm water facilities within the City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities).
The Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and
out of cities. The Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to
areas outside the City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-
County UPAA) unless the City approves.
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for collecting
sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same connection fees
and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to U.S.A. to pay for the
costs of treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm water. The City may impose
higher costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the difference to offset City costs.
Monthly sanitary sewer user charges are $14.55 per month plus a consumption charge of
$ 1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City charges are the
same as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for increase on July 1,
1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to construct
district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants. Subsequeni to annexation
this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per thousand assessed value, would
remain the same since the City is in the District.
Water. This property is already served water via an 8 inch Tualatin Valley Water District
line located in SW Locust Street.
The territory to be annexed to the City of Tigard lies within the Tualatin Valley Water
District, in the area of the District formerly in the Metzger Water District. The City of
Tigard and the Tualatin Valley Water District have an informal agreement that territory in
, this area (Metzger) will not be withdrawn from the District upon annexation to the City
until the Tigard Water Department is able to extend service to the annexed sites.
The Tualatin Valley Water District serves primarily the northeastern portion of Washington
County, bounded generally by Portland on the East, Tigard and Beaverton on the southeast
and south, and Hillsboro to the West, and Skyline Drive to the North. As a result of a
merger in 1991 the District includes territory previously served by the Metzger Water
District.
The Tualatin Valley Water District purchases water from the City of Portland on a
wholesaie basis. Approximately 8 years remain on the current long term contract. The
District owns 74.5 °lo of the Washington County Supply Line (WCSL), or approximately
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 9
• • .
44.7 MGD of the 60 MGD available. Tualatin Valley has 29.4 MGD of capacity available,
on standby, from the City of Portland's Arlington and Burlingame standpipes. The share of
this available to the Metzger area is 7.4 MGD which would come from the Burlingame
standpipe.
The Joint Water Commission (JWC) provides some additional potential capacity to the
Tualatin Valley Water District. The JWC is a partnership between Hillsboro, Forest Grove
and Beaverton that enables each city or district member to opt into the water supply as
needed. Treated water originating in the Tualatin River headwaters, Scoggins Reservoir,
and the Trask River Dam is sold by the Commission to its members. The TVWD currently
owns 6 MGD of capacity, and is committed to participation in an improvement project (the
expansion of the Barney reservoir) which will provide an additional 12 MGD to the TVWD.
Tualatin Valley Water District's total water source amount is currently 50.7 MGD. After
the completion of the Barney reservoir, which supplies the JWC, that figure will be 62.7
MGD. ,
The current water rates for the Tualatin Valley Water District are based on bi-monthly
charges. A residential 3/4" meter is charged $1.19 per 100 cu. ft. (ccf) for the first 50 '
hundred cubic feet. Additional use is charged 52.00/ccf. The system development charge
for a standard 3/4 inch meter is $2160 per equivalent residential unit (ERU).
Police. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County Service
~ District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population which in addition to
the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population means that the current level is '
.94 officers per 1000 population.
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police protection to
the territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per thousand population.
Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
Fire. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will
not affect this service because the City is in the District.
Transoortation. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road
Maintenance District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from
the District and the District's levy of $.2886 per $1000 assessed value will no longer
apply to the property.
Vector Control. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector
Control District. Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be
automatically withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control District.
Street Lights. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street
lights. The District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 10
I
• •
lighting services. The District uses local improvement districts to finance the service.
Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State shared
gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
Parks and Librarv. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which
finances the general fund. Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided by
cities, including Tigard.
The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of $0.3788
(fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The revenues from this levy
are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on circulation. City residents pay,
through their City taxes, an additional amount to support their libraries.
Storm Drainacte. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm
drainage services of $36 per dwelling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the study and the proposed Findings and Reasons for Decisions found in Exhibit
A, the staff recommends that Proposal No. 3595 be approved.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 11
. ~
3595
■
PROP6SAL No
/ rti ~ ~ 4 p
.7 J l~~~MS ~ f(Mt ~ d
Q ~ ~ • T--'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ • ~
' ~~,t Broaey ~ \ c,. ~ ~ e~c• v,~ S =
nt \
/ ~~_o+ ~eut~ ys. ~
Corner
. i
REA70 BE=
Poc. qNNEXED r II ~ , . f~ n_J 1.------ L--~/~r- vw r t
rro
b~wil ae+ I 1. Sl. . 1 ~IMIU
. ft. u
n.+~~.. •t~.~ ~ .c. 01w.
~
ca ~ w.u
n R ~letz0~ .
l , „ ~ a Y ~ ~ s
uue' 4 ~aus~ ~ •
„
IVV `'l ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ • v r.
~'S~ 5~.~ M [i ~ ~ pu .
e~. ~ •
o..
, ~
~ ' ~ G\f\~ 4 q4 ~
1o p
~ .
~ ~.o.~. u. ~
aa.
ct. sit•c
`cy t\ I.jr. ~p ~ 1\
§ n..or. s~ V~ _ t s r.
:l~ ~ .f.wt. ~
Nna ~ tr. I
~ SfOrr ~ J ' ~..l. ~
Cf
Y , Sr
~~t ~bOb+ • t CI. = 4 S` : / R V
-~J
sr. G7. ..(lL ~
~ n • a~ n " +i ~ .
~.~.~[~iK st. ~ OGl ~4.[n
TIGA,RD
.
4 \
/.e.... Ct.;,rsat~ ir• .c. / ~ l a~ . ~r...n.. ~ ~ rr.,. ti~.
w ~ C~ t ~ ~ \ y f,.o ~i .,o
- ~si. ~ ~J C~ ~ •~t. ~ [wu~w. N. ,
~ r~ ~ + \ ~f ~ i. ~
~
~iy•,~ ~~t'' J o'y ~ V L ` ' S
; ~ ~ \J ~
- •~y ~ `5~ ~ C ~ r ~ r.w..
~ ` 4 fi~ ' _ ~ )1. .p~ r SI
1 -`IAREA SHOWN P7 ~ wn.r ~ ~ ft' tN 1
s c ~
ABOVE - < < = < F ~ ar
J~• ~ O~ r ~ ~K.n. ~ •A
( ~ ~ 1 ff.~ • T ti ~.0
W
( ~le 0 1f.
pRpPOSAL N0. 3595
` am : CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 1
~ ~
" , -
.
PROPOtAL •
■ 3595'
SW1 /4 SE1 /4 SECTION 26 T1 S R1 W W.M. 1 S 1 26DC
Washington County
I Scale: 1 250'
~ LE 1,, w
~ .
5 ~
. 1?` ~ci xa ,•xot~ zas oo~
. , i . ;\='r< r:l
902 ~CL ~xan 1-
/ ~ 2 - 3
/
/
300 y'
' ~ ' 04 1 J~
. B Ia..ti M.1 : < . I
. :
- ~ + ' J
I301W 4005w ` =~n.. Q
~ _ W~ , ~J~ W
. Z
:'p°~ so~ '`ios zoi 701 >
o
~ r.a •e ~
•.u~aa~j,..~
6 7
' V~
/ l
w
1200
BORDERS rSTREET .
:
. ,
~
II . aieoo '~eo,
iroo' •,•isoo" 11o1 uoo
~ ~l~n • .Y4 JIIe. • .JIx .
' TIGARD ~
g ~ 7
~ ~zoi 6 g
: 3-8 I
~oos "„o, . ..1004 ~oa , i aa= 11~ ~ ~ .:,oo ~2 Za1
J I JJ~e
~ ~ t 3!f
~ SEE t+w i3 I
'S i 26t iz- isox :N i~~1
aoa .
E i 1\/~ ~ 1 1 ) Ole ' -
.
LEHMANN STREET ,
i ~
% a..• 3302 3200 3 ~ . 12600 ..~2601 6300~ ;JI~6000';~" 1<00 2101~
.JI4. q 14 II~e .t14 yr y~ .t/4 . tp,~,
3300 1002
~:y I'C~I~'O~R Ys
~ r.ro.n _ ~ o?;;' I L ti:'.'~'mJ ;1~ •
5 . ' B 3001 Di~ ~ _b8200a~H`.•Bi00 s'u F
rf I1 'r r. 1~ H 260; n GSA R D EZi4 S- e=402 W
1... i W . - ~ . x W. IOR
C1 = .~,_'_'J ~ ~.surn~ • .4~r:~. ~ GURF
~ - - - - - - - - - -
3~ p 3~00 ~ yew..~. ~ ~t.~. ~ t- L27'=
ii .11
x9an fortZ
J1 , 2702
p
2EOi 2800 w Y '
: j•«. d•• S.W CO L STREET 4•.
~
~ ~ -c • :u:..r . i ~ 41 e00D, ~ W01 sso~ 3502 Se00 ~ •1 .
4700•.~ 7302 S]P3 770. Slal ,
J5 fM ' M4. , lI ~ J/ ./OIS
01 • J/ Y
IC. 1 y ./!4 ~411Y If4 /)Ie.
o ~e _ •d ;
-r' R
/ 6 •600 9 ~ • I • 6
-Go_ ~ i ta. • 5200
1.00
i, e700 0, ae00 aB01 agpp 5000 1100 • S101 " $600 601
•
.~1 .J/4 I)K JIM .J.4 I
/ i • . J
~ M1 •:O Ir . .<.•.f•
.l<~~ ,}:hW1• rY ~
w♦ s
'
. ~ - W Z i. • . ~6` 2 .IIi
. ; 3201' ~ IC7~
' 1. c.
~
..~i~....... S:W...~... ....~:A'Cs~l
PROPOSAL NOo 3595
CITY OF TIGARD
, ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2
~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
FINDINGS
Based on the study and the public hearing the Commission found:
1. The territory to be annexed is located generally on the north edge of the City, on
the north edge of SW Locust Street, east of SW Greenburg Road, south of Coral St.
and west of SW 92nd Avenue. The territory contains .47 acres, 1 single family
dwelling, a population of 1 and is evaluated at $65,960.
2. The owners wish to be a part of the City of Tigard. Their intention is to partition
the property though no application has been submitted as yet.
3. The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies
states that the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban
services. Recognizing that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the
districts, the Commission states in the second policy that the Commission will help
find solutions to the problems. The third policy states that the Commission may
approve illogical boundaries in the short term if these lead to logical service
arrangements in the long term.
4. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of
Metro.
5. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the following eight
elements:
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document
3. Rural Natural Resource Element
4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Plan
7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and segments pertinent
to this proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's
"Roles And Responsibilities" relative to Urbanization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities
and special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to
Findings - Page 1 of 13
• ` .
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
insure that facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by
the agency or agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes
identification of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of
special concern.
The County community plan for this area is the Metzger-Progress Community Plan.
This Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-9, Residential 9
~ Units Per Acre. This designation permits (detached & attached) residential
development with densities up to 9 units per acre.
The General Design Elements of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan include such
items as encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open
space, preservation of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc.. The last
general design element (No. 22) states:
Piecemeal annexation of land in this Planning Area shall be discouraged because
it damages the character of the Metzger community. If annexation is to occur,
then annexation as a community unit is preferred.
It should be noted that several large scale and a number single lot annexations in
the Metzger area have occurred since this general preference was placed in the
Plan. Also more specific conditions for annexation are laid out in the UPAA and the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail
concerning the R-9 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community
Development Code).
6. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning
Area Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and Tigard's adopted
Comprehensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" within which
the City assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in
which the County agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential impacts
on Tigard. This proposal falls within the "Area of Interest" as designated in the
UPAA. The following pertinent provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest"
portion of the UPAA:
A. Area of Interest .
1. Definition
Findings - Page 2 of 13
~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
Area of interest or Primarv Area of interest means unincorporated lands
contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not
conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an
interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the
COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. .
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and develop-
ment actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment
of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of
Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations•in the Area of Interest
subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest
as a condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create
islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island
annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative
means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning
Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of
Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its
rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property
owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the
CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan
designations which most closely approximate the density, use provi-
sions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the
CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the
effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY
Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY
designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated before
the one year period is over.
7. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv 2000
program. This program essentially lays out a long range strategic and fiscal plan for
the County. In this document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service
delivery system which distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to
achieve tax fairness and expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The
Findings - Page 3 of 13
• • .
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
County policy states that municipal services should be provided either by cities or
special districts.
8. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource Document (Volume I) and
the Findings, Policies & Imqlementation StrateQies (Volume II). The Tigard
Community Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning
Area Agreement should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances
remain applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is
effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to
be relevant to this proposal: •Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in
conjunction with Washington County and the applicable service
districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system
for providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan to the extent of the City's financial resources;
d. Use the Capital Improvements Program as a means for providing
for orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to
the level and capacity of the existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about
the property location for public facilities.
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service
capacity including:
1. Public water;
Findings - Page 4 of 13
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within
the City unless the property involved is over 300 feet from
a sewer line and Washington County Health Department
approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties
and the proposed development; and
2. Designed to City standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to adequate
capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if
developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly
reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped
land within the City of Tigard. The services are:
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
4. streets;
5. police; and
6. fire protection.
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the
applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a non-
remonstrance agreement regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of
the following services that could be provided through such a dis-
trict. The extension or improvement of the following:
a) water;
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d) streets.
Findings - Page 5 of 13
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services
or the inclusion of the property into a special district for any of
the above services.
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban
planning area or within the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL
BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincor-
porated territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it
difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether
the parcel is within or outside the city;
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in
10.1.1(a).
Policy 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A
WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD
SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION
WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING
DESIGNATION.
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been
submitted to the City; or ,
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has
been signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to
the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that
there is a potential or imminent health hazard.
Findings - Page 6 of 13
~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SER-
VICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF
REVIEW FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD
CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFER-
ENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASH-
INGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT
WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities
and standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET
FORTH IN THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE
IMPLEMENTtNG ORDINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and
e. Drainage.
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters
18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These
standards are:
A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex
property to the City shall be based on the fotlowing criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient
capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance
provision have been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the
City's zoning district which most closety implements the City's or County's compre-
hensive plan map designation.
Findings - Page 7 of 13
• ~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing
area will be based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as
either Established Area (unbuildable or residential built-out) or Developing Area
(buildable). The code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all
land at the time of annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was
consistent with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied
because the East CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
arcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water
P
Department, U.S.A., Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District and PGE have
reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate services are available and
may be extended to accommodate the affected properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the
affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
. .
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been
reviewed and satisfied.
Findings - Page 8 of 13
•
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-12 most closely conforms to the county designation of
R-9.
d. The determination that the affected properties are an established area
is based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an
established area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the
annexation and approved a zoning designation of R-12 to be effective upon
annexation.
9. ORS 199.410(3)(d) requires that Boundary Commission decisions be consistent
' with acknowledged comprehensive plans. OAR 193-01-005(14)(b)(B) gives the
Commission the discretion to make its own determination of planning consistencY.
10. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Locust St. along the south edge of the
territory to be annexed.
I The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the
City. The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency
and the large cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove,
Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to:
1) comply with the Agency's construction and maintenance standards for sanitary
and storm water sewer facilities, 2) follow and accomplish the Agency's work
program for storm and surface water, 3) obtain the Agency's consent before issuing
construction permits within wetlands, floodways and floodplains. The agreement
provides that the city owns and is responsible for sanitary sewer lines under 24
inches in diameter within the City limits and for storm water facilities within the
City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities). The Unified Sewerage
Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and out of cities.
The Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to areas
outside the City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-
County UPAA) unless the City approves.
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for
colfecting sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same
connection fees and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to
U.S.A. to pay for the costs of treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm
Findings - Page 9 of 13
.
. •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
water. The City may impose higher costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the
difference to offset City costs.
Monthly sanitary sewer user charges are $14.55 per month olus a consumption
charge of $1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City
charges are the same as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for
increase on July 1, 1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to
construct district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants.
Subsequent to annexation this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per
thousand assessed value, would remain the same since the City is in the District.
11. This property is already served water via an 8 inch Tualatin Yalley Water District
line located in SW Locust Street.
The territory to be annexed to the City of Tigard lies within the Tualatin Valley
Water District, in the area of the District formerly in the Metzger Water District.
The City of Tigard and the Tualatin Valley Water District have an informal
agreement that territory in this area (Metzger) will not be withdrawn from the
District upon annexation to the City until the Tigard Water Department is able to
extend service to the annexed sites.
The Tualatin Valley Water District serves primarily the northeastern portion of
Washington County, bounded generally by Portland on the East, Tigard and
I Beaverton on the southeast and south, and Hillsboro to the West, and Skyline Drive
to the North. As a result of a merger in 1991 the District includes territory
previously served by the Metzger Water District.
The Tualatin Valley Water District purchases water from the City of Portland on a
wholesale basis. Approximately 8 years remain on the current long term contract.
The District owns 74.5 % of the Washington County Supply Line (WCSL), or
approximately 44.7 MGD of the 60 MGD available. Tualatin Valley has 29.4 MGD
of capacity available, on standby, from the City of Portland's Arlington and
Burlingame standpipes. The share of this available to the Metzger area is 7.4 MGD
which would come from the Burlingame standpipe.
The Joint Water Commission (JWC) provides some additional potential capacity to
the Tualatin Valley Water District. The JWC is a partnership between Hillsboro,
Forest Grove and Beaverton that enables each city or district member to opt into
the water supply as needed. Treated water originating in the Tualatin River
headwaters, Scoggins Reservoir, and the Trask River Dam is sold by the
Commission to its members. The TVWD currently owns 6 MGD of capacity, and is
Findings - Page 10 of 13
•
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
committed to participation in an improvement project (the expansion of the Barney
reservoir) which will provide an additional 12 MGD to the TVWD.
Tualatin Valley Water District's total water source amount is currently 50.7 MGD.
After the completion of the Barney reservoir, which supplies the JWC, that figure
will be 62.7 MGD.
The current water rates for the Tualatin Valley Water District are based on bi-
monthly charges. A residential 3/4" meter is charged $1.19 per 100 cu. ft. (ccf)
for the first 50 hundred cubic feet. Additional use is charged at 52.00/ccf. The
system development charge for a standard 3/4 inch meter is $2160 per equivalent
residential unit (ERU).
12. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County
Service District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population
which in addition to the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population
means that the current level is .94 officers per 1000 population.
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police
protection to the territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per
thousand population. Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
13. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will
not affect this service because the City is in the District.
14. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road
Maintenance District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically
withdrawn from the District and the District's levy of $.2886 per $1000 assessed
value will no longer apply to the property.
15. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector Control
District. Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be
automatically withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control
District.
16. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street lights.
The District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street
lighting services. The District uses local improvement districts to finance the
service. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
District.
Findings - Page 11 of 13
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State
shared gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
17. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which finances the I
general fund. Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided
by cities, including Tigard.
The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of
$0.3788 (fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The
revenues from this levy are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on
circulation. City residents pay, through their City taxes, an additional amount to
support their libraries. • 18. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm drainage
services of $36 per dwelling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
Findings - Page 12 of 13
I
. •
~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3595
REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the Findings the Commission determined:
1. The proposal is consistent with local comprehensive planning when that planning is
taken as a whole. The County Community Plan discourages but does not prohibit
piecemeal annexations. The Urban Planning Area Agreement prohibits the City from
requiring annexations to get urban services but City Plan Policy 10.2.1 says the City
will not extend sewer service without a commitment to annexation. None-the-less
other sections of the UPAA specifically provide for the City's right to pursue
annexations and the rights of property owners to seek annexation (UPAA (A) (4)
(c)). The City's Plan further anticipates annexations and sets criteria by which the
City is to judge the appropriateness of the timing of such proposals (City Plan Policy
10.1.2). City Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1 and 10.2.3 clearly
anticipate that property owners desiring additional levels of services will annex to
the City to receive those services.
The Boundary Commission believes that these policies when read together provide
for annexation and are not discouraging of innexation to the City. The Commission
arrives at this conclusion based on the above and as allowed under OAR 193-01-
005 (14)(b)(B).
2. An adequate quality and quantity of services will be available to the area following
annexation to the City.
3. The proposal is consistent with the Boundary Commission Policy On Incorporated
Status (OAR 193-05-005) and its Policy On Long Term/Long /Range Governmental
Structure (OAR 193-05-015).
Findings - Page 13 of 13
° CLf1CXAMAS 1~S'~.8 ~`I b j l.r~'~v.~s.
MULtNOMAH • • ° `a "-,Ap
/
WASHINGTON ~~-b
'1' A 1 '1'1 AN'AR,EA LOA GOVERNMENT :1 1A' 1 1
800 NE OREGON STREET # 16 (SUITE 540) POFTIAND, OREGON 97232 PHONE: (503) 731-4093 FAX: (503) 731-8376
May 6, 1996
Ray Valone
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall
Tigard OR 97223
- Ref.-
Dear Ray:
' The Boundary Commission Statute, ORS 199.410 to 199.534 authorizes posting
of Public Hearing Notices within the area(s) to be annexed .
In order to meet the requirements of ORS 199.463, they need to be posted by
May 16. 1996
, Therefore, we would appreciate your cooperation in posting 3 copies of the
enclosed NOTICE OF HEARING and map. They should be posted in conspicuous
places within and/or immediately adjacent to the involved area(s) and they
should be placed in a manner reasonably calculated to be observed by the public.
(The additional copy of the hearing notice is for your records.)
Also would you please send us an "AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING."
Thank you.
Kenneth S. Martin
Executive Officer
KSM/Imr
Enclosures
STAFF COMMISSIONERS
KENNETH S. MARTIN, Executive Officer RAY BARTEL, Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAN
DENIECE WON, Executive Assistant TOM WHITfAKER, Vice-Chair SY KOFNBRODT
IANA RULIEN, Administrative Assistant BOB BOUNEFF STEVE STOLZE
NATHALIE DAFCY
1
PROPCISAL ■ 3595
SW1 /4 SE1 /4 SECTION 26 T1 S R1 W W.M. 1 S 1 26DC
Washington County
Scale: 1 250'
..........5. . `E - •I, C-; _ ~ ,
~
i I . 1T` ,04 / za '•:o:W :m lo0~
, 902
~ car
, r r
' . / lCl.Niil~4 O4 < C.um~~ I
1701 900 •/6 2Qf~ ' lod.
W
' .M! ~t .IOYa .tl#. ~ f . ~ .lO~~ .lJM.
~ • LLJw
Q
o' ~ • : i~o4
~ , yo; 'l xos :oi Tai W
i r.f..s ! j
~ s na nLaL ! i
N
I ~ r,T
~ i.m%• BORDERS STREET,
ieoo iroo' • lsoo' uoo4•
~
/ .~.1ne .X4 JI~r. N+a r .
,
~ TIGARD , ~ ~
~ lzoi 4 ~ . ,'00 6. 9
81
1003 '•1000 • • 1004 100 I002 i00t I100 ' i~ 900 190i ~Ob,~, ~00 . 2100 •=201
.li~• .(iie. ~ Jli< .l e i .ll~r .l ~f~n N~a Jl~e JI~~ Jf~ JI.w
~ .c sCB
SEf Msv ~ ~ p 19 1
ts i 26C ~ ~ ~ ua N :?~•2•~. ] 2101 ~
~ iaoe I ~ .r.a 01 tu.
. ~ i r' ~A 1 i~ i 1 •
LEHMANN STREET
s6ao
~ .S70a. q.~e Ji~ •300~2 IZj~ , ~0, 8700. 6000~';' iuo 1tor.
»o0
s e ~ ' . .
]OOi ~a~
.b6200a, 6100 a ~ = F
71 w 2602 3A A~D EzN 5• e=~°: = W ron
VURP
C1 _ j W c.a u.n
~ 00 M'
~ - - - - - - - - - - }~oo , p 37M ~ seW••~• ~ y , 2= zsaz ~ E zsoi :eoo tn raa .
.~r.. .1..a ~ 1~... i.rm =20: tlY. J/Y
ri cn 2
¢nr.i~. I ~ ~ I•. Q
Lt~ • 2 1 J. xrol , 7702
~ I J= I"u4 ~c : tB01 2l00 = 2
~lB00
. ~ . N ~ oue.
; l...9., s.w CO L STREET y/'
..s . . a~..~ ~xao~ u rom seo~
' ^ • ~ ~ • • 4~1 7302 5
l00 a 7IOi ,73q1 • 770~ 7]0~•
OI • JIr
.l/~e. .!!IG I /!4 ~//Y If4 /Il~.
I ~ T . R C'
8 .800 w•i
I ~ ,N00
~`~••1-o
S 2•~ ~ Si:i;:~F..:. A~a ,
♦~pp Oi '~gpp a601 agpp ~100 310'
.JO. JIti JJ~c JI4 <;mW~:.:~ y~: .J~~a =liti ~
, .I Jl_• '';~Wj' ' . • ' t•i~...~.
!~O] ~
• ~ • 4 {;i6'Zi: lS01 w6r2 ~~I~~
~I > Q Q.;? . I G<
~.1 ~ ~:?x>:::::::>::~ . i
.3W....... ....b9~" &TRES
PROPOSAL NOa 3595
✓ ~ ~pb ~aCA.VN.b CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2
\
CIACKAMAS ~ •
MULTNOMAH
WASHINGTON
'1' ' 1 '1'1 ~ A' ~ 1 A 1 ' :1 1A' 1 1
800 NE OREGON STREET q 16 (SUITE 540) PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 PHONE: 731-4093
PUBLIC
I
IYOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AT 7:00 PM ON THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1996, IN ROOM
602 MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 1021 SW 4TH AVE., PORTLAND, OREGON,
THERE SHALL BE A PUBLIC HEARING BY AND BEFORE THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN
AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION ON PROPOSALS, INCLUDING
THE ONE LISTED BELOW. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND WILL BE GIVEN
' REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
PROPOSAL NO. 3595 - ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD of territory located
generally on NE edge of City on N edge of SW Locust St., E of SW Greenburg Rd. & W of
SW 92nd, more particularly: TL 5203 in SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec. 26, T1 S R1 W, W.M., Wash.
Co., OR. .
GENERAL INFORMATION, MAPS AND AN AGENDA MAY BE OBTAINED BY CALLING
731-4093.
May 1, 1996 RAY BARTEL, CHAIRMAN
STAFF COMMISSIONERS
KENNETH S. MARTIN, ExecuUve Ollicer RAY BARTEL, Cliair MAfiILYNN i•IELZ[RMAN
DENIEC[ WON, Execulive Assislanl TOM WFIIT"TAI<[R, Vice•Cliair SY KORNOROO'f
LANA RULIEN, Adminisiralfve Assislant DOD DOUNEFF STEVE S70lZE
NATHALIE DARCY
.U-- .
'
iL
. G ~ ~ ~ • Agenda Item Bd~--f--j.
I
v
C~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of IG
n✓ MEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 .
• STUDY SESSION
> Nleeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), 3t (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Paul Hune, Bob
Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. ,
>
Staff Present: City Admuustrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Adminastrator L.iz
Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheadey; Ed We;ner, Maintenance Services; Jim
Hendryx, Communiry Development Director; Gary Alfson, Consultant; Wayne
Lowry, Finance Director; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Terry Niahr, City Attorney,
Pro Tem; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, aad
Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources D'uector.
> Agenda Review
City Administrator Monahan reported that Legal Counsel Jim Coleman would step
down from the Albertson's remand hearing to preserve the record against the
possibiliry of a conflict of interest. Terry Mahr, the City Attorney for the Ciry of
Newber„ would fill in for him. .
Mr. Monahan sugaested that [he Council either consider agenda items 13 and 14
.
pnor to agenda item 12 (Albertson's hearuig) or continue those items to another
meeting. This would allow the Council to dismiss Mr. Coleman for the evenin~
once item 12 was reached. `
TMr. vlahr no[ed that one issue of concern on the remand hearing was the possibility
that the participants would submit a lot of new documents into the record. He said
that if that was the case, the City miQh[ wanc to take the posi[ion that they would noc
accept new documents into the record until staff had a chance to review those
documencs and make sure that ev
th , onlv
, addressed the remand issues.
~ ,%Ir. Llahr stated that he has spoken with che applicant about the statutory provisions
' allowing him seven days to rebut.
iviayor Nicoli asked if the applicant's aaorney would write the findin2s, should the
Cuuncil make a positive decision. tiir. Nfahr said that the applicant's attorney has
already written the findinas which were contained in E.chibit A. Mr. Nlonahan said
chat if other findings were needed because of new evidence, staff would send them
ouc to the applicant's attorney.
CITY COUNCIL LIEETING yIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 1
. ' ,
• • ~
Mayor Nicoti asked if he could assign time limits to the testimony. Nir. Monahan "
said yes.
Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to "appeal" on the appeal. Mr. Mahr
said that passin; an ordinance was an appealable decision to LUBA, the Court of
Appeals and the Ore;on Supreme Court. He commented that the applicant has told
him that he expected the decision to be appealed.
Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Nlahr if he saw anything in the findings [hat looked
out of the ordi . Nfr. Niahr said that he chought ev o
nary erYthing ~
looked ood.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the revised language on Item 3.6 on the Consent Agenda,
. .
~
(the resolution on the warver of Processing land use aPPlications).
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that staff sen[ nodces to every properry ownec in the
Triangle informing them that this issue was on the agenda tonight. Nadine Smith
received about six calls from people interested in what was going on.
Planning Commission applications were distributed to Council. Mr. Monahan asked
that Council comment to staff by May 2 to allow Nfayor Nicoli and Councilor Rohlf
time to review them before the May 20 interviews.
Mr. Monahan reviewed additional agenda changes, The Mayor of Durham
requested that Item 6 be withdrawn from consideration. He explained (on the
Willamette River opdon) chat the City of Tualatin wanted to be included on the next
level of that study at a cost of $15,000 to each of the now seven participancs; it
would cost Ti;ard approximately $2000 more with the funds coming out of the water
budgec. He said that they needed to sign a memo of understanding to continue the
process.
Mr. Hendryx reponed that there was a letter for the Mayor to sign supporting the
recommendations of the Committee regarding folding the Boundary Commission into
Metro's process and streamlinin; the process. He said that one concern staff had
was that a lot of the procedural detail and criteria for approving has not been worked
out yer Ti;ard wanced to remain involved in that process.
Councilor Hun[ asked if this was givinQ more power to i'vfetro. tiiayor Nicoli
commented that this cut back the encire process. Mr. Hendryx said that he thought
this aave more con[rol at che local level.
-vIavor Nicoli asked if thev could still refine che RFP criteria for the studv at Cook
Park even if they passed that item this eveninQ. NIr. tilonahan said yes. 'T'vIr.
Hendryx asked the Council to aive staff direction to approve the request subject to
input from the ocher aQencies. ~
CITY COUNCIL ti1EETING MINL'TES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 2
. • .
1. BUSIlYESS vEEETI~i 1G
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meecing to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, Paul
Hunt and Brian bioore.
Staff resent: Ci Administrator Bill Monahan• Nadine Smith e' 1
p ry , , S ruor P anner,
Catherine Wheadey, City Recorder; Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director; Liz
Newton, Asst to City Administrator; and, Jim Hendryx, Community Development
Director.
1.3 Pledge of AlleQiance
~
1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Administrator Monahan noted the following adjustments to [he agenda: pulling
item 3.9 from the consent agenda for further discussion and withdrawing item 6 at
the request of the City of Durham.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
> iNiichael vlills, Construction Inspector, President of OPEU Local 199, stron;ly
recommended that the Council approve the new OPEU contract. He stated that the Union
members have already ratified the tentative agreement. He said that they understood that
the- Council has reviewed that a;reement and would approve everything except the return
of che 6% retirement contribution. He said that it was their understanding that the Council
believed that the 6% could only be set aside if Measure 8 were found to be invalid; however
Council needed to understand that the Union members believed that they had a contractual
riQht to the pension benefit.
M
r. Viills stated that they felt that their contract with the City has been violated and chac the
Council was tryinQ to bypass the bargaining process. He said thac the Union has tiled a
srievance over the City's takinQ of this benetit and was ready to Qo to arbitration to seale
the issue. He said that if they could settle this without arbitration they could save che Ciry
approrimately $3,000 (the averaQe cost of arbitration).
.Mr. i'viills said that chis was seriously affecting the morale of the employees. Though the
Council needed to consider the will of the citizens of Ti;ard, chey also needed [o consider
the City zmployees. He contended that the citizens didn't vote on tileasure 8 knowing that
i[ would mean a reduc[ion in City employee benetits. He stated that [he citizens have
approved numerous bond measures based on the performance of City employees. He said
that the Tigard city employees have complied wich the provisions of Measure 8 in
contributing aE least 6% cowards cheir own reciremenc.
CITY COUNCIL vIEETING i'vIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 3
_ • • ,
Mr. Mills said that the City Administrator presented alternative methods of implementation
to the Council last December. He said that both the attorney hired by the City to negotiate
this contract and the Ciry's bargaining team have recommended ratification of chis
agreement. He said that the agreement was a complete package achieved by both sides
working to find a balance between the needs of the Ciry and the Union; this agreement was
meant to resolve all the remaining issues. He said that removing an important aspect would
have an opposite effect somewhere else in the agreement. He asked that the Council
support the Tigard public employees and approve the new contract tonight.
> Dick Skowden, 6105 SW 148th, Beaverton, spoke on the issue of growth and the area's
abiliry to accommodate the growth comfortably within the UGB. He stated that it was
important to hold the line on the UGB. He pointed out the dramatic population arowth in
the area over the last year and stated that it was important to work as quickly as possible
to accommodate the growth and stay ahead of it. He said that it was important that
Washington County and Nietro provide staffing to help the local governments take quick
action in a fair way in order to make proper land use decisions.
> Bonnie Mulhearn addressed the issue of the OPEU contract. She asked if the Council
thought that their representatives had done a poor job during the negotiations. She
contended that the Council was violating the existing Union contract and keeping money that
rightfully belonged to the Union employees. She said that the Council should vote on '
whether or not they agreed with the tentative agreement in open session.
3. CONSEIVT aG&NDa
NIr. Nionahan asked to pull Items 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 from the consent agenda. 4
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent
A;enda Items 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Vloore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: March 19, 1996
3 ' Receive and File:
April 12, 1996 Memorandum from Human Rzsources Director to Mayor & Council
regarding the Employee RecoQnition Program
3.3 Terminate Waterline Easement within the Proposed Hillshire Creek Estates
Subdivision
3.4 ExtinQuish Sewer Easement for Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision - Resolution No.
96-22
3.5 Support Unified Seweraae A~encv's (liSA) Request for ~Ietro Greenspaces Funds
to Help Them Purchase the Thomas Dairy Property - Resolution No. 96-23
3.6 `Vaive ProcessinQ Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Propenies Under Study as Part of the Transporcation update Within the TiQard
Trianele - Resolution No. 96-24 V
3.7 Enter~into a Personal Services Contract with Spencer & Kupper to Complete the
Scope of Work for the TiQard Transportation lipdate
3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budaet for Hirin; a Consultant to Prepare a P:an
for the Proposed E:cpansion of Cook Park
CITY COUNCIL IVIEETING iMINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 4
. • •
.3.9 Approve Oregon Public- Employees Union (OPEU) Concract .
• Consent Aaenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion
> 3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Properties Under Study as Part of the Transportation update Within the Tigard
Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24
Nfr. Monahan erplained the revised lanwage to the resolution as recommended by
the Ciry Attorney to clarify the City's position: the Ciry would not accepc
applications at all as opposed ta accepting applications and not processing them.
Mr. Hendryx reported that Nadine Smith received some phone calls in response to
the notification sent out to the properry owners in the Triangle.
vlotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent
Agenda Item 3.6 as modified.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
> 3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a Plan
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park
tifr. Nlonahan scaced that this RFP drafted by staff has been sent to their potential
partners (USA and various Tigard sports groups) for comment and review; staff
wished to insure that the RFP included the necessary detail to meet all the partners'
needs. '
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to apQrove Consent
Agenda Item 3.3 with future amendments.
Motion was approved by unanimous voce of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla vocin; "yes.
