Ordinance No. 05-10 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2005- J
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 1.6.97 ACRES, APPROVING ARLINGTION HEIGHTS 3
ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD
WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 41, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR
CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 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 City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties
which currently lie withai the boundary of the Tigard Water District, 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 upon completion of the
annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation
of three(3)parcels of land consisting of 16.97 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water
District, the Washington Comity Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector
Control District; and
WHEREAS, tine City Council left the record open for written submissions for an additional seven days
after the hearing on August 9, 2005 and allowed a further seven days on August 23, 2005 for submission of
responses to new evidence submitted during that time, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c); and
WHEREAS, pursuant' to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt
obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no
option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a
public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the
Tigard Water District, 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; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from
the Tigard Water District, 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 by Ordinance; and
ORDINANCE NO.200-5- u ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS,the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed
to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the
County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by
annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and
WHEREAS,the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has
been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive
Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and the written
materials submitted after the hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties fiorn the
applicable sei vice districts is in the best interest.of the City of Tigard.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled "Supplemental Finding
Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. In addition, Council adopts
the document entitled"Findings in Response to Comments"as additional fundings of fact.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A"
and shown ins Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, 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.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayor and posting by the City Recorder.
SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation,
includingfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing,
filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities.
SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urbain Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property Brom the
Tigard Water District shall be July 1,2006.
SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
ORDINANCE NO.2005- Q ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation
Page 2 of 3
PASSED: By l`7 1 MOLLS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only,this day ofg - , 2005.
'Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thds day of � ,2005.
r
Craig D ksei-4 Mayor
Appr ved as to fonn:
Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE NO.2005- ZCA2005-00001 Arlington Heights 3 Annexation
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
y Arlington Heights 3
. ZCA2005-•0000[ =
A tract of lamd situated in the Section 9&10,Township 2 South Range 1 West
• Willamette Meridian described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast comer of Tract"C"of the subdivision plat of Arlington
Heights No.2 v&ch is on the east line of Section.9;.thence S 018 43'36"-W,along said
east line,a distance of 248.13 feet; thence S 88° 16'247E,leaving said east line,a
distance of 171.29 feet; thence S 018 43'36'W a distance of 62934 feet to the north
right of way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point on a non-tangent curve to the left;
thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 858.00 feet,a central angle of 18°45'
39" (a chord which bears S 54'22"14"W,279.69 feet)and a length of 280.94 feet to a
point of taugency;, thence S 4411 59'24"W,along said north right-of way,a distance of
13.10 feet; thence NN 01.8 43' 36"E a distance of 217.45 feet; thence N 880 39' 02"W a
distance of 59122 feet to the cast lime of Summ Ridge subdivision; thence N 028 02'
19"E a distance of 109.42 feet; thence N 01°28' 06"'E a distance of 17328.feet; .
thence N 028 14"47"E a distance of 134.59 feet; thence N 00°00' 56"W a distance of
130.41 feet; thedce N01°54.'35"E a distance of 38930,feet;.'thence N 91' 11'42"E a
distance of 210-05 feet to the south line oflArlington Heights NO.2, thence along said
'south lirie-the following7 courses; thence S 37'29'33"E a distance of 1.40.72 feet;
thence S 410
-09' 15"E a distance of 13427 feet; thence S 710 02' 09"E a distance of"
10557 feet; thence N-840.57' 06"E a distance of 113.51 feet; theoce.S 81'44'42"E a
distance of 69.97.feet; thence S 07815' 19"E a distance of 73.53 feet; thence S 90°00' ".
0,0'7E distance of180.00 feet to the point of beDnmg_
2S1 09DAS 2S 1 09DA
//rr//�� ,, ,�, .1 s, � ,1 ,•. .\ ,• r' 1,,'''„ •1..�, ,/ ,( ��•. "+, +, ,•..
Ar'i.l :1!' Fl,,,1'+,,,:I,, ,,r ,r.1J Il=,'• •.'\'+� ,'.�'''3:�''3{`5r;;;r;ilf;`` ';!l''f� ,J: '✓, '4;'',Sr;';1,;'J,+;S:,.k; �';s r:''',}�SY'4�R'^ \ (�', ,�„�}�;,�''•,r� '•i:�'':.7f;;r;
:i. :`'�•ti'l�.Sr'.N'r,lf;'•'
r 7tI,., /•iY1,'il, ir, "�! ,•'., J., .t ,4, !: ,'+ i 4. It^'! 1 ;!. 11. ,1[
.;'+',. is•'f",1{'' '';ti r.1,•; `';,t�•'r ';:r.`;n;.• ,r+'.,.+.. ./:,..'��.l,3'.'.Sr,•;,,,., 11��';'.';+;:r fi it ':�',r5w"�d' ";•i.• '1�' �'{77- y,J;�,,Jk lr�Sr.`;i, '
;N,''ll'� ,,5;;+5'•' }'.,:•r,,;i , li��,�'""'r`'+ _5„I',,A''d ,,.r,�,M„1.,,rr, ,J4,,,ri W 1. ' rk,r .S.'. :•' � ,Y,�,, .,t .'Y,
F' ,,t• ,.i;' ,.y, h; "`(,,rf:;:'•;:';•; ;�' ' :I: ,1, ,r, "•:+,,., ,Sf,'% � ,r' W'• '. •,' WJt�+
"� I,.,^ '�,�a'. r', , I ,,jF 1, �. Y, } '! 9 r1 100 ';31; l: t•„':'• �.'+,:�1�R°r r AI7�Tr'{y
;r'+a'''tr'' •'7' 7S 11' ':w' v, ;; r.':•i, •.Jlh'Ikf: L.I:,,h,;'G' y.'d�,Pr.•h'' ,1l'k�•r''s r7S !• q ,, ",r, •�4 i; '`� 1100 7 1 s7 r, 1i ,, ; 1'•;1':':>i';t .. . lr,: E
n's' I: I, ,Y`t' .v ,� n,.1+7;7;•.