> 3.9 Approve Oreaon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract
y1r. i'vfonahan recommended that the Council pull this item from discussion tonisht
' because there wasn't a concract to siQn, unless the Council decided to agree to che
added provision suggested by the Union on cop of the issues that the City's
baraaining [eam recommended. iviavor Nicoli asked if there was a motion to move forward on this item. There was
none.
tilr. iiills protested. He stated chat there was a ten[ative agreement (ratified by the
Union) before the Council toaiQht. He said that the bargainincr team has
recommended that the Council ratify the tencative aQreement because the team ac-rreed
to the Qround rule thaE when a tentative aLyreement was reached they would brinQ it
to the Council for ratification. He contended that the sisninQ of the contract was not
until much later in the process.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING I'VIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - P.aGE 5
~ • • .
Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had no problem going back into negotiations
with che staff. He noted that there were other options under State law that the Union
could take if it so desired but that the Council would not move forward on this item
tonight.
4. TUALA►TIN VALLEY ECONONIIC DEVELOPNEN'T CORPORATION UPDATE
Mary Tobias, TVEDC, referred to the packet mailed out earlier to the Council. She
reviewed the latest issue of Doing Business in WashingtoR County, commenting that it has
been very well received. She pointed out the healthy ;rowth in Washington County over
the past six to eight months. She reported that they have seen a 10% increase since last
year in the number of requests for the demographics and economics services provided by
TVEDC, the majoriry of which came from within the Portland Metro area - businesses
looking at expansion or relocation. She noted that the major employers list, while not
complete, was a good representation of employers in the county.
Ms. Tobias reported that the Board of Directors was in the process of approving an
ambitious 1996/97 work plan that built on last year's work plan. She said that the Housing
& Transportation committee was investi;ating the housing and land use issues in the 2040
study. She said that the Transportation committee was findin; much in the regional
transportation policy with which they.concurred but that they did have some concerns about
possible discrepancies between the Metro projected numbers and what was realisticalIy
probable.
Ms. Tobias pointed out that though a certain number of jobs might be feasible on paper, the
characteristics of a particular communiry mi;ht preclude that number e.cisting in reality; for
example, Sherwood might be able to accommodate 8000 new jobs but it was unlikely to
. actually do so. She suggested that everyone step back from the models and consider reaiity.
Mayor Nicoli asked if TVEDC would come out with position papers regarding the 2040
process, once the final draft came out from Metro. Ms. Tobias said that their Land Use
committee was working on three position papers (including ;rowth management and
affordable housing) while the Transportation committee was working on the first of three
refinements of the transportation policy segmen[ of 2040.
ivIavor Nicoli asked if che Council could ~et chose comments before the Ciry had to respond
to Metro, notinQ that TVEDC had a different perspective. Ms. Tobias said that they would
share what they developed as they developed it.
Councilor Scheckla asked how TVEDC defined affordable housing in Washington County.
,vIs. Tobias said that thev have not yet achieved a workable definition, pointinQ out that the
reQion was strueQlins with this difficult and complex issue. She said that the subcommittee
was lookinQ at'a ma[hemacical formula that included all che myriad of factors involved in
the issue, and that hopefully in 30 days they would have a workable definition.
5. CONSIDER PRO TEM JL-DGE APPOIN'TMEr"TS: VLkRC AB1L4dvIS AIYD PETER
ACkER~LkN
a. Scaff Report _
- radine Robinson, Municipal Court Director, and Michael O'Brien, Senior
Jud;e, presented the staff report. Ms. Robinson reviewed Ehe need for pro tem
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 6
0 i .
judges to serve as backups for Jud;e O'Brien and che process they used to select the
appointees. She said thac they recommended che appoinanents of Marc Abrams and
Peter Aclcerman as pro tem judges on the basis that they had che necessary
qualifications to serve as pro tem judges and that their philosophies most closely reflected Judge O'Brien's.
b. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve
Resolution Yo. 96-25.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-25 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
A.PPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH MARC ABRAMS,
MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of. the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
iNiotion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
No. 96-26. The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-26 by number and tide.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH PETER ACKERMAN,
ti1UIYICIPAL COURT PRO TENi NDGE. Niotion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voting "yes.
d. Administer Oaths of Office
.
Mayor Nicoli administered the Oath of Office to Marc Abrams and Peter Ackerman
individually. .
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REPRESEiNTaTION Or LNTERGOVERN`MENTAL
WATER BOARD
This item was pulled (see Study Szssion noces above). 7. COrSIDER LIBRARY EYCLUSION OR.DI~i iAiNCE
' a. S[aff Repon
kathy Davis, Library Director, gave the staff reporc. She stated that thou;h the
vast majority of citizens served by the Library were wonderful, there were a few
whose behavior was less than appropriate for a library settin;. She explained that
• the in[ent of chis ordinance was to Qive library staff some recourse to deal with
illesal or inappropriate behaviors throuQh removal from the premises and revocation
of library privileQes for 90 siavs. . '
CITY COL'vCIL MEETIVG MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 7
-
~ • b. Council Questions
Lviayor Yicoti asked abouc the line item on page 13 scating that Qo food or beverages
were aliowed in the libtary. He said thac he scill hoped to see an are3 in the library
where people could read while eacin; oc drinking. L'Yfs. Davis exptained that that
item was Ehe °user friendly" version of the ocdinance that wauld actually be posted
in the library. She said that the behavior ;uidelines oudined in the ordinance were
basic common sense and common courtesy.
Nis. Davis noted a chan;e in the wording in the guidelines to state that a person
vioiating che Iaw would be removed from the premises and have their library
privile;es revoked for up to 90 days.
ivir. vionahan noted typographical errors in the ordinance on pa;e 3- Chapter 1.16
should be chan;ed to Chapcer 1.17.
c. Council Consideracion: Ordinance iN0. 96-I5 and 96-I6
vfotion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-15.
; .
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-15 by number and tide.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-15, AN ORDLNANCE AiNMNDING TITI.E 7 OF THE
TIGARD MTJNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 7.100, EXCLUSIONS
FROM TIGA.RD PUBLIC LIBRARY.
. The mocion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (viayor
~Nicoli, Councilors Rohif, Scheckla, Hunt and Moore voting "yes.
vlotion by Councilor Ralilf, seconded by Councilor vloore, to adopt Ocdinance
No. 96-16.
The Ciry Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-16 by number and title.
ORDINAiNCE ti0. 96-16, Av OR.DINAiNCE A:tifENDING TITLE I OE THE
TIGARD ~fUivZCIPAL CODE BY ADDING CH.-kPTER 1. I7, APPEA.L. TO CIVIL
~ INFRr1CTIONS HEARINGS OFFICER.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call voce of the Counciiors present. (Mayor
Nicoli. Councilors Rohlf. Schec!da, Hunt and Moore voting "yes.
3. DISCL'SS `VASHLNGTON COL~'IY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE C.4PITAI,
LEtiY
a. Scaff LTpdate
~Is. Davis presznced che stari update. She reviewed Ehe speciiics of Ehe Iew, notins
thac Tisard's share ot Ehe S30 million dollar lew for its service population of
12.79 0 of che tocal counry populacian amounced to 53.8 million dollars.
CITY COUNCIL yiEETIVG tiIIVUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 8
. • •
Ms. Davis reported that several members raised a concern at the Library Budgee
Board meeting that their share of the allocation (using the funding formula based on
. service population) would not be adequate to meet their individual building neesfls;
these members suggested raising the amount of the levy to a high enough level
where their needs could be met by their share of it. However this put in questaoaa
the funding mechanism that would have allowed an equitable distribution of the
funds.
Ms. Davis stated that the issue of the total dollar amount of the levy and ¢flle
allocation formula would be discussed at the May County Library Advisory Board
(CLAB) meecing. She presented the Tigard Library Board's position staternent oca
this issue. She said that the Board would not be supportive of the levy unless chey
were assured that some sort of funding mechanism would be in place that would
provide some equiry in funds distribution, regardless of the levy rate.
Mr. Monahan stated that both he and Ms. Davis agreed with the Board's posieion
that che funding formula already worked out was equitable and made sense both
county wide and for the individual cities. He asked the Council to consider whetlier
or not they supported the Board's position and to direct he and Ms. Davis to presen¢
this position at the May CLAB meeting.
b. Council Discussion
Councilor RohIf stated that he supported the Library Board's position. Mayor Nicoli
concurred.
Councilor Hunt stated that he would not vote on this because he thought that ie was
not fair to the rest of the City's building programs. He said that he was noe
objecting to the Board's position but to any part of the levy.
iNiotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to suppout ghe
Tigard Library Board's position on the county wide capital construction fleery9
giving the Library Director and the City Administrator authority to represen4
that positioa at the iNiay 1 CLAB meeting.
The motion passed by a four to one vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Rohlf, i'vfoore and Scheckla voting "yes"; Councilor Hunc voting "no.
Ni,Iayor Nicoli recessed the meetinQ at 3:32 p.m. for a break.
ilyIavor Nicoli reconvened the meecing at 5:40 p.m.
9. COrTIiNUATION OF PUBLIC HEARLNG: CONSIDERATION O&'
PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES PROJECTS (Continued from the April 9,
1996 Council vleeting.) Continuation of hearin; to select sreenspace projects. Tigard is
zntitle to receive $758,000 in local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure.
a. Continue Public HearinQ b. Update of Council Discussion from the April 16, 1996 meecina
CITY COUNCIL tifEETING MINUTES - f1PRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 9
. . . .
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, distributing materials
to the Council. He reviewed the matrix (on file with the Council packet material)
of the different properties under consideration. He recommended that the Council
apply any funds left over after purchasing the forest projects to orail corridor
acquisition; Metro has agreed to match trail corridor acquisition funds by a 1:2 or
more ratio per local dollar. He also recommended that the Council pass a resolution
espressing their intent to expend future year SDC funds towards the project as well.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the current park SDC funding schedule, noting the amounts
. tentadvely identified. for trail properry acquisition and improvements. He
commented that the amount of land to be protected was 27 acres of forest land and
approximately 50 to 75 acres of floodplain.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was an intent from the County to co-opt the purchase
of the Fern Soreet properry. Mr. Roberts said that the County never identified that
piece on their list. .
Mayor Nicoli opened the discussion up to public comment; there was none.
c. Council Comment
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council decided to commit some of the park funds
(i.e., SDC dollars) to try to obtain all of the land mentioned on the list in
combination with the Metro money.
Nir. Robens recommended that the Council approve the list of projects, authorize
the Mayor to sign the IGA with bietro to receive the local share funds, and authorize
the Mayor to prepare a letter to be sent to Linda Peters making an offer on the 129th
site.
Councilor Hunt asked if the list was prioritized in any way. Mr. Roberts said no
and stated that the only breakdown was between forest properties and trails
properties.
Councilor Rohlf asked about the letter to Washinaton Counry. NIr. Roberts said that
the County has advised them to proceed in this way and to include letters showina
community support for the acquisition. He said that the Counry was looking for
communiry support. He said that they also recommended that the City pass a
resolution declarinQ the City's intent to commit fu[ure year park SDCs for trail land
acquisition.
d. Close Public Hearin2
ivIayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. .
e. ' Council Consideration
Councilor Rohlf said that he had no disa;reements with any of the recommendations
presented bv staff. Councilor Moore concurred.
CITY COliNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 10
. •
Councilor Scheckla asked about the Nietro money for trails. Mr. Roberts explained
that the money for trails was a separate component of the bond measure wich $3.5
million allocated for property acquisition along the Fanno Creek mam stem but no¢
for the improvements themselves. He indicated on the map where two of the four
target areas identified by Metro were located within Tigard's area of interest.
Niotion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the
Greenspaces project list and send it to Metro and to authorize the Mayor to
send a letter to Washington County coopting the 129th property.
Motion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
Motion by Councvor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to authorize the
Mayor to sign the IGA with Nietro and direct staff to draft a resolution thag indicates the Council's intent to commit future funding for parks.
Niotion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
10. PQJBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEYATION - ZCA
96-0001 SHULTZ
Request: Annex two parcels of 6:2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Ti;ard Nledium Density Residential and change the zone from Washin;ton County R-b to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull
Mountain Road, across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPL.ICABI.E
REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan
polices 2.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary
. criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development- Code chapters
13.136, annexation requirements; and 13.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presendy, Washington County R-6.
a. Open Public HearinQ
Vlayor Nicoli read the hearin; title opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or ChallenQes: None .
tilavor Nicoli read the hearing procedures.
c. Staff Report
. .
Ray Valone, tlssociate Planner, presen[ed the staff repon. He noted the location
of the site on the map. He staced that the application complied with all the
applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and
had adequate facilities available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were
sen[ and tha[ [hey have received no objeccions. Staff recommended approval.
CITY COUNCIL tiIEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 11
• id. Public Testimony
John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services,15256 NW Greenbraar Parkway,
Beaverton, representing the applicant, asked for a favorable consideration of cheir
request.
e. Staff Recommendadon
Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-27 & Ordinance No. 96-18. "
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve ,
Resolu4ion No. 96-27.
The Ciry Recorder read Resolution No. 96-27 by number and tide.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-27, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGA.R.D OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hun[, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
iNIotion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve
Ordinance No. 96-18.
The Ciry Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-18 by number and title.
OR.DINANCE v0. 96-18, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AiND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, i'vioore, Rohif and Scheckla votin; "yes.
11. ZONE CH.-trGE AYNEYATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LiJNDV1ARK AiNiNEXATION
Request: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres inco the
city and a chan,2e of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washin;ton Counry R-9 to
City of Tisard tifedium Densicy Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at
92 75 Locust Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
' The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen
involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criceria; and 10.1.3,
CITY COUNCIL LIEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 12
. • .
zoning designation. Also, Communiry Development Code chapters 18.136, annexatioxa
requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZORrE: Presently,
Washington County R-9.
a. Open Public Hearing
Niayor Nicoli read the hearing tide and opened the public hearing,
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
Mayor Nicoli read the hearin;s procedures.
c. Staff Report
Mr. Valone presented the'staff report. He reviewed the location and spccifi6s of the
sites. He stated that the application comPlied with all the aPPlicable CitY Policies
and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and had adequaee facibieies
available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were sent and ctiat tfiey have
received no objections. Staff recommended approval.
d. Public Testimony
Bert Lundmark, applicant, stated that it was his desire to develop the propergy
with the construction tive row homes.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Valone recommended tha[ the Council adopt the resolution and ordinaabce and
~ forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
a. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearin,.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-28 & Ordinance No. 96-19
.Motion by Counciior Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
No. 96-23.
The Ciry Recorder read Resolution No. 96-28 by number and title.
RESOLLi-TION NO. 96-28, f1 RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNE%ATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-02.
The moEion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (tilayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore. Rohif and Scheckla votina "yes.
CITY COUNCIL NIEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23. 1996 - PAGE 13
~ ~ .
Nlotion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohif, to approve Ordinasnce
No. 96-19. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-19 by numbec and tide.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-19, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AIVD
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-02.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of che Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
The Council considered Items 13 and 14 at this time.
12. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ALBEItTSON'S INC./DUNCONIBE Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand - Comprehensive Plan tlmendment (CPA) 93- ~
0049/Zone Change (ZONE 93-0003; Site Development Review (SDR) 93-0014/Nlinoa-
Land Partition (NILP) 93-0013
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) remand for the
following development approvals:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to *edesignate approximately eight
acres of a 11.95 acre pazcel from Medium-High Densiry Residentiai to Communiry
Commercial on Tax Lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel
from neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Densiry Residential on Tax Lot
100. The Zone Chan;es accompanying the above plan changes include a change
from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) and R-30 -
(PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planner Development ) to C-C (Community
Commercial) and from C-N (Nei;hborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25
units per acre); ' 2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot
stand-alone tenant pad and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 4,950
square feet adjoinin; the anchor pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand-alone tenant pads; and
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel into two parcels of
approxunately eiQht acres and 3.95 acres each.
The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required Ciry Council to receive and make additional
tmdinQs on che followin- issues:
1. vTransponation Tieard Comprehensive Plan PoIicy (TCP) 8.1.3 (fl-(h) and 8.4.1
2. AirlWater Qualiry: LCDC Goal 6
3. Air Qualiry Impact: TCP Policy 4.1.1
4. Water Qualiry Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1
5. Commercial Compacibilicy: TCP Policy 5.4
6. Bufferina: TCP Policv 6.6.1
7. Storm Drainaae Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2
8. Desiqn Criteria: Community Development Code 18.61.055
CITY COUNCIL v1EETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 14
. . •
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scfiolls Ferry
Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, Tax Locs 100 and 200); APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planrung Goal 6; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1,
1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.4, 6.6.1, 7.1.2 and 8.1.3 (fl-(h) and 8.4.1; Community Development
Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.61.055. ZONE: The eristing Neighborhood
Commercial zone permits a range of convenience ;oods and services which are purchased
at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services,
children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, ecc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and
services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential
neighborhoods. Communiry Commercial centers rypically range in size from a minimum
of two acres to eight acres. In terms of building square footage, [hese cencers range from
30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise
multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone
permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning
district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms
of design, access, etc.
> bfayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Niahr from the City of Newberg would be serving as the Ciry's
legal counsel on this item because of a conflict of interest with Tigard's Ciry Attomey. Mr.
Nfonahan explained that the issue was raised that Mr. Coleman has represented Albenson's
in the past.
vlayor Nicoli briefly recessed the meeting.
Nlayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting.
a. Open Public Hearin;
Mayor Nicoli read the hearin; title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declaracions or Challenses: None
' c. Staff Report
i'vIr. Bewersdorff presenced the staff repon. He stated that the Council approved the
Albertson's comprehensive p(an zone map amendments as well as their specitic
developmen[ plans (subject to numerous conditions) on December 27,1994; the
decision was appealed to LUBA who remanded it to Tigard on October 20, 1995.
He listed che eiQht issues on which LUBA remanded the appeal to the Council. ivIr. Bewersdorff stated that che applicant has completed his work on the remand
issues. He advised the Council to limit its review to the main findings on the eiQht
remainincr issues before LUBA. Mr. Llahr stated that he spoke with both the
applicant and the appellant, boch of whom understood thac testimony was limited to
the eiaht issues.
CITY COUNCIL TMEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 15
• •
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures and time limits.
PROPONEN'TS
John Sfionkwiler, representing Albertson's, introduced Don Duncombe,
Albertson's; Norm Schoen, Project Architect; Steve Ward, West Tech Engineering;
and Phil Roar[h, Kittleson & Associates (traffic analysis).
blr. Shonkwiler reviewed that this was a re uest to move the ' Q
~ existm, netghborhood
commercial designation of approximately seven acres on one corner of Walnut and
Scholls Ferry to a communiry commercial designation of eight acres on another
corner of Walnut and Scholls Ferry. He stated that the Council approved their site
development plan for a 40,000 square foot ;rocery store with 17,550 square feet of
other commercial azea; this use was appealed by Marcotte & Thriftway but upheld
by LUBA.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that a lot of the consideration here was to clarify the Ciry's
position on the language of the ordinance and how it worked with the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the total allowable square footage of
commercial in a communiry commercial zone was 100,100; this proposal was for
57,500 squaze feet.
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the first remand issue: Transportation, CP policy 8.1.3
(fl-(h). He said that all of the provisions of this policy were challenged before
LUBA but thac LUBA upheld all of them except for subsections ( fl through (h)
which LUBA felt needed more specificity in the findings.
' In re;ard to (fl, the provision of transit stops, bus tumout lanes and shelters, Nir.
Shonkwiler pointed out that this properry was not served by transit, and that Tri-N1et
has stated that it did not intend to provide service in the near future. He said that
~ the Council could find that the Albertson's site and its designated uses did not
aenerate transit ridership. He reviewed how the plan allowed for the possibility in
the future of bus pullout lanes near the proposed mini-park which could serve as a
bus stop area. He contended that the plan did meet the requirements. However they
were recommendin; an additional condition of approval on pa;e 4 of the remand .
statement allowinQ the City, throuQh a public process, to make that desionation in
. the future.
In response to subseccion (g), handicapped parkinQ spaces, Mr. Shonkwiler explained
that the appeal on this arose from a contlict between the two sets of findings before
the Council. He said Ehat the mistake was that the second set of findings did no[
retlect che changes recommended in the set of fmdinQs based on the staff report. He
referred to the revised site and landscape plans that showed the relocation of some
of the handicapped parkina spaces as recommended by staif to service all enuances
to che store. _
ivIr. Shonkwiler noted that they could not locate the handicapped parkinQ spaces for
the other commercial pads until thev knew where the main entrance would be.
CITY COUNCIL v1EETING IMINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 16
. . ,
_ • •
Though they showed handicapped parking in a speciFic location on the map, it coulcfl
be moved anywhere along che front to the best location for the eventual entrances.
He said that the decermination of the exact location of those spaces could be mac➢e
at the time of the building permit application. '
In regards to subsection (h), land dedication for bicycle/pedestrian corridor, Mr.
Shonkwiler referred to che City's adopted pedestrian/bike pathway plan, noting etlat
the proposed pathway in the area did not abut this site; boch Scholls Feny Road and
other land were between the Albertson's site and the proposed pathway, making it
impossible for the applicant to dedicate any land for the pathway. He said that he
thought that the Council could make the finding that the land dedication was nog '
required. Mr. Shonkwiler referred to LUBA record #390 (the site plan) and /#391 (ttie
landscape plan) to de:nonstrate the extension of Murray Blvd and its connection eo
Walnut Screet, already proposed by the City. He reviewed how the sidewalks
depicted on the plan along Scholls Ferry, Walnut and Northview Drive connected
to the intersection which in turn would feed up to Murray Blvd and the proposed
pathway. He also reviewed the internal site circulation with accesses to those
sidewalks. He said that their circulation system was in che best interests of the City
for a pedestrian/bike necwork from the site to the pathway and vice versa.
Mr. Shonkwiler scated that the second, third and fourth remand issues (Air and
Wacer qualiry impacts) have been sufficiently addressed by the West Tech study in
the record. West Tech has analyzed the state, federal and regional plans and stated
that this plan was in compliance with all regulations and could feasibly satisfy all the
conditions of approval.
vlr. Shonkwiler spoke to the fifth issue: Commercial Compatibility, TCP Policy 5.4.
-"The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall not
encroach on residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or
industrial uses." He proposed that the Ciry define the residential area being affected
as the area surrounding the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Walnut (the
neiQhborhood commercial, the residential on two sides, and the multi family
designations to che west, norchwest and south). He said that he thouQht that the Ciry
could adopt that as part of its interpretation. ~
VIr. Shonkwiler commented that, in considering how the area was affected by the
proposed development, this area already had neiQhborhood commercial in the
residential area; there was nothinQ in che Comprehensive Plan that forbade changing
che commercial use from one to another or from the residential area to a place that
would better provide more buffering to eliminate the impacts to the surrounding
areas. He contended that the whole point was to not have an overt shock to the
residential uses in the area.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that there already was a substantial commercial use and that
thev were replacins it wich another commercial use. The next question was how
much impact would that have. He referred to the traffic studies in the record that .
showed that there was an insinificant difference between the effect of neighborhood
commercial on 6.93 acres and the use AlberEson's was progosine. He said that
~ CITY COUNCIL viEETING MINliTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 17
• • ,
overall the evidence in the record would support that switching from the
neighborhood commercial to community commercial was a rational planning
position.
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the question of why move the desi;nation across the
streec. He stated that community commercial allowed more flexibiliry in how they
could develop the property. He pointed out that the triangular shaPe of the
neighborhood commercial property made it difficult to provide both commercial uses
and adequate bufferinQ ' to eliminate adverse imr a
acts to the abuttina
rr•rem; 115o
the flat area abutted directly up a;ainst the multi family structures, allowing no latitude for separation.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that by moving the properry across the street they could
ercavate down so that the surrounding properties would overlooked two-thirds of the
site; it would also shape the properry into a rectangle to allow for better buffering.
He noted that the City required 20% open space area around the property; they were i
providing 30% which necessitated going from seven acres to eight acres. He said
that he thought that was full justification for why they met the policy.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the Council was entitled to make an interpretation on the
two different comprehensive plan polices, 5.4 and the locational criteria, which
should be compatible. He contended that if they met the locaaonal criteria, it should
be presumed that they also met the requirements of 5.4.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the sixth issue: Bufferin, TCP policy 6.6.1. He noted the
code section 18.100 which implemented the landscapina screening requirements
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that if the applicant has met
the code provisions, then they have satisfied.the Comprehensive Plan policy 6.6.1
as well. He stated that the previously adopted findings showed that they have
complied with 18.100; since those findings were not challen;ed, he said that they
could reasonably rely on them today.
TMr. Shonkwiler reviewed the specifics of the landscaping plan in terms of how they
were providing an air pollution absorber, noise and dust filters and a visual barrier
throuQh excavation and landscapin;.
ivIr. Shonkwiler referred to the West Tech reporc as settin; out fully how the
applican[ met the seven[h issue of storm drainase and making che conclusion that the
applicant has met the requirement and could feasibly satisfy the conditions of
approval.
N,ir. Shonkwiler noted that, in response to the eiQhth issue of desiQn criteria, it was
a similar mistake as with the handicapped parking. They submitted a chanQe
between the staff report and the tinal decision chat was not corrected in the findin;s.
He referred to LUBA 390 (sice plan) and LUBA 391 (landscaping plan) that showed
the specifics of the landscaping plan. He said that they have met LUBA's
requirement that they revise their plans to clarifv exactly what was happeninQ.
vlr. Shonkwiler requested approval of the application and adoption of the findinas.
CITY COUNCIL yiEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 18
. • • '
Barbara Collins, resident at Yorthview & Castle HiU, stated that the neighbors
felt strongly that Albertson's was doing its best to meet all the requirements and to
take the neighborhood inco consideration; they were trying to make having a
commercial entiry in the neighborhood as livable as possible. She said that chey
hoped this could be worked out as soon as possible and that they felt that Albertson's
had a good plan.
- Scott Russell, property owner, addressed two issues: transportation and air quality.
' He said chat neighbors have expressed concern over the potential for a future access
to Northview; he stated that one of the conditions of approval stated that, should the
Ciry decided to put in that access, it would have to go through a public process and
address the nei hbors' concern
g s. He said that he thought air qualiry had been
comPromised bY the oPPosition.
OPPONENTS
Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW SLxth Ave, Portland, representing Marcotte Holdings,
Inc. and Murray Thriftway who were the appellants at LUBA, commenfed that
he thou;ht that there was a;eneral belief that if LUBA remanded something and the
applicant threw a"bunch of stuff" at it, then the applicant should automatically
prevail. He said that the "stuff" had to be responsive and address the issues or ehe
applicant was not entided to prevail. He said that the appellants felt strongly ehac
the applicant has not sufficiently addressed two of the eight issues.
Mr. Kleinman said that they felt that the issue of commercial compatibility was a
fundamental Comprehensive Plan issue that needed to be looked at because the
applicant was asking the Council to make an interpretation that set a dangerous
precedent that did not suit the City's Comprehensive Plan objectives. He noted that this issue was raised by LUBA and in the proposed order of the City Council
submitted bY the aPPlicant.
Mr. Kleinman concended that the neighborhood commercial site that the applicant
said was 6.93 acres was in actual fact a five acre neighborhood commercial site. He
submitted materials into Ehe record obtained from the Ciry which mentioned a five
acre parcel at this site to support his contention (the 1986 Ciry annexation decision,
a 1991 memo from Jerry Offer to Katie Dorsett, and a 1991 letter to Tigard
Planninc, from Ehe CitY of Beaverton).
Mr. Kleinman poinced ouc that LUBA looked at the appellants' objections to
substitutin; communiry commercial for neiQhborhood commercial; LUBA found that
the arQument in the findinQs that a mistake was made in the original designation
during the annexa[ion process was sufficient to justify the zone change (the Ciry's
desia-nation of the parcel as neishborhood commercial when. it had a commercial
desi;nation in the County). He stated that the parcel so designated was five acres
onlv.
i'vir. Kleinman cited LUBA's findings thac the applicant had not adequately analyzed
Ehe impacts on Ehe differenc residencial natures of che surrounding neiQhborhoods
resulting from substitutin; a IarQer development for a smaller one on the opposite corner of the same incersection. He contended chac the applicant still has not done
CITY COUNCIL tiIEETING viINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 19
• • , i
this but rather relied on the proposition that it was all the same, as supported by its
erperts. He stated that the impact was there. He said that while Albertson's might
be able to address this issue sufficiently to allow them to prevail, they have not done
so yet.
Nir. Kleinman stated that he read a different interpretation of the findings than the
applicant oresented and summarized to the Council. He said that the applicant urged
the Council to interpret the policy to mean that (since a community commercial zone
had a trade area of a 1.5 mile radius) there was no impact from moving the
commercial from one place within that radius to another, if it already has some
residential in it. He stated that interpreting the code in that manner was doing a
grave disservice to the citizens. He contended chat the applicant was avoiding the
analysis required by LUBA by asking for a code incerpretation.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the applicant's proposal that policy 5.4 was complied with
simply by meeting the locational criteria was another way of not addressing the
encroachment issue; making that interpretation was also a bad idea for future
proposals. He said that he thought that the Council would be foreclosing the City
from esercisin; some of its review options down the road.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the differences between the existing neighborhood
~ commercial and a communiry commercial site demanded a fmding of greater impact
and a measurement of the impacts. He stated that a neighborhood commercial site
was Iimited in the code and the plan to a two acre development; they could find
nothing that exempted the existin; neighborhood commercial. zone from that
requirement.
Mr. Kleinman noted the differences between the neighborhood commercial
designation and the community commercial designation. He cited plan policy
12.2.1, section 1. a(2) that limited the trade area of a neighborhood commercial to
servinc, 5000 people; community commercial served a orade area within an 1.5 mile
radius. Neighborhood commercial did not permit restaurants, bars, general retail
uses or general office uses; communiry commercial did. Individual buildings in
neighborhood commercial were limited to 4000 square feet; the Albertson's store
alone was 40,000 square feet. '
Mr. Kleinman stated that che Council should consider the total square footaQe that
could be developed under communiry commercial (100,000 square feet), contending
that they did not know what would happea on that site in the future. He said that
a development of 57,000 square feet would have a substantially different and far
areacer impact than a neiQhborhood commercial development limited to two acres,
cicina the traffic impacts in panicular.
INir. Kleinman rei[eraced that there has been no analysis of how the impact on the
residential areas differed from movinQ the site across the intersection. He stated that
they thought that che site impacts should be analyzed in reasonable detail prior to
movin2 forward on this application. He said that they believed that the end result
was an encroachment under policy 5.4 and an- application lackin; even the most
fundamental baseline analysis of the impacts percaininQ to the encroachment.
CITY COUvCIL viEETING tifINUTES - APRIL 23,. 1996 - PAGE 20
. . • •
Mr. Kleinman reviewed Albertson's objectives of securing more space for its stoee
and rental space buc held that that objective in itself was not compli~~e with the
Comprehensive Plan or code provisions. He contended that Albertson°s concems
that the triangular shaped groperry would not be a proficable siee to develap were
personal economic considerations not permitted in this analysis and could not jeastify
under the plan a non-existence of impacts of encroachment. Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not [hink that the air quality impacts criteria
discussed by LUBA have been successfully addressed. He referred to his memo.
He said that the Plan required the City to ascertain from DEQ the pergnissibBEity af
these uses, particularly for the indirect source air pollution permit He coneended efza.e
the applicant's statement that chey have prepared an application for che germit did
not meet the necessary test of approval required to comply with the Plan.
REBUTTAI.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he wanted to review the document submitted by R+Ir.
Kleinman into the record as he suspected that there mighc possibly be one issue he
raised that was outside the scope of the remand. He stated that he reserved his right
to submit a written rebuttal wichin seven days.
Nfr. Shonkwiler pointed out that Mr. Kleinman was not involved with this process
from che beginning and mighc nat be aware of all the evidence in the record. He
cited a separate order from the City Council that stated that when Walnut Drive wenC
in, the shape and the size of the lot would be neighborhood commercial. He said
that this document resolved the five acre issue - the parcel was 6.93 acres, as
I~ already decided by the Council.
h1r. Shonkwiler noted that Mr. Kleinman admitted that LUBA found ehat a mbstake
was made in the zone desi;nation at the time of the annexation of this property inEo '
the Ciry and that that was a legitimate reason to uphold the zone change and pZan
amendment. He contended that the types of uses and size limitations of a
neighborhood commercial had no relevancy in this matter because the zoning should
have been community commercial instead of neighborhood commercial. Therefore
the impacts that Mr. Kleinman contended existed with a major change did noc in fact
exist because the zonincy desi;nation was wrong from the time of annexation. LUBA
found tha[ this zone chanQe corrected a mistake.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he would submit a written rebuttal addressin~ each of
these issues and submit ic within seven days. ~
z. Scaff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked abouc underQroundinQ facilities. Vfr. Shonkwiler said that
they intended to underQround all che facilities. He explained that the statement was
on paae 13 because undergroundina was a condition of approval.
CITY COUNCIL ivIEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 21
. . i
• .
Close Public Hearing -
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mahr stated that it was appropriate to close the record at this point and allow
the aQplicant seven days to submit a written argument; the argument could not
consist of any new evidence.
1\efayor Nicoli noted that the Council would take no furcher action on this item this
evening and closed the record.
Mr. Monahan said that staff would sec this for the date certain of May 14, 1996 for
~ Council action.
.
13. PUBLIC HEARING - LEGISLATIVE: PROPOSED LAiND USE A.PPLICATION
FEES/CITY OF TIGARD
a.Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenues: None
c. Staff Report
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, commented that staff has been
workin, for the last year on this update of fees to reflect today's cosLs. He stated
that the last update was 10 years ago; the report prepared four years ago was not
acted on at the time.
Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said that the
original report prepared four years a;o never ;ot to the Council for action. He
stated that the open house staff held for developers was attended only by the
Homebuilders Associa[ion; thouQh the Association would not endorse the fees, they
would not oppose chem either.
Mr. Bewersdorff noted that these fees relaced solely [o the cost of processing
applications; they did not include any follow up or lonQ range planning efforts. He
said that staff recommended recovering 100% of both direct and indirect costs.
d. Public Testimonv: None
e. ' Staff Recommendation
vfr. Bewersdorif recommended that Council direct staff to prepare a resolution to
. recover 100% of the direct and indirect costs of land use applications, includinQ
addinQ fees for those items listed in Exhibit A chat the City did not charae fees for
at this time.
' CITY COUNCIL TMEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 22
. ! • f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked about the new fees in Exhibit A. Mr. Bewersdorff
reviewed the list of those new fees. He said chat they were trying to recoup some
of the cost of the processing so that those costs wouldn't be borne by the ;eneral
taxpayer. '
Councilor Scheckla asked about the 40% additional fees mentioned. NIr.
Bewersdorff explained that when they received two applications at the same time,
such as a site development review application accompanied by a variance request,
they did noc charge the full fee for the second application; they proposed to charge
only 20% of the fee because so much of the work and notifications were done for
the first application anyway.
g. Close Public Hearing
Nlayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration
Ntoved by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt to direct staff to come
back with a resolution.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Nlayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
Mr. Hendryx reported that over the course of the next year staff would evaluate two
other fee schedules: Community Development looking at building related fees and
Engineering looking at land development fees.
14. ZONE ORDLNAiNCE aiviENDN1ENT (ZOA) 96-0001 - CTTY OF TIGARD -
UYDERGROUiNDI~i 1G UTILITIES EYCEPTION (Set over from Apri19, 1996 Council
meeting.) A proposal to amend the Ti;ard Communiry Development Code Section
13.164.120 to add Sections C and D to provide for esceptions to the underground utility
requirement and a fee in lieu of underaroundin;.
a. Open Public Hearin~ ~
~ Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearin;.
b. Declarations or ChallenQes
Councilor Moore stated thaE he would abstain from panicipacinQ since he had a sli;ht
conflict of interest.
c. Staff Report
Mr. Hendryx presen[ed the staff report. He said that the intent of chis ordinance was
to codify in written form the provisions and standards settinQ the City's ability to
recover the costs for underQroundin~ utilities. -He explained chat sometimes i[ was
not practical to underQround facilities at the cime of development as required by CiEv
CITY COUNCIL tifEETING NIIVUTES - aPRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 23
. • ~ .
standards. This ordinance set up a method that allowed the Ciry Engineer to
determine when undergrounding was applicable and when it was not, and to collect
a fee in lieu of undergrounding in order to have [he money available for
undergrounding in the future when it became practical to do so. He said that it set
up a series of service districts throu;hout the City to hold the money assessed in each district for that district's future undergrounding.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Staff Recommendation ,
Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.
f. Council Questions .