r. :, t •r:',,�•',�1 7• 'Sv.1' �„ ••x �, r. S+;'aaic.t"� ,: .,, S u ;r:,
,/7,' .� rlrl,'°,j;Y ' ,.� {I Tlgp {198 r ' v, . �'•' y ,`.•y' �] rRn ,• d' •+•'.i, , +�•�' �,�.,
.xy . •r 5: •t'�'fi -F .:•+ } .+ + {I �� 41 R '�� `1f� w�''`'•�:'� x: 'S, Sr;'lk' 300 :t ,v.rr,. �,,,. ,f�1, I:rru'• ✓,"^?• yl:
K ;v.,�' :;�; T,IrM;K ,t,• IY _.1000 x ,pxl'q• ',t,A, rh•' 1100 .t;• .,,. :'''y.�'j�`Y.' ,: '•jl�'�:'.; :[,+i3;t•^f•'1,
4 II4104' ua0 {I
Jill
7T 14,�,� 43 Q 1
rnl.w iL a 16Sa 1° 400 :•:S" i.ar,�yt '1\: i`.r,t',rj;*,�.•;,,'.,'s;. . ,:",.
is •y'' •,, '''� r°l �' TI00 II00 it 71 `, ,.":.3f1•,\""••I•?.,.r.,�D• Y,' 'llil ;e�l!mk� ''l r,>7/� 's,'7,+�7;i,y r
;' ;,.1 :, ►':'lE .11 {710 ' 100 1 3400
10 [` • 7.; '.R ;. . ''S',1f o. I�.. ';ir';IIMrr
V �' p ir'•. :I A l
•, - ll�l a �. °I � x100 4{ ' _ .,•,tf,.i. 'r 'ti;:1;:Y I.r:'' + 4"rr1���: l:• ..
HAZE C lana j. x;'•r,' ;''x
1. REST. M r w 1 TMi:J.� 11 i S
i},'r,,,l rrw,+,., .t r •r� r n,w i7� {4� i ai� ! Sr + tl-,r g M •V`' ' n•Iv 4041 "!•'y;;:l�`. i, t' :Ikr�iC. Inw
WIt s7ao- 7400 uaa aaao C� ., a� 9�j dt.:k,:r. :',^;•;;;;�;.•:,,�'-.•.
9r3 �7}r' Y Ri zl'� �' li +� M •� � '
• - ,ri, ; ti 1,,.t•,It'.�,',., ,,�.r,,�.;,;,. _ T700 ul• 7T ,� ll
GUN7�OREGONW
„� I156b [ NE1148Ej145EOTIONGQT2GA4WW.A.W
Ion low 47 44 SCALE 1' 100'
li
Tas it
;' SJ•11;7 ':i'ir,l•;:,':. :•,, �� ITOQA {100g 42 q, ,"'5,.,, •�. 1.``
11 ,. 71''•\ 1100 8 7100 4aa Q s4 i s7 L ['
';,ily;r'''' •LH•K':,�.3•,.•�,;. ,' , 76 ti p 411n .4� iil is It;;h�; :'4' '., ;'S• ,4
,x''.71` ,, :j ii ;+r '. .,•,ti' i. . fi !.'E •rl. 'r.;�`'.. Yrit ,.` i•''11 '
ti�; li ''x''',''',:'' $W ! SUMMIT x RfQ!'E t STREET nr wam
i- ;i31;':i ''•r ymlw,7a, r , , r#;r'S t':r'';.;'c::":e�f'•i'';.�;Ik;��;r _
;'-'+; ''\; f.00 V u' •fih� 100 ,.•v,\,.;. s, ,
A 1 { , x W •r,
It.
P.
�;: ;r: .y'?,w'•.4,�:+;'�;7t'•;'�':�,i�iil i0 nd0 Algot W ' 0S " ,.', .; t; 'C,''.••';:.'.ir,'.•' >
'' r ' •ix' is ,\ i r''''.i k;r',:E; 7 , f� 140E +`'',W.
r''v;d�;:i' '�:1�4:,y,i•r'7t; 7t..'J. Q ';,:, r:- '•.Iq(.c;,f'�;l, yA "X,TLit
Y, Y. X10 E1L1� 1 uw '•'„;,'r '''••'`:ti��''!'l;'';1. ,:, is ' 1.
to �',t�;K'';:I'• �',;':\`''u iT L a}' ',:•;,: ;,� •„1,,•1{'r
Si, , 7`:• ';r�••S;7•, '•er;+t�r;1S1,; • �', I`9AAA➢f170HA4JNAJ'd VISIT QUA WEaslrBAT
.' �:', }: 7100 ',�. 'r^..,.yy``.,'''" www.ea. Qt 0
:�lr ,;'`•:•.n ' :': �� .23� :.,r,W,' :`� i•:�,�,:., ,:S;.7t,17i\:ut'.✓1:'+,ti' s.IIP
'',:',t .''y ;I' 3t' 1 14. 99 x704 1 1100 I- 3;. '• r'• t\ate'
�'tr� "V ` f�Trt• Y gi e:'.�,�9',:�•[�,fL,.
. ,,y+ '''i.7 'I:: ::� :r' •.. %. ...iiiiii , i "'} ' 7100' ty�r l `S' P Yr• f.f`r ,ti k'Ic`
.w AF ;\','l.�l',;'�;Y,� ;4'
..t". .1 'i•',t';Fig .r :rr Y dav'. 00 Y;
xT ',,;,r,' ^,r ' r ,, ;• �, •+':,+�'I,i '� ti,
:r'';h; ill\rh 'I�rr'! V ,r••.:'
`,.
' : 's:"1e r, ty'} r y it;'' ? ,Ig ;; 1 it i•n '•� f:C
Q ';l, 1J";l,•,3i ,ti„ \' � � 4140 'i', �,' 'N ;�'`, • •,;V' ..
I^,: :';'i;• '� �y, 710 }I •Y,'' :I,gi;,';Jt'rr` 'I;'' `+;':': i�lYr ' f
.t..'.'� � 's',�s.7: ;,�:''r' .•r,'r1;.1,.�':f, �� a �•'�,f4ij,tl•'irt:P '�t;'i ir;'� •ril�R's``;(�'•fli:;l1�''P!C dA .
,'µo-,,,,,•'� .1lr,l. :3', ;k';Ili`'+: ti ;ti• }°9 1 x1 r; '' 1,:,,r r;'r,,'�;t ,li y'+,•r;,'rO• ',°r7;,u�,r
' ;,!'',1";i':i'y:,':ti�.,:,'•i•.5i;•,,,.^ 1 , 6 1'�'ll; ::J`'f, '� :ri •i •.71 �:l i[;k'' j"•`' I •ti.l ' ,+•!
tr ;k::j1:' 3344710
4 ':I•.5 , .�'%S. •.kti ';lt •I`hli 1�Cr
ij
•I
�•�-_ '.ti,Ii'' ''i•r.7��.3r., '•1'',�,Si' � N00 3 (1' 1 41°0 �:'1��,. ' .r7J.,31•''
L',t;.'�:'}:n;,�i,,r',-ri;,�,, w.rww ,H LT l 3Y \', r•,f:,.•' ::SI..:,;,;r w Oerail�JTextOh FOr3 28109Oh
,4 ,�'�,,�' •�',•, •i'', I,rl. ,�,, ., ,t i'' 14 100,100, -
y'VX::'1;•v. ✓; ;,; 7108: 1 :1. .:Aur' pR p
' 'L'. ,;' w ♦;,r.'•:•k;':•e;';K� , � ti 1 � 4�0 �\• iS� 'h` •'`• I�;e'?�' .�✓;1;
,\'.;1•,�•, 'trJ'.ti•',r":l[�''ti�+;li, 0{00 S � 1''71'.`.'..' '' 'r' '' •''�,,5.