Councilor Hunt stated that he opposed setting up service districts because of the
' amount of bookkeeping it would generate in tracking the different funds by district
~ and because any given district might not have enough money by itself to
underground utilities.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the fund wasn't currendy set up in service districts. Mr.
Bewersdorff said that the process was currently divided inco six or seven districts in
order to provide a more accurate expenditure relative to the area, makin, sure that
the funds were spent in the area from which they were collected.
Councilor Hunt asked if this was the only fund divided by district. Mr. Bewersdorff
said that he believed that it was the only one. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he
could not support the ordinance.
Councilor Scheckla concurred wi[h Councilor Hunt's comments about one area not
having enough money to underground utilities and the unnecessary bookkeeping. He
suQ?ested pooling the money into one lar~e pot and allowin; the City the discretion
to move the funds around as needed. He stated that he would not support the
ordinance either, thouQh item #4 was the only portion that he did not support.
Councilor Rohlf stated that he thouaht that they needed to have some wav to aet the
~ money back to the areas so that those who paid for underszrounding could get it.
Mavor Nicoli concurred.
~ Close Public HearinQ
'vfayor Nicoli closed the public hearinQ.
ivIayor Nicoli suLyQested sending this to a workshop session for discussion on the sole
issue ot contention (item #4). He asked that it be scheduled for a session in June
afrer Councilor Hunt's retum.
vlr. Hendryx pointed out that without the ordinance, staff did not have a codified -
policy for the procedures they currencly used. .
CITY COliNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE.24
1
o . • ~
Mr. Monahan stated that staff would schedule this for the June work session wich
final Council action at the last meeting in June. I
.15. NON-AGENDA ITEViS
16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Ti;ard Ciry Council went into Executive Session at under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), &(h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
17. ADJOURiYVEEiNT: 10:33 P.M.
~ .
~ .112f~2P G
Attest: ' therine Wheadey, Ciry Re order
~ .
Mav ity of Tigard V
D : (CC
~
CITY COUNCIL NIEETING iN1INUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 25
1
. ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • I
RESOLUTION NO. 96Q2
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0002).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of one
parcel consisting of 0.47 acres located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon
receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting
District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), hereby initiates proceedings
for annexation to the City of Tigard of the territory described in Exhibit A and
illustrated in Exhibit B.
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the
Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effect it as soon as possible.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the resolution with
the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boun Commission at once.
~rl
PASSED: Thisday of A/11996.
Ma - City of Tigard
ATFEST:
' L~ i18 i_-, •ti -"l. r
Ty ecorder - City of Tiga-~-
r~ Certified to be e True Copy of
4Original on file rJ~~
Date - -
144Z
i:Urp1nlray\zca96-02.res
4/4/96, 5:00 PM = . CI~ e der •'ty of TigBrd
Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-~ ~
~ Page 1
. ~ ExazazT A
~
STAFF REPORT
Aprii 23, 1996
TiGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. en I form i n
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0002
REQUEST: To annex one parcel of 0.47 acres of unincorporated
Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change
the comprehensive plan and zone from Washington County
R-9 to City of Tigard Medium Density ResidentialiR-12.
APPLICANT: Bert Lundmark
3381 Coeur D'Alene Drive
West Linn, OR 97068
OWNERS: Michael & Joyce Ruff
12150 SW 124th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: Property to be annexed is located at 9275 SW Locust Street - WCTM 1 S1 26DC, lot 5203 (see Exhibit B, vicinity map).
2, Vicinity Information
Properties to the north and east are in Washington County and zoned R-9 and
R-5, respectively; properties to the south and west are in the city and zoned C-P
and R-12, respectively. There are single family houses on the residential
properties to the west, north and east of the site. The property to the south across
Locust Street has an office use. 3. Backaround Information
The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the property. No
previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to this parcel.
1
. • •
4. Site Information and Prol2osal Description
The property is located along Locust Street approximately 190 feet from the
easement for the future connection of SW 92nd Avenue with Locust Street. The
property is flat with a single family residence along the eastern boundary.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land
(100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, the owners have initiated this action through their written consent.
5. Agency Comments
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police Department, Unified Sewerage Agency,
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District and PGE reviewed the proposal and have
no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters
18.136 and 18.138.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the comprehensive plan based on the following findings:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
because the East CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, USA,
TVF&R and PGE have reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate
services are available and may be extended to accommodate the affected
property.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the
affected land is located within the city's urban plartning area and is
2
. . •
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the community development code based on the following findings:
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium
Density Residential/R-12 most closely conforms to the county
designation of R-9.
' d. The determination that the affected properties are an established
area is based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an
established area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends that the City
, Council adopt the attached resolution and forward it to the Boundary Commission
to initiate annexation of the subject property; and that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance assigning comprehensive plan and zoning designations to the
property upon approval of the annexation.
iArp1n\ray1ZCA96-02. stf
3
■
ld3Cl O(RJV01i JO AilO
~
w - ~ ' F=.
' -
. :
~ - '
~ . . . . . . `
°
:
. . . - ~
z -
--~1 .
3/~`d H106 - ~ - . . .r-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r ~t...•.•.'.'.•.•. 7 Z rn ~
f 1 N ~ n. '
) 111 1-
n.
-
't:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
. rl•: . ..:e~.'
! ~~t ~ :•i:•:•: . 7t:.':'.,...i~.•.•. , r~ ` ~ ~ ul -
~U.\v.'.:.: ..r..:.:.:.'... 17
vl U
•'r'.'•':':':•' _ `~'.'•'.'..~Y.. . . ~ V `7 U Q O
. ti~t'. ~C O
)•.'J 7 111 ~ - ~
l7f - - .:~'~J
V C c.•:•:•l:•.•.ti•~• a
_ - tC u. n
1
i-
S
• ui
~ .
11 z
s
:~~;/.•.c~~::;. .:.•l~:•: . • ~ -
iu z u
r' z
~
. {L' • + ii
:;:;Y.~.~.~.~:;.;.~.~.~.~:~.~;•
- o~ F-
- :v.•.•.•.•.•rl ~
.S•'•.. ~
i
_oz z
o -
~
. 4 U 4 CI 1- L
~ . ~ %
•:.J •.cli~.:
~ -
1
~ ~:r
~ ~.r t\
~
1
-
~nd ~
dNZ6
- 1
: :
..a:::::.~~~:~~-:
J
. .
Q \ ~
`
\
- Q
- -
:Q
'Y..,.,,., :
•
•'rr:•••'r;•;•'
x•r
Z
~
•1Ll .
- :.J -
•
:r
•i:~!•:•:•:•:~:•:•:•:•:
:v
•
- - :z'~•:•:~:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:~;:.;}.
~
•
•'r'r: -
~
U
tn
:.~:..:.:ti~:ti::::..
';T,.;:;:;: .
O
~
~j
+q :
- - 0
A1
ti~:
C
.
~
Y
:i•
~
. ' (A
0_._
m
~
~
ca
J.
~
a
{
~c
ai
:1.~: ~ ~
.I~:::':'::.'•;::•::.'..'~~.:
U
O
-
-
> Z
•~:i~:'~~~~~~~~~~~~..
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON .
ORDINANCE NO. 961'q
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0002).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning
designation for one parcel of land located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd.
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed
annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land
use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected property shall be designated as follows:
Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
1S1 26DC, lot 5203 Wash. Co. R-9 Medium Density Residential .
Current Zonin.g New Zoning
Wash. Co. R-9 Tigard R-12
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By U 17a11%1)10cLS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this~.3' d day o~ ~ , ~99 .
l, -t,?•~G(_:
, Csat#-ierine Wheatley, City Recorder
' APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this-=3 day of~ i 1996.
Jam i li, Mayor
Ap rov d s to form:
ity ttorney
~
Date i:Vrp1n\ray\zca96-02.ord 4/4/96, 4:45 PM
ORDINANCE No. 96-~ 1
Page 1
1 . ~ •
~
~ AGENDA ITEM # ~ I
For Agenda of April 23. 1996
~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 96-0002 -`-u n d mCL r K
PREPARED BY: Rav V~ DEPT HEAD OK /0-4 CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
~ Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary
Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel consisting of 0.47 acres located along the
north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd Avenue?
;
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary
Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformance
with the city comprehensive plan.
. INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of one parcel of land totaling 0.47 acres which
~ is contiguous to the City of Tigard. The applicant requests annexation in order to partition the property.
~ Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the comprehensive plan and
~ zone designations from Washington County R-9 to Tigard Medium Density ResidentiaV R-/.
i
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Deny the request.
FISCAL NOTES
` Since the territory is not within the city's active . planning area, the applicant is responsible for the
Boundary Commission application fee of $225.
{ -
i:Urp1nlraylzca96-02.sum
4/4/96, 4:35 PM
1
, .
~
' • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • .
. RESOLUTION NO. 96-_
I
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0002).
I
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of one
paroel consisting of 0.47 acres located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd I
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon
• receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the tertitory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs
Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting
District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Counal that:
Section 1: The CitY Council, Pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), herebY initiates proceedin9s
for annexation to the City of Tigard of the temtory described in Exhibit A and
illustrated in Exhibit B.
Secfion 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the
Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effed it as soon as possible.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certfied oopies of the resolution with
the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission at once.
PASSED: This day of , 1996.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
Date
i:Urp1n4ay%zca96-02.res
4/4J96, 5:00 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 96-_
Page 1
. . • • E%BIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
April 23, 1996
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL . .
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
I i
' A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
~ CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0002
REQUEST: To annex one parcel of 0.47 acres of unincorporated
Washington County land to the Ciiy of Tigard and to change
the comprehensive plan and zone from Washington County
R-9 to City of Tigard Medium Density ResidentiaUR-12.
APPLICANT: Bert Lundmark
3381 Coeur D'Alene Drive West Linn, OR 97068
~ OWNERS: Michael & Joyce Ruff
12150 SW 124th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: Property to be annexed is located at 9275 SW Locust Street -
WCTM 1S1 26DC, lot 5203 (see Exhibit B, vicinity map).
l
2. Vicin' Information
. Properties to the north and east are in Washington County and zoned R-9 and
R-5, respectively; properties to the south and west are in the city and zoned C-P
and R-12, respectively. There are single family houses on the residential
properties to the west, north and east of the site. The property to the south across
' Locust Street has an office use. 3. Background Information
The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the property. No
previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to this parcel.
1
. • • .
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property is located along Locust Street approximately 190 feet from the
easement for the future connection of SW 92nd Avenue with Locust Street. The
property is flat with a single family residence along the eastem boundary.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land
(100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
- annexed, the owners have initiated this action through their written consent.
5. 8gencv Comments
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police Department, Unified Sewerage Agency,
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District and PGE reviewed the proposal and have
no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1.
10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters
18.136 and 18.138.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant Portions of
the comprehensive plan based on the following findings:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
because the East CIT and surrounding property owners have been notfied
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate servioe capacity defivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, USA,
TVF&R and PGE have reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate
services are available and may be extended to acxommodate the affected
property.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the
affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is
2
. ' • .
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the community development code based on the following findings:
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
. a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
' are available and have sufficient capacfty to serve the affected site.
~ b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have
° been reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium
~ Dens"ity ResidentiaUR-12 most closely conforms to the county
~ designation of R-9.
; d. The determination that the affected properties are an established
area is based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
. 2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an
a established area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution and fonivard it to the Boundary Commission
to initiate annexation of the subject property; and that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance assigning comprehensive plan and zoning designations to the
. property upon approval of the annexation.
~
i:Wp1nVaylZCA96-02.stf
1
3
1
I
~ . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON •
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0002).
WHEREAS, the Tigarcl City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning
designation for one parcel of land located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd.
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Counal approved a resolution fonivarding the proposed
~annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission; and
' WHEREAS, the zoning distrid designation reoommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most dosely approximates the Washington County land
use designation while implementing the c~ty's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
; Density Residential.
F
~ THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affeded property shall be designated as follows:
Tax Man. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
~ 1S1 26DC, lot 5203 Wash. Co. R-9 Medium Density Residential
Current Zonina New Zonina
Wash. Co. R-9 Tigard R-12 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorcler.
~ PASSED: By ' vote of all Counal members present after being read by number and title
only, this day of . 1996.
. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Counal this _ day of , 1996. James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
' City Attomey '
i
Date
~
~ i:"nVay1zca96-02.ord 4/4/96, 4:45 PM
ORDINANCE No. 96-_ Page 1 .
~
- FAX TRANSMITTAL -
*PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD L(&
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
DATE:_April 5. 1996
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
- FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on April 23, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard
Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony ~
is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter
18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an
issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to
provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the
issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125
SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. ~
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the city
and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City of Tigard
Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust Street just west
of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case
are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity;
10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters
18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE:
Presently, Washington County R-9.
,
ST
B
t
~ .
ii::i'`i:::`:i ~
I
ii:~i;::::.: • •.r::: <
<
~
=AE
(
~
BORDERS
i
W
I
0
I
,
C~ 1
Z
~
~
~
Z
~
m
RAL
,
~
- E
~
h
~ n
~
. . : ~ I
Yii i:~ ~ i~i;~;i: i~::i~:;~:?~r;;~Si:~;;~::::"r<i:: i::;~:.::~i::>~i:~i5:%~5::>;i::~i ~:::~i:~:: > _:..;i':.;<;:a• ;::i ~
;;t[: ~%'ii:i:it~t[:::[:'S;j;:i
~
. .
~
. j
V ~
~i•~ ~'.:~i i:t'<',;.
~>;:Fi
~i . ii~:i~i;:C::~i:i::4:ii>~~~'~~::
~:a:>::rJ:::
:1.%:ry<;:~;;
•>:>;>:~:c ;;:5: iii`%'iii%i'ii;;~i; ~
i?.; 2`;i;2;t: ~ .;mp:o;::•<,:::<o: ~ »»»:y
~>:;tY~.^,•
i;t(a•`~:.'::;`:';2;[ii;;;?;;;i.:;~.:i ~i(;::i;;i::'<': i;:i;<.';?i`%;j: it;:i ~;i;2~:ii: ;i:i;i;i[:~i! ii;.ti~i ii>i~i[ ,iSi:; .
~
;i:3;:iiii::?i
>:>:;.::o :;>1~:...
112ii:;~>;i:i:i;;:::i
...........::::::::.::r::.;.,,
1 ~
~ '
~[~t~t;2;:
•`''..>~'C:[iiti"t`.:.iC~i»:!.r~.~tir:tti tti'ti
~
;?:i~;i ~ i~i~:i`2`;:; ~::.:;:;;>:;:..:;~>:p;:;Y `•:~>:;r......,...::..` \ . ~ : o-:•
n~:::
~:3~";~ii~ii~ii: •:i~i~i~i~~:i>'i~~i~::::'~:>:>::•:>:::~i;;;~;:::~i~:t>:i~~ :~;;:i:i~:i~i~: ::i.. a!..
: : . ..I...::::: ~;r;::~li:>:;3:;;:~
~r.c::~»•~>:~: :•>r::~:»:•>:~::>:~::~::. :x::»> :•.t;;;;; O
. . 3::'i ~i~; ~'i;~:iiii:::ii:;~i>:i:~i r:~>::•:.. . G>:•:~
i:'ii::i::ii::~i~:,:i.iii~ii;:;iii: ~i;c::::i:~:i: ~i::if::i^i:r.::::.:s>o-::.>::.':~:S:F::ii~ii:;i:iii:~:>:+:::::`•»~
:::~.ci' .~>y:.::.:~:<.:•p::::»:.>::•
TT PUBLISH A ril 11 1996
~ .
.<:>;.:»:::;:::<°>»::::":':'
. .
•+..eurro..+oso.tc~~ho~•.ou
cou.m ro cm •.n
Vicinity Map ^ N°`°••••• r 1
Note: Map is not to seale °^"m°~o~r `J
~ N xnrni~ no~no un uwin
K 'y • •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ~
CtTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
.
TO: Brian Rager. Engineering- DATE: M c 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray V o e
Phone. 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-77
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City
of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust
Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service
delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification
of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 8. 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If vou are unable to respond bX
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number: x ~i~
04/04/96 14:23 $503 526 2538 TV FIRE MARSHAL 0001/003
. • •
Tualatin VaIrey Fire & Rescue
'
FNre Marshalis Office
4755 SW Griffrth Dr.
Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 526-2469 fAX: (503) 526-2538
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL To: .
f1'Olli: e
Date: y- ~ f (o
RE:
Note:
Number of pages:
(including cover pagc)
If you do not receive all pages, please call as soon as possible (503) 526-2469
Thank you.
JP~,T1N
Q~ "Working" Smoke Detectors Save Lives
~QF&RES~~
04/04/96 14:23 $503 526 2538 TV FIRE MARSHAL 1?1002/003
n
J • •
~ REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ~
CSTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Gen Birchel . TVFD DATE: March 27. 1996
FROM: Tgard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray V lone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The appficant and owners request annexatian of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change ofi the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City
of Tigard Medium Qensity Residentia{/R-12. LOCATION: Property is iocated at 9275 Locust
Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service
delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Communiiy
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification
of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9. •
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. Fram information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information availab(e to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision wi{I be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENT BACK BY: Apri 8.1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are u able #o res,eond by,
the ove d te, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confrm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING rTEMS THAT APPLY:
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objedions to it.
i Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided befow:
(Please provide the following information)
Narr~e of Person Commenting: t--~ S-
Phone Number:
• ' . •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ~
CfTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Lee Walker. USA DATE: _March 27. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City
of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust
Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service
delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification
of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 8, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please rovide the followin information
p J )
Name of Person Commenting: o. '
Phone Number: ~
+ A.~ • .
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ~
CiTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Brian Moore. PGE DATE: March 27. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City
of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust
Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service
delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification
of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 8. 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bv
~ the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
✓ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
~ (Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: -bo AWJ
Phone Number: 4t:)QQ "
0 •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ~
CSTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Kelley Jennings. PD DATE: March 27. 1996 ,
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City
of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust
Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service
delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification
of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.
; Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 8. 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bX
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: '
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information
>
Name of Person Commenting. ~
Phone Number:
v
. ~ f
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ~
CITY OF TIGARD
FILE NO: ZCA 96-0002 OREGON
FILE TITLE: Lundmark Annexation
APPLICANTS: Bert Lundmark OWNERS: Michael & Joyce Ruff
3381 Coeur d'alene Drive 12150 SW 124th Avenue
West Linn, OR 97068 Tigard, OR 97223 I
REQUESTS: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the city
and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to
City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12.
LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen
involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3,
zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation
requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.
CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request
PHONE NUMBER: (503)
DECISION MAKING BODY
STAFF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30
HEARINGS OFFICER - DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00
' X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 4/23/96 TIME: 7:30
RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER
STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (503) 639-4171 x336
TIG
ARD
April 26, 1996 ON
7OREG_,~
Ken Martin, Executive Officer
Portland Metropolitan Area
Local Government Boundary Commission
800 NE Oregon Street #16
Suite 540
Portland, OR 97232
Dear Ken:
I am writing to submit the enclosed forms for a city-initiated,
double majority annexation (Tigard ZCA 96-0001) and to request
space on the Boundary Commission's agenda of May 30, 1996.
The Lundmarks purchased the property during this annexation
request and the BC forms reflect the new owners. Also, a new
tenant moved in the house, but is not a registered voter.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
call me at 639-4171. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Ray Valone
Associate Planner
Enclosures
13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
~
LUNDMARK HOMES 6042
Albert C. Lundmark
338 COEUR D' ALENE DR. 655-8004 24-221141
WEST LINN, OR 97068 19~ t23o
PAY
AOR TNE
DER OF_
'•-t~ l'' ' ` ~ DOLLARS
~
U.S. BANK
I-800-438-5663
UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON
~
FOR -
. . . - _ . . . . _ . . ~ _ _ .
r
• PMAL GBC FORtit
PETITION FOR .-NNE,iATION TO THE CITY OF I-\ C=` OREGOIV
T0: The Council of the Ciry of Oregon
We, the undersigned prooe:zy owners oi and/or re;istered voters in the area descr.bed bela•.v,
hereby peririon for, and give our cansent to, annexation oi the area to the Ciry or
4.; . Ii oDproved by the citv, we furcher reques: th3t L~:iS penIIOn be
. i
forw'azded co the Portland tifetroooiitan Ares iocal Governmeat Boundary Commission ior
the necessary procedures as or°scribed by ORS 199.490(2).
Tne propery to be annexed is desc7bed as foilows:
(Insert Le; al Description liere OR attaclc it as Erlcibit "A .
1 i
II , ~eviced 11i93
1•L: I I 1 lul4 :,11..11c I15
F1UfE: l l t i s liuiiliun rnuy bu sipnud by quolitiull liursuns ovun Ihuliuh Ihuy tnuy nut knuw Ihuir property dnscrlpliun ur prncincl nunlbnr. SIGNATUftE F'RINTEU NAME I AM A:• ADDHESS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PRECINCT p OATE
pO ny Ov LOT p 1/4 6EC. T R
- /
Y- ~Y GLCS `>zU~ J- l, S
A , 33s~ ea=k~C ~A
► c. L 0 Nn~►~ X W~ 110A, , oQ. 1 S
:;kl< I
~
,
' PO - Prupurly Owner
RV - (iu(Iisturu(l Volur •
UV = (Jwnur Vutnr
•
PMA L GE C FORM n t
CERTIFIC4 TION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONAjVD iLfAP
I he:eoy cerriry that the descriprion of the ocoperry inciuded within the attached peririon (located on
Assessor's NSap alD F)oz ~
h3s been checked by me and it is a true snd exact descriprion of che propery under consideration,
and the descriprion corresponds to the attacaed map indicating the properry under consideratian.
v.~NfE ,
TITLE CIA ~
~
DEP:\RTtiIEV-?' M4'
COL~ i `i OF ]i 0
DAr
~ ~
• •
Beginning at the SW corner of Lot 1, Block C, Lehmann Acre Tract,
in washington County, Oregon, thence North 176.1 feet to the NW
corner of Lot 1, thence continuing North 55.1 feet, thence S 89°
561E, 90.3 feet, thence South 154.2 feet, thence West 3 feet,
thence South 77 feet to the North right of way of County Road 753,
, thence West 90.3 feet to the point of beginning.
1 •4 ~
PM4L GBC FORM #16
~
CERTIFIC-:lTION OF PROPF_RTY OWNERSHIP
- (Double Majoriry Merhod)
I hereby certify that the attached petition for annexaaon of che territory described therein to the City
of ~ contains the names of the owners* of a majority of the land are3 of the
territory to be annexed, as shown on the last avaiIabie comolete assessment roll.
N~'12E
~
. , ~
TITLE DEPARTNEE:+TI' T
,
C OTNIY OF
DATE-MAA 11}~qqb
* "Owner" means the owner or the title to real prooerry ar the contract purchaser of real
prapem.
P11L4LGB C FORAf K17 -
CERTrFIC~£TIOY OF REGISTERED VOTERS ~
~ Y hereoy cet:7fV th3t iI'1e 3tt3Ched petition tor annexanon of territory described he:ein to che City of
i
Tigard contains the names of at IeaSt 3'IitajOl"iN oi the
e!ec,ors reaisteree in the teritotv ta he annexed. ( 1 S1 26DC-5203 )
,
N-1, A:tifE L~4,41 Ll'iG/,/
^~7
111 LL nior ~
DEPART~EENi assessment & Taxation - Election Division
COL`~+'TY Or Washington D'= March 15, 1996
--!s--
R!`r1S2.'1 1 1.'Q3
. • .
PMAL GBC FOR:y! Ar'I9
(Tiris jor,rr is ;VOT che Per.'ciors)
ALL OTPVF=S CF?ROP-ER7't.4lvD/QR :~GFS?=~~ rOTERS l.vCLC%L'ED Iv 30b~VD'4RY
?R0?OS,s r .-t12L 1
(To 6e comoie:ed L c;Ze orooosal centains 10 or ;.-wer land owne;s/re;istered voce:s.
?!ease indicace che ❑ame and aaaress oi ail ownt:sivocers re;atdIess of wi;e:her chev
siped an uuie:C3II0(1 OdIIIi0f1 OC 10C) 1A15 t5 COC ROClLiCaCOR p11I"pOS2S.
`+.-\.%C Or 0`~~+L~,v'OT=~~ .kJDR:.S S ?ROPS-Ri Y DESIGNALLOt1
(Ir:dicste rax (oc. sec^:on numae:,
Tovynsaio izc R:nQe)
~
~~3LZ~ 33(~51 -C. \
~v3 . ~ ~ bL 71 S
Z.Fv3 L +~.E Lv,-~n !-~21C
~
t=.~
, , ~ _ _ . . . : , .
. . . • .
PAfALGBC FDRM #ZO
DOUBLE ~LfAJORlTY WORK SHFET ~
Please list all propertieslregistered voters inciuded in the proposal. (If needed, use separate sheet for
additioaal listings). -
PROPERTIES
Propercy Assessed S Ifed Peacion
Designation Name of Owner Acres Value Yes No
(Tax Lot Ts)
4 G' ?J ~-r-
1
~
I I
I ~
I (
4
l1
I I 1
I I
i I
I
I 1
_ II
I
~
,
TOTALS :?"1 , 1:~-L ~
,
~
RevIS2d 1 irg3
P.1~l.-iL GEC FOR:yt 420 (continued) ,
iZEGISTEi2ED iOT~~R.S
~
ADDP,.=SS OF iZEisiS icR: 7~~ ~ V.ti.tilE OF REGISi:;.RED SIGvED PET?TOv
` V'oter Vote: Yes I `jo
~j
I I I 1
( ! I I i
! i { i I
; ► I
~
I I
; i OTa,i Z
► ! i 1
i
17 . ~ N-Lr~Z ti.Gi~Z 77 7~.~ V0~':~ ?RQ?0,;.-.; G
.`L.1ti..~~.~ ~...Lr1.~iT~.`...✓ ~Ivl ~
;Z7G`=D =(:R
- 0~ L...,.._ _ _
~ u ~
P1tiIALGBC FOR~tiI m6
, B 0 LT ADAR Y CHAIvGE DA TA SHEET
1. EXISTING CONDITIOjVS INArZE.4 TO BEAVNEXED OR WITHDRATfriV
A. Land Area: Acres 01q`I or Square Niiles
B. General description of territory. (Include topographic features such as slopes,
vegetation, drainage basins, floodplain areas, which are pertinent to this proposal).
~ p
I ,
~ ~ 'r ~ a•-(~:Sa/s-✓
= ~s 3
/1 L o C, ~ ~ z. ~
C. Descnbe land uses on surroundin0 ` parcels. Use tax lots as ref0 ..r0 ,.nc..0 points.
North: ~ e.~ T-~N•-~~--f ~s: tic-~ orJ ~J n st(. ('z~,.
~
~
E3Si: et C-.. S; ~i."''.; L"f -D-~-c
C. t-J .J 115 4 . C.7 L.A J 1 I.5 I 2L-.15L L at S S 2(.` C j 2 oj
~
sourn: c~ - Z-:'~.
C_P
wesc: AL-t66 / h l.ovG
( f Sk 2 i: t-) C,5- 1~I A cA.; ~P11. b p~ 2M 91ii~ ~12...(N wcSz222 5u u.•h~
r (rsi 2~dC.,~~"0~
D. Exisnne ~ Land Lse:
' Number of single-familv units I Number of multi-familv units C~
Number commercial structures C1 vumber industrial structures C)
Public facilities or other uses Cj
What is the current use the land proposed to be annexed: 6L:: Tv,•~~~f ~.cS .
E. Total current vesr Assessed Valuation S L S, 9~ U
F. Total existing population ~
11
Revised 1 l.!93
. •
H. RF,ISON FOR BOUNDARY CHANGE
A. ORS 199.462 of the Boundary Commission Act states: "In order to carry out t'r.e
purposes described in ORS 199:410 when reviewin; a boundary change..., a boundary
. commission shall. consider loca] comprehensive planning for the area, economic,
demographic, sociological_projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospect:ve
physical developments of (and that would directlv or indirectly be affected by the
proposed boundary change..." Considering these points, please provide the reasons the
proposed boundary change should be made. Please be very specific. Use additional
, pages if necessarv. (T'his information is often q,uoted in the S:aff Report, so be
thorough and complete.)
~
I!-C, A P..1 --k L.
C
B. If the properrv to be served is entirely or substantially undeveloped, what are the plans
' for future development? Be speciFic. Describe type (residential, industrial, commercial,
etc.), densiry, etc.
~ r ~ D ` t.l.< < ~ s ~ ti c ~ ~ . L s:
.
.c.iC~. A.r D s S ~~ti ✓ S~.S rt `~r l.
III. Lf1ND USE AjVD PL4NNI.VG
A. Is the subject territory to be developed at this time? N^
B. Generallv describe the anticipated development (building types, facilities, number of
units).
tiIA
C. Is the subject territorv inside or outside of the T)Jetro Regional Urban Grow-th
Boundarv?
12
Revised 11/93
D. What is the applicable County Planning Designation? I~
or City Planning Desianation i~ ~ Does the proposed development comply «zth applicable reg-ional, county or ciri~
.
comprehensive plans? Please describe.
. .
E. What is the zoning on the territory to be served?
i
ru t-~ i 1.•'( C..J.•, S ~•1.
,
F. Can the proposed develooment be accomplished under current counry zoning? ❑ Y'es ❑ No
If No,---has a zone chanee been sou2ht from the county either formally or informally.
o Yes ❑ No
Please describe outcome of zone change request if answer to p: evious questions was
1'es.
G. Is the proposed development compatible with the city's comprehensive land use plan for
the area?
❑ 1'es ❑ No 11 Citv has no Plan for the area.
Has the proposed development been discussed either formally or informally IVvith any of
the following? (Please indicate)
o City Plannina Commission ❑ Ciry Plannin7 Staff
❑ City Council ❑ City IManager
Plesse describe the reaction to the proposed development from the persons or agencies
indicated above.
13
Revised 11/93
. Armits ~
H. Please indicate and/or aPP . rovals from a Ci', Count, or Regional
Government which will be needed for the proposed development. If alread}r granted,
please indicate date of aoproval and identifying number:
APPROVAL PROJECT DATE OF FTi-I'URE
FILE T APPROVAL REQLTIRENMNT
Metro UGB Amendment
City or County Plan A-mendment
Pre-Applicarion Hearing (Ciry or Counry) I
Preliminary Suodivision Approval I
Final Plat ADproval Land Pamtion I I
Conditional Use
V ari an ce
Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal I
Buildine Permit I
~
Please submit copies of proceedings relating to any of the above permits or approvals
which are pertinent to the annexation.
I. Ir a cirv and/or county-sanctioned citizens' -group exists in the area of the annexation,
please tist its narrie and address of a contact person.
7
IY" SER L7CFS AND UTILITIES
A. Please indicate the follow-ino:
l. Location and size of nearest water line which can serve the subject area.
o%E _Z N
W
14 •
Revised 11/93
. ~ ~ .
2. Location and size of ne3rest sewer line which can serve the subject area.
-'c, ,i'r~rc rY
c'- s, S72cL~ 1~
Proximitv of other facilities (storm drains, fire engine companies, etc.) which can
serve the subject area
~-r1 ~ .'~t-: ` ---c.: i •L, L~ C ~ S~ S ~ ,
~ v
U S
;
4. The time at whicn services can be reasonaoly provided by the city or district.
YA vL L n ,-t i c: ~ S ~ T- -
i
4;. The estimated cost of extending such facilities and/or services and what is to be
the method of financing. (Attach any supporting documents.)
Pn i~ L.- LA~- i
o. Availabiliry of the desired service from any other unit of local government.
(Please indicate the government.)
h,' c ✓L~
15
Revised 11/93
. ~
B. If the territory descnbed in the proposal is presently included within the boundaries of
any of the following rypes of governmental units, please so indicate by stating the name
or names oi the govemmental units involved.
City Rural Fire Dist!
• ~-a ~ ..7 .w. . . E • .
County Service Dist. ~e•~~~.~ 1 Sanitary District Lt ~A
kZz : 2.OZ
~
Hwy. Lighring Dist. Water District U.AL- V-Lt~-
Grade School Dist. L- Drainage District
High School Dist. Sl r~ tis Dikin- District
Library Dist. Psrk & Rec. Dist.
, Special Road Dist. Othzr Dist. Supplying W ater Service
' C. If any of the above units are presently servicing the territorv (for instance, are residents
in the territory hooked up to a public sewer or water system), please so describe.
'j1'N' U 9.q /Z:,:. r~ .t'V. ~ C,,_, ;.c...~ N ct ~j S r,h:• ~f j A~' i.e ~ L j'i' S/~ ~
J • / Vl_ jL\ NG I T~. f~ U r L 2 i j
APPLICAN?'S NAIN1E
MAILING ADDRESS ( 3(2S S c.-% tJ ~ LL g LAI d ,
t C- A~~~ o.C S -7zZ3
C c A -4~
TELEPHONTE NL."vIBER (Work)
(Res.)
REPRESENMNG
DATE: A~2; L ZU a t5 q b
16
Revised 11/93
. ~ ClTY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ .
RESOLUTION NO. 96-.Iq
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNExATiON TO THE CITY OF TfGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0002).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a heanng on April 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of one
parcel consisting of 0.47 acres located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon
receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the temtory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District, Washington County Urbun Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting
' District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, 6E IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(8), hereby initiates proceedings
for annexation to the City of Tigard of the territory described in Exhibit A and
illustratzd in Exhibit B.
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the
Portland Nletropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effect it as soon as possibie.
Saction 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to rile certir~ed copies cf the resolution with
the Poriland Nletrooolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once.
PASSED: This % day of 996.
kla~joy City of Tigard
i~
ATFEST:
.
"-Ciiy,Recorder - City of Tiaard`-' Certified to be a True Copy of
Daie Original-on file
0.If71f11icV\zCaC7-02.fES B`/;~jL~~~/~ y ) n1 :!l
V
~..`,a 1=ti•~ y
C+tY ke o der - C,ty of Tgard
, oade: ~~~1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-~ ~
°ace 1 -
EsaiszT a
. - • • ~ ~
STAFF REPORT
April 23, 1996
TIGARD CIIY COUNClL .
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0002
REQUEST: To annex one parcel of 0.47 acres of unincorporated
Washington Gounty land to the City of Tigard and to crange
the comprehensive plan and zone from Washington County
R-9 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12.
APPLICANT: Bert Lundmark
3381 Cceur D'Alene Drive
West Linn, OR 97068
OWNERS: Michael & Joyce Ruff
12150 SW 124th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: Property to be annexed is located at 9275 SV\/ Locust Street -
VVCTM 1S1 26DC, lot 5203 (see Exhibit B, vicinity map).
2. Vicini Informa'tion
PrcperLies to the north and east are in VVashington County and zoned R-9 and
R-5, respectiveiy; properties `o the south and west are in the cihy and zoned C-P
and R-12. respective!y. There are single family houses on :ne residentiaf
proper-ties io the west, north and east of the site. Tne property to the south across
Lccust Street has an orice use.
3. 5ackaround InTOrmation
The aopficant approached the city with a request to annex the prooerty. No
previous applications have been reviewea by the city relating to this parcef.
• •
4. Site Information and ProQOSaI Descri t~ion
The property is located along Locust Street approximately 190 feet from the
easement for the future connection of SW 92nd Avenue with Locust Street. The
property is flat with a single family residence along the eastern boundary.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land
(100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, the owners have initiated this action through their written consent.