-
�,, 410E 5; L Si ', `.'` :I x'•.ir,'i ,t
,:' •: :i' •'K x,'.3�; It `'•. rirr'' '';\;,;, '1t',:
riT
LlOYr
- j ''l:''`:�`H"';k, ti;I:'':\; ri;•.`• }4.01 AG J100 tin 14
011R�5 '.•v 7i �i',�`� i,�i '''k
ji,:S'1 ; }'':.• lt,'Y•;17 1 '•r.''FI4Prt4 r ,i`'t'K Y. N;•, '`
4100 1. 1; r'';ti .• ',; W.$m 19$$Ih(9 Q1
', •`. \ :; :. . 1{ W '�4IN 70 ''x;' :i' ti i r: :+:*,'+,,t� 'A -I.•!.,
�:i'!r : •.'''+' ;,, IFIN M1{AT Y + ''';•ri-i'i-rs�Lndzi,=4 t�^r;. ,. :r t�.Y.w +a.•,yt `!lt'" 'r • y:;i' �'r` Y •3L �1 �I O' i�
"� y ' 31 ' ''ti ,I' e;''. ;H' '7: ,,1S; 'i; PL.PTDATEIJanuary20,200d
,,rY.✓•h'.'. ,,S':1L.: ,,, ,�y,� . ,+f�'�. .+,d 1: ;' 't:;';7<;':r'.;�•,+,: r:,t,•a.`', FOgA,55E•'b+s AfLH, QNEB
t:irvr< , Ia;r r,,r,'',I `• !'"'' ANL
,;'Sr, rr, k..h' Si•;k' , Si« ' Y,' ti .•. , y pJ��/EQN p�
,, �?� +'� + r FOA pTH US
'!',•%�� ••''`• 1 is bl, ;%,' '' ,1•:,%a.''• °'I fi',, t4 r;'''``r'�•' '��;.'F�ra.d;d'`' 1� .',k 'r.' :•,, wu°rr,r.neawwa�,',awrvrlamrayd,w
'R;•'li• _ 1'�;. , ,'Hl' "1' \: f 'I; 1, It�'A~ t;r,' '� ,';r 1','�,.;''I'•� 'i � ,�JI' .. ., 'l,t%`. lIV ,./ow N.naK
;r,'',ti ,'v •'i,•;\, ;S;.( ` " ,a+A,t,
V ,r,rd rdw'w wNr,+v,w u•M..dnNw
..�,':r i,��.,� ''F,,'� ,':!�':r.x' _ S +' r(. '.n, ..•.Y,1,i• 'fy:;ti, y, '1.,:NO I,' , ;: l,. '}• '.� �;1i;'I t1 •.,.'.� ..,•,,, id,neuw4 M,.r-.rllr4 w,vlW.ww
r, Y �'� v �,: ,r• W:ly ' wl i•. 1• W, Y"7{ '.` ;1 r,',';,1,,",:`>;' • 1Yf.�p r� `' ,;'T4' ,k f' ' A r'rr
.lgSafa?S':';,;;, tr,;i# r '�' ,,';,;,n, .r`rfi'.,r*'.ri,l;,,tr; ,,: `y;+r+lr;►�(8,. .'' :,:' r.'':.Jt:' r,; t„ rsb e.tlau.Mam.rm
v;•'F+; N';!;'''+' :,;.;tl"1k;''K, 'K.;11;':+'' :lr,•'' ,', . ��',,.',., ,('. I, y,,, :;�..., t,•I�,•, ;�
�!�'y;''•r{tJ• y;`;,rtyi,'a;p: r r.,: r•. ';i'';tic'"'rl7C• ;: b:1,�lj';�'•n,•t 't' ;te, I, '";r�"}r%�y�'�'�� r^ ,.'I,.,•, \�•, ,l ..�:.,: k,.'i ;/:`% •
Y, \ 1, Y, ;r' _w'"' v 'IL 'I ''I'FS t'' •`n'^'1'1'' ',! 'Y,'• 'Y,', '�'.ti�',' .r,.,ri''' '•''''"'l�lr;'r R' J 't„r,,+'y;4.y 1.';�•`'k�lf;�,l.,Y`,R,i Y' .i. :1, .r,�;+r+ .1,�•,(.k
`Y 1;`>, ':,:.':Y.'':•:'' ar• �`.�. .r:�, ,1;'` ,ti,I .• ,.'`'r: d` '•t;';i, ''10;';1 - %,:1[:':S'�''•':"'.M,;,7;..�'
:`,..•,,• dv;"s'. ,ply'• ' ' '';1'',' 1;•;1[''• ,t'11 `'71;•' `;14''Il'•••�SSI''Y:i•' ;✓; :f;li'"✓;`'k '!:'';ni;��,'' 7 " �
251 09DA
2S 1 d9DA
a[sfJslwOa _ .
CITY bF TIGARE?
- -1 `
ZCA2005-00001
ARLI'NGTON HEIGHTS
+
IN
r �� �� ����`e e� ���: ����Q�� '� � •��� - ' fir
,ems
310 root
9f Ti 4a
�' rto
i
Attaclunent to Ordinance No. 2005-1.0
See Section 1 ATTACHMENT 4
Agenda Item:-
Heahng Date:. __August9,2005 7.30 PM
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: ARLINGTON-HEIGHTS 3 ANNEXATION
CASE NO.: Zone•Chartge Annexafron (ZCA)• ZCA2005-00001
OWNERS: Matrix Develoment Corp. Richard And.Betty Simerson
'12755 SW 699 Avenue,-Ste#100 12455 SW'Beef Bend Rd
Tigard, OR 97223 ligard,'OR 97223
Walling, Roger/Jacqueline
12475 SW Beef Send Road
Tigard, OR 97224
PROPOSAL: The applicant has applied for annexation of 16.97 acres into the City
of Tigard.
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential_
.EQUIVALENT CITY
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. The.R-7 zoning district is designed•to
accommodate attached single family homes, detached single-family
homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size
of 5,000.square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 101'000
square feet. -Mobile home parks and,subdivisions are also permitted
outn ht. Some civic and institutional uses are. also permitted
conitionally.
LOCATION: WCTM.2S1.09DA Tax Lot 2100;and 2S1 fOCB Tax Lots 600 and 700.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: -Community .Development Code . Chapters 18.320 and . 18.390;
Comprehensive Plari Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and
ORS Chapter 222.