5. AQency Comments .
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police Department, Unified Sewerage Agency,
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District and PGE reviewed the proposal and have
no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The re(evant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Ticard Community Development Code chapters
18.136 and 18.138.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the rzlevant portions of
the comprehensive plan based on the following findings;
~
1. Polic 2.1.1 r uirin
y , eq g an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
becausz the East CIT and surrounding oroperry owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
oarce!s, is satisfied 'oecause the Police Department, Engineering, USA,
TVF&R and PGE have reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate
szrvices are available and may be e,ctended to accommodate the affected
properry.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
prooosal will not crEate a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Depar'Lment has been no'tiried of this request and has no objection; the
affiected land is locat.- J within the ciry's urban planning area and is
2
, , . . . . • ~
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the community development code based on the following findings:
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposa{s, is satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have '
been reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Nledium
Density Residential/R-12 most closely conforms to the county
designation of R-9.
d. The determination that the affected properties are an established
area is based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the ccde.
2. Code Section 18.138, praviding standards for the classification of annexed
land, +s satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an
established area and shal{ be so designated on the devefopment standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
C. RECOMMENDATION
6ased on the findings notea above, the planning ste`f recommends that the City
Councii adopt the attached resolution and forward it to the Boundary Commission
to initiate annexation of the subject property; and that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance assigning comprehensive plan and zoning designations to the
property upon approval oT the annexation.
i
I:U:Cir-1ray\ZC.aSo-O2.S~d
i
L.\L11.. 1 ~
~ . . ~ ~ ' / .
......'1•.... . ~
~ ~ • \ Cm o/ ~Aeo
~
~
I ~
~
~
~
L
~
I
91
S
T
I
~
I
~ I
i
~
I
w ■
~
~
I
~
► w
I
~
> .
Q ~
~
I
~ - ~
Q I
I L-LILI-i BORDERS
~
~
I
I
~
I
i
(
I
I
~
~
~
~
r•
~
~
~
~
r:
:i:
I I
. I
~
~
I ! I
~
~
I ~
~
1 r I
I
1 ~
I I
I t
1
I ~
~
'l'• ~
'
~
I
~
1 I
~
i
~
I
~
' ::;L~r-1~LtAN~
~
i .
+ ~I
I
i
~
I
J
l
I
~
I
I
'
~
z
T
I
0
i
~
I
I
Z;
I
~
- ~
~
N
~
I
~
~
{ i
I
I ~ I
i
I
~
I
:r.:
~RAL
~
~
~
i
~
~
~
•r....•...•:
~
~
~
I
I
~
I
~
i
.
~
- - - ~ ~
- ~ ~
~ -
~
~ I I I I
~
1
I
!
I
~
~
I ~
~ I I ~ ~ 1 i ~
- - - -
:~ri•' 'i:.~~:
•
•:L
~i
i
:c'
I
_
~
~
~
:
i
I -
~ -
~
~
~
i
. T::''.''.::..:... -
~
i -
~ti;..
•r,.
.~t•-
~
_
•C..
I ~
.~~u::,::~~:•:•:•:•:•:•'•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
: i.~....... .
. . . . . . . . . .
,
,
.
,
I
~
_
- ~ v.•:•:•'~:~:~:~:•:~:.
.•r.''.'.. .
.
. •
' •
•
.
~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~
,
•.~.•.i•.4.•.•.~.•.~.•.•.•.~.•.~.•r.•.~.~.•.~.•.•.'.•.•.•.•.•r.•.•.•.~.•.•.•.• . .
i
~
I
' '.t•.
LL
~
~
.
~
~
.
~
t
I
.
1
I
i '
~
, I
f', a.V.`.c.U '.:'S : Z:,AV'3c "-'A ~
,%r :l" 7! .i.; I ~ I
Vicinity i>>lao
/ ~ _-~~:3= ='•eti _.:.v-•, q.; I ~
~ . I
~ No'e: Map is r,ot tc sc^
'Ni-,;tN -:GA.:ZC _:rn175
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~
ORDINANCE NO. 96J ~
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0002).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Councii held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning
designation for one parcel of land located along the north side of SW Locust Street, west of SW 92nd
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed
annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Sec:ion 1 below is that which most cfosely approximates the Washington County land
use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected property shall be designated as follows:
Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
1S1 26DC, lot 5203 Wash. Co. R-9 Medium Density Residential
Current Zoning New Zoning
Wash. Co. R-9 Tigard R-12
SECTION 2: This ordinance' shall be eif2c;ive 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By Ur'vote or all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, thisz:~- • ° day 1 91~6.
Gatherine Wheatley, City Racorder -
APPROVED: By TiGard City Council this-_:5 day cr.-/. /',74 1 1996.
1 ' n !i•
James~Ddicoli, Mayor
Ap, rov,as to rorm: ~
iG(Yr~~
Cty A'~tornev
Date i^drolnVay\zca9o-02.orc d/4;90. 4:115 rM
ORDINANCE No. 96-1 ~
Page 1
03/28/96 11:45 '$6262915 C 21„FYRIGHT 14002
~ ~A.~C ~ r . ~ . ,
20S .ryp 4w^ v-
r.
h13T'.. 27 1~ •g~2
MAR--2 ~-'3o W~D iT s2t RoD SINe • .
~ITY OF! ~GARI)r ~~0011
ALM . .
p •*iD 20 Gr Oh*a d~ N R'
CITP Og TIGA1tD, 13125 sW ga.?,, PO Bas 23393 .
ToArd, Oregon 47223 -(503) 639-4171 FO$ S't4F? VS3 caYL!•
. .
CUE N0. ;ZCJk 0002
' OTHER cASS N4'S: '
. , . _
RECEIPT 148. A2FLICA2ION ?1CC8PTfiD BY : _...L`'.. DATE: 3 2ti ~ .
1. GLNVAL IImOMTIWN Applic$Cian elemelitS s044r red ;
~~R.TY I~flRFSS/3~OCe~'~tON 5~..) i.vtu S~C' S~- ✓tA~ Appiicatton foro * 1)
. iMP~`~ - ~VZaar
w~ZtJ•2A ' G£ ~ ~j ✓C~) Gsnar'9 sign$tcs:t•Iwrtttets
TAX MAP AND TRS( GOT u0. 5! ~b bL z-r 5`23 3 aur.horizat3ca
.r...^.~..~.,.. - ~ ~ CC? 3pplf.C3ut'9 SG~~~<mrc~L
8ITE 6xZE G.4 ? .a «cS
Fa4g88TY CWM(DELD 9OLDER*11LdjffACkf,_`9 /(D) Fixing fee
ADARSSS 12.1160 S~ La~~w P&ONL' Addit+_ena.7 !aPormacion• fi,r Cerapre-
CZTY ~"1G--?A ZIP IT7223 sive Pian Map Fmeadments'1-rne Ckaages
AFPF.I~tL.o N cA'l~'~.~ • (B) MegB iacic+~~xnv ar(spertiy
■ ~~+~.~+~nw ~~.n~~~~ r~~
mmS f._ENZ61 SgMjtw~~~ y~PHONS ,~4. locstfon 'Cpre-~p~ ~ heeic. ].isti)
. ---~.M
GI:Y lkg r, ZIP 9_7~~..r, (r ) iist of pFVne:: v own-ers aad
•Wtte-4 ctte aw;tqr aad the applfcaat are di£:e.eat . 8$dresses WiCh' :'"A1 fees (1)
,peoglt, the ayp1icaat e►ust be t::~ gurchaset of record (r) Assessor's Hr-p t;:
o: elessez in v_ossesssan eith wrIttea aut.:arszatioa 00 Aitle trarsfer. S.aocmaat (1)
fzOlz the ouner ar aa Qgettt d+ tke cwuer :t:rh r*,_it:e:. •
aathortzgtion_ Thp ow: e:(s) mtsat siga tbis '
apgliCat-i.an i.q the sp&Ce. pzvti-Ided oa page t4►p a: ' submit a,crittp:: 3uthorizatioa Lrizh tkss applicar±on. Da^sn IIbTFM?VED TO BE ~'i~~Pl,•r,2s; Z. £~80QaSAtSv'~l~A.~Y i....w+~..~,.. , , AI 9(S Tttt a"era a reco ~ t: e saa eet proeerzy
MUT, DICIS_pN DE3DLIN-::
req+sest a~~~~ (~i CeXP.
epnli,cAb2e) f: om~••~`.s tc : ws,}~ ' a. end 8 7.or.e Ctisage L'Oaa tp
sok ,R,.1Z N.P.O. ht.nber:
.
PR
'Ftte 4RpltceAc regue6te an 4r~tta the ?ta~ing aommissio~a b;+~~••,vt 1 DBte:
followiag seCttoas Or ~ ctP=ebessiae 21at '
Or Comtauaicy Dey
At _ aaeat Code "
City Couacil Apvroval •ftira:
. .
~J~~•' . :
03/28/96 11:45 '06262915 C 21 WRIGHT 0003
r . ~ . . . ~ rnwvC MJ. . 'tkt, .S48
Mar. 27 1996 06: q2m
9k C. wEr i 3B-22 x" C~F''_ iM °
, .
I ;,i ~:t :►t~y variaace, cas:di;:oae! usC~, r other la1d ~sae accioas tQ i..~ ~•.iaczed
.t?. p:trt At tht5 apA.t.=caClcn: .~o 'A -
a. ApFit lceaes: To have 8 CoasZeLC applieacfvn you ::£11 need to 6ubai r fi~ee;c$
. .!t••:eribed fa che atcac:sed i:.:or-matia.^r, shrec mt the t:ve you 'chis
. ,
5. '['tib: APPLZCe'i1S'a(S). SMI+L C£R:ifY Z'V.AT=
A_ :he abeve s uest daes aot vio3aze aay deed resLriCt3oas xay, be
-
attachsd ca or ir-posa upou c_.*~.E subject Rraperty. •
tl. Zf the aaplicstivn is granteds the aaplicgr.C k'i11 e:cerelsv .1te cights
. granted i.i aCCVrdaree aith the Ce=n ead suclcct to al1 the co*sOc ings and
xitlcactoas ef che 8;.proval.
A: 1 oP the above stacements ar.d the staceneacs ia chR .ti", paan'
dttacheents, ar-C exhibiCs Gxeas=ftCgd kereaitb, are trµ,• '-d ' the
applfasncs ' sa ac3;nosrledge Cha't aay' p&r=it SSSued, basc-t ',t; thia
applirsr.iaa, may be :evoked :.f fc is fovnd tha[ aay euck ata:emants ~rc
false.
D. The .pp1+_caac feas t'eaa ctte ezcire eoatcnrs of •~hc ~pglicaClc;,. ~:~e~.adiag
the Fe2lcias &nd crito_t+a, arid crdderst3zds the req,4irj~nent9 : ae .~flprov~Ag
ar deayiag the aagZiC6Lioi3-• •
g7
' dAy of -1~~fif~ • 1 y~
~ DATED fhis
.~~-,~?i . •
StG*IAYURE5 af esch osaner (eg. ausbar.d a=d wife) vf~ Ghe; suibjecc proQerty.
. ~
_
1.~,. . .
.
03/28/96 11:46 '06262915 C 21 WRIGHT l~ 004
. . ~ ,n~
86• 4~ :
F11014 : CYPFaS.S IPdd EV~~ PHONE N0. : 296 348 Mar. 27 1996
, • • 30
~ ~e.,~ e; ~ c.K L~3: 26 :0!?39t 90fl JW tL 1-200 t1 n;
~ s
. i
. - '
.
, . ~
~
w
U '
Lt
94
r .
~
~ . -
~ ~ .
. ~
~
~ ~ .
~ tl v s .
~
~ ~ ~ . ~ R ~ •
s . . . , ,
. ~ , , •i5~~.~'L~
„ H.. . . . . . ~ . - j. _ ~
i _ .rv~n :a i - t• a, n.~:.~...._._ . - ..y~:V.\
.:7 1~:\!'1'i"1 1" ~ _ - ' " . . . . ~!'h. •,L• ~ "
' . . . . ...~v~
.~.~1 u t7
;vniv T711:s~ I'hfS.F.:1';';;, 7'11:1 ':11ruriurr., iqI u•d./urthr::,an.r•1-•:. r,: tt l iereri»:JMr 4tntcd. ,
.rld %rt! 11•.•r1w duos Crant. h:itt'uin, sell. n.vidn anrl .n i'~~~c....~•':5~~:.
• ;~i~ , rilC:'u~~.. ~:1:.. .inV(_F_. M116'R nnana..i_ _...i .{l.._
~ ChC1T
- t y.7K hairy, .^•uccr.aion nrd '•~'~.:t•%"' ~
O . . ~ '
~ .i+-r~r~•, nN of thr ~•rr.dre'x ; erhr, (.'t1,• ;utd inrrreet in :~nd rr) ;lcir ccrtnin ccnttact /or nce r~ilr. nl rcal CJtAfC Jafed <<
~ • V .~.t:.`i ~
~I pcc=mbcr 12 . . 69
a
I?.. bcttveen ...lnmes. R. Cromnnett and.3uequellne..I:..Cxommett... huabend
~ nd aifn, .
i~ Arthtt; K. ytonnri nnd Donnoi, JcaY, :1cinna, liuebar.d rid wifc, and . °
....:ler °uvn,.iu .:aviy unu Jorotny jenn uwv.N; niIonat.d s:l:.",
~ i . r~r.d . . . . .
AjI .^.d oll iutercnt O Pa~.~~~r.., f
Ij B:/MrtCO~gT1W.11t'. *YCO^dCt: ~C!t• ~~q~Q~R__n_4 -iau'P'' ~svr .a.. n
~nillc 0.^.a Iu t,i'A, yS F~Ci •Waah~.. ~vr~:,«....^,:•. .
.vl.~ri, ••::c♦ • J •+^••.w~ :7 ~ ~ i:LLi~dA.:.tt5` ua ~i LUUAt,f', Ora-
3 :i •:.:~•~~i:»t~
r ii -!nn. ;n :ock ~ou ntn.v¢r 337 flicrr.ol (reir-enr.r lo sc.:d rrcoruefl CAntrnc~ h,!.,~lay {,.ing "snrPssly nndp),
it•nii :iii ui fnr. rieltf. ritie and inr•ra:,t oi tfie underailzned in nnd fn the reA/ Catate described lhercin: the•
~ 1, uriciersrgned :irrroy espresviy rovenarla witn nnd worronee to the assiRnee aoove nameti inat the• undersiyrted ia
Nvr owner oi i/u vendee'4 inr-rrst in :he renl estate descrrbed in snid conrrect of sale artd ihe[ tite unpeid bolnnM
ef rfic: purclinsc ,oricc thcroof :v not :nore Nmn t as I727•02 ivirh rnfr.rc~t pnrd fllrrcon roJ uly., I .1971 ~i ~•:1"~.
11) ; iurtlic:. uPon compliance b}• xnid nsaiQnco wifh the terms ol sa;d eontroee, the unders;grted dirrctn that con• II x.,':•:.. t s1:"':'
i-;t rrti•;+nce ul sriid rre/ csrstc br mndc nnd delivered ro tnm•oracr of aoid naeignon.
. . ~ . . •
~ TAc truc and ac!u:a! consrdcrahon pnrd for th. ~s trnnsfcr, Stat~d m tcrr.;s or dol:ars, ts 5....-.......!......... r; r
~•?a7'~"^.';--~
.
~ I~ „I Zv~titiri~~•a~oi-N~e• i rw.`+~i$:J'~h"'~
'sts.oL.~rdReft~slaeeth~• r•,, •::~e~or~s~s'~ . s`~v~.
~ ' I • . ^ .±..u. .
cvnarruiny inia a.signn:ent, rt rs ur,drrsfood t:t::. .'ke confezt. so :equirea, the sinQuleo shall bo roken to ::If_~.__
mean iind inciude the pturnL tfiC mnsCUlirte .rNall incivae ttro teminine Antl the-nevtCr nnd !hat•qeneratly all gram•
mi+;icn! chanizes shnll be ntndP, nssumer artd implicd to make tAe provrsiona herrof•nppfy cqvafly-to'oha'ar mme r-
' rr:c:rrdu:ds :indjor cnrnoratiorts.
t . I! nv~t~.~T'~u.nwres.~+^
:R' SV'ITaVcSS :YT?ER+:OF, ihc vndersiened .,ss;a-. r,:!o f....e~r.•a `rr ::a.-.~: ~l tne cmdersigned ;a n ~ }.-r-r••,^',;;,..~~, ,
.1 _ ......'ri? ............c ..z.^'C :O VC ::':^tC~. L:7d .w COf'^.Q1.4!C `CJ !O LC "ij:.CM i"!-r.rmfn hv ifsCffj.
~ .P~.,.-
cc•rsVdulyy~.uthor~ rd t?:errunro -y orc:er oirts boord Ot di:ector~. i1
.^~'^..4'T:
I .1 ti i j' f CC ! 0 7 1 Ci''~.'. M1tt~#!"
n
7 d7'~:7): , . .
II
, .
~ ~I ~:x~,c..:.a ^~2..~.. . _fi_.^~..
1 'f ~bY 61.t11C J~~ V1V11(1 .~l'6{.. '
I) 1'~ir~ .Y~1~1 ~ti P ~eNeElI~1~. ~ . . . . . . . ~ • « ~II..~.~~...~ t
:
I' _ . . ' ' • p .
.
11 ~ ' ~ • ~ l
I~ STATE OF OREvON, ) I STATS OF OR.:C.7N, Couaty oL..........„ )u.
.
. ,
. . ; ~ . .
i, C.......,~'~,...... ~ s ~ R
.»...._..nn . 1 M
PormnnllY oAPeered
II .~.r:f..N'C.~'..2...... ..i..~. ...u ' uu;r n.- •a. .
:1 7!I~~i'~
.
'1 a_....lAr.. .......G'S
' ~ - ' . . . i oneh :or himaelf nrrcf not c+ro !er the otAer, d!d say tne'•f~s lorr.." t~ :Ae •
II '
~j .iume-s R. Croavnr,tt. nnd ~ . . . . . °;°..`..sac:~
.I ......................................................11 ~~wi.(~~a{ :AiiCf /[.ui0... ~4R
. ....•......./.N .M4~~
acquclinc J. CromcactC,..huaband ~
` me~ry ol
i ~ . . . . . 7
nnd wifcr . . . . aw~rion.
o cnr
.
.
.