' w 1
SECTION,II_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION
a w
SECTION -111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information and Pro osal Description:
The applican owner,, matrix Deveopment, has applied for subdivision review, but that
application -has not completed its review at the time of this report. The subdivision is.
tentatively named Arlington Heights 3. .A standard condition 6f approva[ for subdivision
proposals on property that borders City limits within the Urbain Services Intergovernmental
Agreement area is-that the property annex prior to final plat approval. There. is no
requirement that an applicant oraroperr�yy owner wait until receiving land use approval to
annex the property. A parcel that is confiquous to the city limits may. apply for annexation
at any time. The. total area represented in this annexation request is 16.97 acres and is
contiguous to the present city limits along the westem property boundary.
Mani lriformation:
e subject -arca s are located north of SW Beef Bend Road, south of Adington Heights 1
-and 2,and east of Summit Ridge subdivision_
SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA ANP FINDINGS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 101.1,
10.1.2, and; Tigard.Community Development Code Chapter 18.320.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the
Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings:
Com rehensive Plan
o icy . . : a ity shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and
shall assure that citizens-will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases
of the planning process.
This Policy requires an ongoing. citizen involvement program. Interested parties and
surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the.public hearing and
notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has
been posted since June 23, 2005_ There have.been a.number of opportunities for citizens;
to be involved in'the. decision making process, including the approval of the. subdivision
request_
Policy 10.1.1: The Cit
,y 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: water, sewer, drainage,streets, police,and fire protection.
This''policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. The City of
Tigard Police, 'Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural .Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire
and Rescue, have all reviewed,the annexation request and have offered no objections.
While the subdivision request has 'not completed its review, staff finds that there are three
roads stubbed to the parcel, an 8"water line stubbed to the site, an 8"CWS sewer line along
the east boundary, and drainage on the site is presently provided by. two natural
drainageways. Before the land is developed.at its designated capacity. of 7 units to the
gross acre, the subdivision reviewwill require that-adequate facilities are available and
upsized if necessary to handle the development. By provid;rig this infrastructure, the site.will
have adequate service capacity. This policy is.safsfied.
. If required by an adopted capital improvements:program ordinance,'the applicant
shall• sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement
.regarding the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.1.D.) for any
of the following services that could, be provided through such a district. , The
extension or improvement of the following: waver, sewer, drainage"and streets'. The
fonnation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the
property.into a special service district for any of the above services.
No L.1.D's'have been required with.the subject parcels or subdivision approval:' _All public
infrastructure listed above-will have to be -completed before the [and is subd�v�ded by a
subdivision plat. -The costs of providing such services will be bome by the applicant. Since
there are-no capital improvements identified-for this site, no nonremonstrance agreement is
necessary.
The City shall provide urban services to areas Within-the Tigard urban planning area
or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
The-City of Tigard has an urban services agreement, with Washington.Cou n -for those
areas within the City's urban growth boundary- .This policy has been complied with.
Policy 10.7.2: approval of proposed annexations of land by the city shall be based on
findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing _'pocket"
or "island" of unincorporated'territory; or 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; 'the police department has commented .
upon the annexation; the land is.located within the T igard urban plan nin -area and is
.contiguous to the city boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the
services listed in 10.1 A(a).
This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will not
eliminate an existing "pocket" or"island" of-unincorporated territory; however the annexation
will also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a.
particular parcel is in or outside.the city. The proposed annexation will incorporate the enfire
subdivision boundary for Arlington Heights Phase 3. ,All future'Jots within this phase of the
subdivision will be inside city limits. The police department has commented-on the proposed
annexation request and did not voice any objections. The land is within the Urban Services
Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the northern
side. Services to the subject properly are addressed above., This,policy is met.
Community Development-Code ;
Section 1$�'2UThis section addresses approval standards for annexation
proposals:
All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to
provide service for the proposed annexation area; .
Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is
available to serve the annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and,Water
Departments,
NM'Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviiewed the
annexation request and 'have offered no objections. Additionally, the adequacy and .
availability of services to serve the intended R-7 Medium Density residential development
will be feviewed and conditioned as necessary as part of the Arlington sleights 3 subdivision
review. Therefore, this-policy is satisfied.
The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions
have been satisfied.
CTAPP 471=PfU7T'rn TWI=!`1TV rnI UNV'11
!
Applicable.Comprehensive' Plan policies have been addressed above_ The irli lementing
ordinance provisions of ORS 222, TCDG 18.390, and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in
processing this annexation request. Conformance with other development-code provisions
will be addressed at the time the property develops. This standard has been met.
Assignment of comprehensive-Man and zoning designations. The comprehensive'
' pan' esigna on an a zoning esigna on placed on a prope shall be-the City's
zoning district which most closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive
plan map designation. The assignment . of these designa ions -shall occur
automatically and concurrently'with the annexation. 'in the case of land which carries
County designations, the City shall 'convert the County's comprehensive plan- map
and zoning designations to the City designations which are the-most similar.-.A zone
_ change is required if the applicant requests.a comprehensive plan map andlorizoning
-map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter '18.380). . A
'requestfor a zone- change can be processed concurrently with an annexation
application or after the annexation. has been approved.
The subject property is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned R-7 medium density
residential, pursuant to the City of Tigaril's Urban Services inter bvernmental Agreement _
The R-7 zoning designation is consistent withthe,original Washington Counb/s R�-zoningg
desigg•nation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by the County with
the Citys R-7 zoning district when the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between
-the county and the city to.provide city planningg services to this area. Therefore,the'pp'roperty
does not need to be rezoned upon annexa fion. According to Section 18.320:020.0,-the
CiVs Comprehensive plan and zoning designations•occur automatically and concurrently
' with the annexat►on_
'Conversion table_ Table 320_1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and
zoning designations to City designations which are most similar.
-
.ur, - ..._
.... i........
_...
1"M. sv a _—1 _ -
r
'•�
• __ '::�,�S�1CRf��u�lll_ ._ �lh��#7tk" r a-. - —':�-:r.r::-� _ F � -'4�]�L.��k�r,� -_ _ -'r
AR
�;-,:= ti:.n.. ]-,_ - - —__ -__-,i G::e•— r;-.. :...0=.-fit:s:- - - i:t-?.S.i.f��•-'��.^
y r-
�W
z Tarr ::1
>;x � f- } ; w- rte'""-- '-" �'- -- - —i - '1'`'.:.:-�,.,-�,,•-t"-.� _ ..:-•,.a:=~-.a'`� -
'•_•' -.Y:-,.-"-r'-.�."-, _ ia!�.:s_�`_!F'i-'_•,�_-Lt_�ri�-'��—.__,.._.s L,.•]_L'�.i:u - - -
:':ar- ..-1-rt-..,... ii•i. "....:�: .--�•: r_ti_•_�--9i:�tt r���'�",-.=.._:._ _ _ �1 l:�.rF_.::.:�
...-.. _a•.:......... ........ ..•w.:.0 ... _i�.��_:...:........-.,;._{�.::_:.�. :i:3':': VAR
rp
� i
• ..._^. s+-•.�._. -. ..: .i. � '.i...,i.i•':��: ..i s_C•_'�:.i� -�i:.i._�:.
F:{'r.-='::r3
-..r h.:.-•-J}L v3 xtv S.•':S::Yr..+.st."�.::r.::.:::?._i.i:�4.�==1-�s - ..N.N:€�:4:-:.n_rr:F,e�+.:...
.... air::-1..F4.-:::.............t
=
6NN ux er _4
-s ', i _1
`7., r:.�.=� _•;•:`fir, i�:
-
'd'. i.:Y"_ ..•.,.-:Y.-.•r�.*+,c..�.�..i��'. �..}.-r� :i.11ii4
i + nrc _ �► rer � 1 'rocs?T?n ' aE�zuerrd� 'r� exnrt . ''F' iii:
Z
F
. .:
rF
`vJ:. 7e'.i,=_�•.�::�.i 3"�L']'....'-„1': ;�+'.�:-.u-.;I'-' _9'rt"i__ :.-i:�'-• } :,C-v a!'-a:- 'mss:-;.€::?!..-r...-,-.-t..:rt:.,......�.t�»i.._ _
-v,2 V6r.� LO
} _ F W F '
- •ti:•:.`:::..-r-;• .s!: _ =��_ _ '»I+_ - •'s ..� .":'- •. •1 - - - F may_ N
•�'iF ��':...€r: .t.-'.:-_.:�-:�.:'.i.,': 4•..' t3::... r?T!]; i,:.i _ -_ _ '"S.T_ _ :T�:::t •:-:_ - ..k u _
1:5:-•`-4:t.- .._y.:._:.•._.�,�_�..:�., .r;.: .i 1 � ... Ta.�a�.:.
. ......... :0' ,,�
€ 1 1.,1_ ,,. -r }, i x -`T h, _ } 1 :'»'•'
-r""
r ACr nFonaT.TY1-rwa:njiv rni meti - PAC'-=.I ACA
Metro
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions,
in addition to
the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied
as discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in' an urban service provider
agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to.ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable ' Urban, Service Provider•
agreements,
:
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement,
other than agreements adopted pursuant to QRS 195.065, between the affected.entity
-and a necessary party;
The process required by the Development Cade and Comprehensive Plan is consistentwith
.the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific. directly applicable standards or criteria for -boundary
changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;-
This has been discussed.previously in this report and, as discussed,this criterion is satisfied..
Consistency with specific directl applicable standards• or criteria for boundary
changes contained in the Regional rarnework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the Development Code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro
functional plan requirements, by complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive
Pian, tiie an exa i-o F is Gon)lstelIt -with he applicable Functional Pian and the Regional
Framework plan.