...........................nix/ nr.ktawloJQrd the lo.rqoinq inatrudro- I sad fhat the «M ntlized fo the lorepolna /natniment la the cotpot~N ~f
( ..velcntnry act nnd d, ol aeid corporerion and fhef neid inattument wo a!Rned and malad tn Ee-~~
rrMnt to y~...........ChC.y.......... , hn!( of sard eorAOratiort A3• 2uthority o! 1!s boerd ol diteelors: end naph o!
lh.m +r.krnn•Inddn~ miet ;nNrtirrw~ne fe,:bw•if~ vdunfaiv_nCt and desd:.._ I ~ r
~ _ .
.
r .....::a ~
j IIelore re • . ~eir.~~.W.
,
.
~i i .
o7'r ~ ~ • I i
II 'v....~w . . ..:~J (OFFICIAL
:al :'AA~O S ~h•1 tl , y
. _
t~ i$v'tammi"ion Nv crommi3nion e:oiroe: t,.,.,,~, i
1I . ...a nM- ~-ti-•~ 1• • ^ u • -••:4e•y. o!d :r :•~••cd. Ssa C.-he u".n ::i:. w .wn.4d 'aY 1n. iVbT Senio~ :w.iw.
...z.o.,..r.....
11 ;f ~•n mm~~l w nN •l+tit r.r.r.i. It~.:-11 b. n..w.d. pn/.raN► In O.W ba~w~. • II
~ ~ . . . . . . Im~-_°~~ `
ii t ~as '~~rre..: s
----r- _"'"s''~•~'"i~~RC;
. . ....~•i\BSiCflR:tll: or ti in~ ii r:. ....vsn•-
. tTATC C^ 01ICC+::11
tH.i ~ ~ u
~
iI =7X(z1iL rv of wc:hInawn 7lrlp-~'3
~ 1 ' .1:.Tr..CS ~.:~~i u w~ a:. t.. U"
, • . iI 1 ~M!::.._'~i~. : !~l~"17i1t!A4rYiL-.
.
a
s . .
! .,CC , . ~
~ • ~ II~iAV'
. Onrl `7tes:
. yr..rCic.~ c9tYnVr~ ~ 71~lCV COIt~=V - "i 1 ' • 2i!~i
~ .V ~ re• neeo eIno »+ol~ IWwflhln'•insr►limcnC+.o~fl•.~p Hnp wos II. ' ~
ic. ~I ttT~"~.t~F.T. Rif,'F~...a. e............................. c .c:vH. reeelved~G~ ~/e~ed,'Ieri.haok.. 6T~ ,..t .neh~7 ~ ~A
'r
i! • ru~.. wwcne No. , k d~.~ ' • ~ . I
~ . . y.• ~ urw.) ol wiE~Qqn1yl`
. .
.
t _ WMf~~1CC9~su~/~l~Nt+lW~il~A I . . . w . II .Y~ ~..'P~'~•_,.:.
~i ~i ~=n: . , ~ 'N•'"~c;s~~'r:v~+~'c~+~-ct-cnuca~ . ;I" :r .
:ii vR%C~ i , ~DFtCGER•;YFt~?.~AS;.6Fd: .eeror~ er • 3?, a~4:4+:~'fJ "~i.._~.s :i ~ v
S. W. t:`.
F^A ~ .i,t~,.• ~ } ~ . _ ~
' `I ~..0 70 i j L~'»''•'". :,w-=='.
,i ' . . "~...'qwtt~ / ~ • _ :;-'~'P•••
. , ,.:~'o.V:`,^. ~ a~.~ty ~"C-r~ i ~I Q . .
J\
.1 ~ r • . I. 'JL': ~.I 'ti ~1 ~7~ }7~~%I'~lU'.V .
r .1.. .r..w. ...V : l...... :~w~r.~ _ "6 ~ (1 } { _ .
_ • _ ' . •,PA•~y~16C1t7lA"'
.
~
d ■
ld3a SNINNVId CRJV9li JO Ailo
.
~
2
0
•~~}y LL
,yf W
O ~
3Ab H106 a ~
_ =m ~
w~a~~ ~
o~WZZ ~
>
r~F~~w V
. ZUWU~ ~
H
ZOW
O
AVE ~ owaLLW c7
~ F
~ g
w
(J) >
:th > z
0
•
0, -
U =
(n U) Z:3 13 Q V F
~ 20Z=O
W .iL•J. QUQUF-
~ •a
~
m
1
1
3nd
dNZ6 ~
J
Q
~
•"2:
r4
Z
~
:
: •J
••H
•
.
:
~
-
~
V
N
O
~
~
C
QN
Q
~ N
.r
N
U
O
> Z
" • •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
~ City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon.
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
_ City of Tigard Planning Director
_ Tigard Planning Commission
_ Tigard Hearings Officer
, X Ti5ard CitY Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the st
day of April, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an
appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the lst
day of April, 1996, postage prepaid.
C~e G'
Prep d Notice
,
L
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 195~5
OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NO RY PUBLIC O REG N
NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON
COMMISSIONN0.046ta2 My Commission Ex ' es:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07 1999
, • ~UBLIC HEARINq* ;XHgrr~
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,
AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, April 23, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER,
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the city
and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to City of Tigard
Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust Street just west of
SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are
Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2,
boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136,
annexattion requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently,
Washington County R-9.
I
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF
PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR
RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING.
THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE
INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL
(503) 639-4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO
SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE
PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL
RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.
IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER April 1, 1996,
ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO
CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY
REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE
HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST
FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE
BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS
IMPDRTANT THAT COMMEN~ELATING TO THE REQUEST PWAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE
' APPLICABLE CRITERIA LIST
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND
TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN
APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE
FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER
PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT
LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE
CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE
REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Ray Valone, AT (503)
639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON..
~
a,.d,....
81ST
W W •
>
>
a
<
~
L.L
BOROERS
W
~
•'•i~::~:iE~fiAdAN r~
V
Z
0
0
Z 7
N `
~
Z
RAL
~
~ n
i
;.:i~>i~:>i>`;~••:
cF:::~:~>:~i
~»»:~ii>i~i~iiS:~:::~»>i~i ::::~i::)»:~i:~i: >:::~i»»: i»: : :•>:•>::o:
: .`~:.z ::::::::::::::.:;:z::.;:«::~
~
!
}
2::;::.::i::::i::i:::::::::>:::<:i:i22:;::i;:i::;:i
••>::~:'<~::~:;•>:~>~•»:;;t•:~:::::•
'c~c~::~i i f;:'r%[:::i~>:~::i::~:?~i~: i?^: • E.
~
~t~t::iii>t':
i';'c~>:':~>i`•`:'::i:i:
' i?t i .i»i~i ii~: i~: i:~>:~i::t~ •::~:~:~::~i: ~i~i~i;~ic~
~i~ii~cl»:::~t~:>:: :~:i:>: i~>i ii~ i :~:2~: i'i>:: ~c~c~:i::r::~>::;~ ~:::>t`.>ti>:::~ ~`i~
• • ~
i::2>..: ;22~:~ Y:~i::;•>:•:::::.
~i:~i: i~c~~:~i?i~5::~ i~ ~:%;::~:~:?i:'::;•::~>:•:<::;:;>: S~ i:~i:~i ~ i i-: ~ :`•?i:~::<~i~ii:::~ ~i :~i i.:
.::i:::~::•>:: `•::::~:~3i: [2<::?::i~::::.
~ . :•>::o>:•::: ~ . .
r-~';:•':::.;;.;"'r;'•`?y;::ii.'::' F:~i4Ei l ' J
.>:;<:;<::ttt<~::;•::t:: :;;:::;Y't.:2.5t.::•::•::
:•:r..::•::>::~::~: ~lX.. •;o:•: r.:•>:~:::~::;~::~»»:~»:: ~ :o:;: : r r>x:<.:;;.:::~:>:~»>:<•::~>::::.; : V
~
;;:'_:•'r.*;>:>;:.>;s:>:.
: >:~>':>;:2~:~;::2~:~:::sf>;>'4• •:;:•:i ~>s>?>i~>ii:i . .
»
i;.::::::..; f`...:.:.>: »s:.ii:'<:::.:: : :it: [~»>[~:6::;%:ji?t~ i?:.iyi:: i~::<.>i>[.>:: ~t.>?':?Gci.i: ii; i;ri
't~: i~'.:• /
:.:1:.: .»>:::•>:•>:•:o>::•:>:•:
i.i.:>::>: »:~r :
:;:~i:'t~:~::~::~>:~>::;
.
? ~
~}['?Ff~:}ifv?}}}t~,}ii>X~ }[C`r}:~?:i:?}'~I~}}Iti:'r}?}1~}};4i"r'ri}??
~ •?i:s ~'~?f~~.: Y~:7i::::}'.::?i'~..$~ ;::;i:j 7$}:
}};;}}??i???}?i?i?i:L•:: {vi:<J:::• :•:{•>:i{i•:•i:v}?}: }}i:vi:i•?i}Xti}}i}: v}i:J:
:iii : •
j;:j.~iiii}:Y ii}i: ii}?$}ii: }}ii:~i:i?$:ti~)i:ti~i?: ~:ti~iii: ~Yi: ~
. :v: .
~i:ii ~:i~ii:i~??}}i:i~iii: i }}:ti^i }i}}.
i:
i?iii}ii>Yi}~:. .
.~:>i' ~~•iii: {;::ii?j?
v::. w::
....:.Iv.??????}:iG:;{.:^9i}:;•ii}::{:}<•::::):•<i:}.t:i;:3;{•i»S.ii:;;,.::.::
. . . : : : . ~ : . . . : . . .c~::: . . : ~ ~ : ; • • :
f•:::::: ; ~ :•:'::~i:~>::::~::~:
:2~::>:;~:;:?:;.:2.:.:.::t.:.
~
, .
. . 5•~a:'.';~~ .'.':':'i r:~:~~ :~:~:<;~:~>:~:~i:~i:~,~:.. . . . . . . . . . . .
//'••ANNE%ATIONANDlANECNANOfiFROM•• ~
COUNfY N~Y TO GT' 111•17 ~
NDCDM>REMEN6IYEPUN - `
ViCiini♦ l Ma A
Y P GMANOEFROYfAUNIYR-0 r ,
A TOCIT'/MmtI1NpENSITY v
Note: Map is not to scale
N ~ WITMIN TOARD CITY UMIT6
FXHIBIT~
. , • ' _ - - - ~ - .
:`f~-'_':,a~:..L__.:_ . , . :
1S126DC-04200 1S126DC-05201 .
CHAVEZ, AIDEN AND ALFRED COLLINS, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH , CORYELL. ALICE 17935 SW PACIFIC HWY
9900 SW 92ND ST TUAI.ATIN,OR 97062
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S126DC-04100 1 S126DG05501
CORYELL, JACK M ALICE O CROFT, LESTER RAY
9900 SW 92ND ZELMA RUTH
POR7LAND,OR 97223 6060 SW 68TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S126DG03800 1 S126DC-05101
FISHER, MICHAEL Q HARRIS, GREGORY E
9255 Syy CpRAL 9036 NW BENSON ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97229
iS1260C-04000 1S126DC-05602
HEFFLER ROBERT ARNOLD HERBSTER, MARILYN
9260 SW CORAL c/o BUOY, TAMYRA
PORTLAND,OR 97223 . 9175 SW LOCUST ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
iS126DC-05800 1S126DC-02701
HUNT, CLIFFORD AND BETTY J HUNT, WILLIAM TRUSTEE
195 SW 88TH 195 SVU 88TH
PORTLAND,OR 97225 PORTLAND,OR 97225
1 S1260G03900 ' 1 S126DC-05100
LAWRENCE, FRED J& SHERILL E LOOS, HARRY AND BEVERLY A
TRUSTEES 9365 SW LOCUST ST
9225 SW CORAL ST TIGARO,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S726DG05000 1 S 126DC-03700
MAURER, GRANT 0 NEWBREY, M E& RUTH L
9385 SW LOCUST ST clo RASMUSSEN, DARLA & KENNETH
TIGARD,OR 97223 603 SW LARKSPUR CT
SUBLIMITY,OR 97385
1S126DC-04001 1S726DG-05203
ROSS, SUSAN ANN RUFF, MICHAEL AND JOYCE
9230 SV1! CORAL ST 12150 SV11124TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S726DC-05202 1 S126DC-05600
RUFF, MICHAEL L JOYCE E SCHARBROUGH, DONALD
12150 SW 124TH AVE JOYCE I
' TIGARD,OR 97223 10050 SW 92ND
, PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135A8-00900 1S135A8-00700
SF OREGON CO, LTD SF OREGON CO, LTD
BY MELVIN MARK BROKERAGE CO BY MELVIN MARK BROKERAGE CO
10220 SW GREENBURG ROAD 10220 SW GREENBURG ROAD
SUITE 150 SUITE 150
i
_
151260C-05200 ,S126DC.0370; .
THEONNES, MARVIN L 8 MARJORIE ~ UNRATH, LAWRENCE E
~ 10025 SW 92ND iGERALDINE .
PORTL/WD,OR 97223 ~ 9335 SW CORAL
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135A6-00100 ' .
WASHINGTON CLACKAMAS CO j -
SCHOOL DIST 23J
13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY .
TIGARD,OR 97223
~
. i
,
.
I
91 ST
, r q Q I
I
F
BORDERS '
~
m
Z
~ LEHMAN
~
rn
~
rn FT]
C RAL
E
LOCUST ST ~ .
L .
MAPLELEAF ST ~
~ q
} J
^
, . . R%UEST FOR COMMENS
- NoTIRcnnoN usr r•oR urw usE s, oEVaoPMeNr nPPucnnoM .
,
{cpcle }
CIT Area: W S E C 91 Placed for review in Ltbra CIT Book M
>:<:;::»:;>;>:>;:>:<:»:>:::>::»:::
,~l:. PARTbt~~11'S::;> >~»:::»::::»:::[<::>>:>»'.;::::>:::<:~>:>:`>::
, .
BLDG. DEPL/David Scott, eumv omaa )(POIICE DEPL/Kelley Jennings, cbmr~emomro, OPERA110NS/John Acker, Wint. spw.
_ CITY ADMIN./Cothy Wheafley, anROCOaa ~ ENG. DEPT./Brian Rager, _ COM.OEV. DEPT./D.S.T: S
ADV. PLNG./Nadine Smith, swa~« WATER DEPT./Michael Miller, o„~ft. mw.ioo«ac. ►.wa em
. : : ; . . . . .
::>:::::;:::::::::>::::>:<:::'.:::>:.::::;'.::::;>':>:;;>:::::<;:::::«:::::;>:; .
~ FlRE AAARSHALL ~C UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY XNAUITIN VALLEY WATER DIST.
Gene Birchell SWM Program/Lee Watker PO Box 745
Wa. Counly Fve Disfict 155 N. First Sireet Beaverton, OR 97075
(pick-up box H1Lsboro. OR 97124
, : , ;
. . . . . . , : :
. <<::<
:
WA. CO. DEPL OF LAND USE i TRANSP. LCMEiRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION METRO-GREENSPACES
150 N. Frst Avenue 800 NE Oregon St. # 16. Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/IOA's)
II~
I H1lsboro, OR 97124 Portland, OR 97232-2109. 600 NE Grond Avenue
Porfland, OR 97232-2736
&ent Curtis (CPA's) STATE HIGHWAY OIVISION
J'un Tice (IGA'S) Sam Hunoidi _ OOOT/REGION 1
Mike Borteson (Engineer) PO Box 25412 laurie Nictwlson/Trans. Planning
Scott IGng (CPA's) Portland, OR 97225-0412 123 N.W. Flanders
Tom Harry (CuRent Planning App's) Portland, OR 97209-40.37
_ Lynn BaBey (Cument Plonning App's) OREGON OLCD (CPA's/ZOA's)
i 1175 Court Sireet, N.E. _ ODOT/REGION 1, DISTRICT 2=A
~ CRY OF BEAVERTON Salem, OR 97310-0.590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord.
larry Coruad. Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412
PO Box 4755 _ CIT1f OF PORiWND Portland, OR 97225
Beaverton, OR 97076 Planning Dcector
1120 SW Sth _ OTHER
_ CITY OF KING CITY Portland, OR 97204
City Manoger _ CIT1f OF LAKE OSWEGO
15300 SW l l bth _ CIT1f OF OURHAM City Mcnager
King City, OR 97224 City Manager PO Box 369
PO Box 23483 lake Oswego, OR 97034
~ _ CIT1f OF NALATIN Tigard, OR 97281-3483
PO Box 369
Tualafin, OR 97062
. . .
:
ECIAi.
' >SP:::::,:::::AG<:>:::>:<:<:::::::>«>;»>::»i:;'.::;:::>::;::,
GENERAL TEIEPHONE EIECiRIC PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COIUMBIA CABLE CO.
Elaine Self, Engineering Brian Moore Craig Eyestone
' PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferty Rd. 14200 SW Brigadoon Court
Tigard, OR 97281,3416 : Beaverton, OR 97007 Beaverton, OR 97005
NW NAiURAI GAS CO. Rwre:cswJ rn-sw+ METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
Scott Palmer rm po»rn•mm Jason HewiH ICim Knox, Projecf Planner
220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street
Portland, OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169ih Place S-6020 Portland, OR 97232
Beaverton, OR 97006-4886
TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON - US WEST COMMUNICADONS SOUTHERN PACIfIC TRANS. CO.
Linda Peterson Pefe Nelson Duane M. FomeY, PLS-Pro1'ect En9.
I 3500 SW Bond Sheet 421 SW Oak Street 800 NW 6fh Ave., Room 324
Porfland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97204 Union Station
li Portland, OR 97209
' »::>:?::<>::<:;[>::::::::::::>:::::>>:>:::::<:>:> '
, > PED~RAL AG~NCI~B... . .
I AERONAUTICS OIVISION (ODOn DIVISION OF STATE LANDS US POSTAL SERVICE
' COMMERCE DEPT: M.H. PARK FlSH 3 WILDUFE Randy Hammock, Growth Cord.
~ _ PUC _ DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station ~
_ DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Porfland, OR 97229-9998
_OTHER _ U.S. ARMY CORPS. OF ENGINEERS .
I R\bpY~~pally~nwstenVlCraHC.mtt
~