Whether the proposed.changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly
and economic provisions of public facilities and services,
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public facilities or seivices
because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services, and the delivery of those services
was anticipated as part of the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the
timely, orderly, and economic delivery of those public facilities and services. ,
If -the proposed boundary change is for annexation of' territory. to Metro, a
determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban
Growth Boundary shalt be the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under
state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY Col3NC tL r)A el.= ..�
SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS - .
Washington. County Department Of 'Land Use & Transportation, Verizon, Qwest.
,Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton-School District #48, .Comcast Cable
Corporation, Portland General Electric; Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater
Services, Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. District, Tualatin Va11ey
' Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue, and TigardlTualatin School District'23J have
had the opportunity*to review the proposal.and have offered no-objections.
-A
July 28 2005 .
dEJ- Morgan racy UA I E'
Associate Planner
July 28 2005
P V ":- chai(d Bewersdorit DATE
Planning Manager
nn�+�a me
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS
CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ORS CHAPTER 222
ZCA20 05-00001 —Arlington Heights 3 -
The City, is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory,to be
annexed under ORS 222.125. That statute provides:
The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city
or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the -
hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners.
of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if
any;residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the
land in the territory and file a statement°of their consent with the
legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by '
owners and electors under this section, the legislative body.of the city,
by resolution or ordinance,.may set the final boundaries of the area to be
annexed by a_iegal description and proclaim-the annexation.
The Council finds:
1. There.are five owners of the three properties in the territory proposed for
annexation under ZCA2005-00001 have consented in writing to annexation to the
City of Tigard and those consents have been duly filed with the City.
2. According to County voter registration information, there are four registered
voters residing in the territory to be.annexed under ZCA2005-00001. The City
has received signed consents to annexation to the City of Tigard from all four
registered voters. Therefore,the City has received consents from a majority of
the electors in the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005-0000 1.
3. Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and'the majority of the
voters in the territory proposed to be annexed.under ZCA2005-00001, the City,
may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote in the territory to be
annexed;pursuant to ORS 222.125.
Revised Findings as Submitted to the Tigard City
Council from the City Attorney on September 13, 2005
FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO C;OMMt1,NI
At the August 9, 2005,the City Council received testimony from various persons
regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit
additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and
factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request
to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed
.until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by
ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and
factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions.
1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence
submitted in the post-hearing written submissions,the City received two submissions,
both e-mails sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues
because all issues presented in her e-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore,
neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral
hearing,but simply contain further argument on the same factual and legal issues she and
other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore, neither are proper
submissions under ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7).
Issues Raised By More Than One Perron
HB 2484
2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either
prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent
that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It
amends ORS 195.215,to make it clear that"annexation plans" under ORS Chapter 195
must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a
majority within the City.
A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because
HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the
annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195.
They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB
2484, even if it were effective,would not apply to or affect these annexations.
B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan
annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a
meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There
are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates
annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation
area(ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3
(ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have
consented to annexation.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS
Page 1
r
HB 2722
3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law)withdraws the right of cities to veto
formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of
annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the
affected areas are respected.
A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations.
B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have
interests in the affected areas—those who own properly and those who reside
there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be
annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to
be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation.
SB 877
4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law)has three major effects. One is that it limits
the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex"islands"of territory surrounded by that
City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed by
means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the
annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner.
A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of
Tigard.
B. None of the proposed annexations are"island"annexations, although an"island"
is created by the Alberta Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation.
C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS
Chapter 195.
D. The annexations are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot
be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all
owners of all land being annexed.
VoluntM or Coerced Consents
5. Some persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced.
A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who
testified that the consents were coerced did not specify wluch persons were
coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John
Marquart, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that
consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no
evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 2
'd
If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is
likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the
testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more
persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named
individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or
coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have
personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of
the consents were coerced.
B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner
relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner
consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in
return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly
authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides
planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require
consents to annexation in order to provide those services.
C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact
that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not
invalidate the consents.
Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding
6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land
use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a
land use application or as a condition of a land use approval.
A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval,the time
to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use
process. In all but one of the cases, the land use process has been completed and
the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation
can no longer be challenged in those cases.
B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use
proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to
provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that
they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard.
The applicant for the one land use process that has not been completed(Arlington
Heights 3) has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily
provided, and the City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary.
General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area
7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their
property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argued that the
proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 3
Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed.
A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed
for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally
protected interest for other persons.
B. These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters.
These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222.
The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an
annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195
does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation
statute.
"Double Maori "Vote
8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a"double majority"vote(a separately
tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required.
A. A"double majority"vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS
Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222, votes in the City
are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area
to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be
annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the
electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS
222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City.
B. As to each of the annexations,the City has received the consents of all of the
owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the
registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are
not annexation plan annexations under ORS 195, so the double majority
requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the
territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be
annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those
areas.
"Islands"Of UnincoKporated Areas Surrounded By The Ci
9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas
surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands
without consent of owners or electors.
A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider
annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the
Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so
irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services,
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 4
n
the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not
causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has
provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that
the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the
provision of police services.
B. The City does have the authority to annex islands, but is aware that the statutory
authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one
other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation
proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to
approve these annexations.
Regular Boundaries
10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary.
A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides:
Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings
with respect to the following:
a. The annexation eliminate 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 on 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).
B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either(1) subsection a or(2) subsections b
through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The
annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency
situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The
police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable
of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard
Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in
10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets,police and fire protection) can be
provided to the areas to be annexed—the City and other responsible service
providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. The
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 5
Council finds that the annexations provide for a reasonable extension of the City's
boundaries.
Individual Comments— Testimon at Hearin
Les and Ellen Godowski
11. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating
their own cities or annexing to King City.
A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the
possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in
the future.
B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization
or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex
and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed.
Charles Radler
12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and
that there is no"essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document.
A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts properly
from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to
annexations.
B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the
property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval,that
challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally
challenged. Furthermore,Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any
of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been
accepted by the applicants.
C. The"essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan,the case applies only to
exactions at the time of land use approvals, not to annexations. To the extent that
Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases,
that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge.
D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement,
under Rhode Island law,that a building official must issue a building permit that
meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 6
n
building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr.
Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation,
any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the
context of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority and more
discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits.
Julie Russell
13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the
notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits
and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process
violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated
dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning.
A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of
the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by
a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of
the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy,the maps provided
sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and
their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all
applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive
notice,failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which
was properly provided.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is
not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's
land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the
process, including citizen involvement,for considering land use applications.
That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and-a
hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations
demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by
the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell,have had the opportunity to be
involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial
land use process than in a legislative process.
C. CDC 18.320.020 provides:
18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards
A. _Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a
Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using
standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below.
B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS-- ANNEXATIONS
Page 7
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 provisions have been satisfied.
C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The
comprehensive 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. The assignment of these designations shall occur
automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of
land which carries County designations,the City shall convert the
County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the
City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is
required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or
zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See
Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed
concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation
has been approved.
D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion
of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations
which are most similar.
The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to
provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable
Comprehensive Plan Policies, including those in Chapter 10,have been satisfied.
The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning
designations,that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell
specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However,the
City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its
residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in
the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire
protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will
be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of
the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to
provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed, they
could still be developed consistent with the County zoning, which is the same as
City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the
impact on the street system.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 8
D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established
consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions.
Scott Miller
14. In addition to issues addressed in the "Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section
of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also
argued that the consents received by the City are not consents.
A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area
proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation.
The property owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation.
Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding
an annexation.
B. For each of the annexations,the City has either the written consent of the property
owners or a petition from the properly owners to initiate the annexation. All are
valid consents.
Lisa Hamilton Treick
15. In addition to issues address in the"Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of
these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights
that are violated by these annexations.
A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property that will be annexed by these
annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these
annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly
stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them,Tom Weber,
stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings
to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for
annexation.
16, Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use
approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation.
A. In addition to Findings 6 and 7,the various agreements with the County and other
urban service providers, including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and
Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services
and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not
inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section l.D provides that
the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for
annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban
Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all
land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed. Land use authority
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 9
Y
includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a
condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use
application for a property outside the City.
Individual Comments—Post-Hearing Written Submissions
Julie Russell
17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area,
HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1.and 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020.
The above findings address those arguments.
18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain
Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being
applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the
written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between
Washington County R-6 and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied.
19. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received
notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is
possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice
requirements.
20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has
not received any negative continents from other service providers. All service providers
in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services
will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City
and other service providers.
21. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic
provision of public facilities and services. However,her argument appears to be that
services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will
disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers
will ensure orderly and economic provision of services.
22. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None
of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion.
23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit
Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation.
24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the
annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not
related to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's
association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority
to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 10
a
No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision.
Furthermore,Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and
2.
LaVelle and Marie Da
25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with
efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city. This argument does not relate to any
applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on
applicable standards or criteria.
Jackie and Gary Kislinn
26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in
the above findings.
Hepa Kane
27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are
island annexations.
Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Tom Treik
28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and Mr. Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four
annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the
hearings had not been combined,the hearings could have been, and most likely would
have been held at the same meeting. Therefore,the appeals would have all been due at
the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single
time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. .All persons were given a full
opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations.
29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the
consents. These issues are addressed above.
30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is
not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion.
Philip E. Decker
31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed
will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The
annexations are of contiguous property.
32. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous
parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an
annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow properties that
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page l l
are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services
immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity
requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective.
33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the
area being annexed is not an issue.
.34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations
are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attached at this time.
Comments In Support
35. After the hearing,the City received several written comments in support of the proposed
annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the
Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson
Ridge annexation, and from Tom Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington
Heights 3 property, all of wham stated that the annexation applications were voluntary.
Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations
of their respective areas.
G:lmuni\Tigardlrevisedannexationfindings0817U5.doe
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 12