The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/07/1983 � J TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate ' FEBRUARY 7, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). Ii no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ask to be recognized by the Chair. Non-agenda LECTURE ROOM items are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less and are heard at the discretion of the Chair. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1. 1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda 2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 2. 1 Approve Minutes: December 12, 13, 15, 1982 & January 10 & 17, 1983 2.2 Receive and File: o Legal Services Control Budget Report - December, 1982 o Letter from James Templeton School re: street safety o Petition re: development for Bechtold properties o Resolution No. 83-09 TURA Appointment 3. WORKSHOP AND REVIEW OF CITY HOUSING POLICY WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY c Director of Planning and Development 4. WORKSHOP AND REVIEW OF CITY AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION POLICIES WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS. o Public Works Director and Planning Staff 5. ORDINANCE NO. 83- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. o Director of Planning and Development 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS - Urbanization Element o Public Hearing Opened o Summary by Director of Planning & Development o Public Testimony o Staff Response o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council r 7. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item 1. 3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are c encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, John Cook and Ima Scott; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie (left at 9:25 P.M. ) ; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; City Administrator, Bob Jean; Director of Planning and Development, William Monahan; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Deputy City Recorder, Loreen Wilson (arriving at 8:08 P.M. ) 2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA. (a) City Administrator clarified that the Resolution 83-09 TURA appointments, which is under receive and file should be a motion to pass. .1 Letter from Jim Simmons - request by Mayor Bishop. 3. APPROVE MINUTES: December 12, 13, 15, 1983 and January 10, 17, 1983. (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve minutes. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. i 4. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMUNICATIONS: o Legal services control budget report - December, 1983 o Letter from James Templeton School re: street safety o Petition re: development for Bechtold properties (a) I-lotion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. Resolution No. 83-09 A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO T'IGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY COMMITTEE. (a) Motion by Councilor Brian and seconded by Coucilor Cook to approve Resolution No. 83-09. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. t-hlv�<s� 6. WORKSHOP AND REVIEW OF CITY *Nps ti WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY Pfd' Y40,L6 'n`l (a) Legal Counci_=i7- stated this workshop was brought about by Council concerns over concentration of subsidized units on Grant Court. He continued that the City has entered into a cooperative agreement, in May of 1981, with the Housing Authority and the Federal Government to allow 22 units of subsidized housing in Tigard. Permits have been issued. The issue now is where to go from here. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 (b) Ray Hackl 10855 SW Hillcrest Court, Beaverton, respresenting the Housing Authority commented they tried to respond to the Comprehensive Plan that was drafted in April of 1982. Since then they have received copies from the current proposed Comprehensive Plan. He distributed and summarized copies of comments with respect to policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, stating they are discriminatory in nature and therefore unconstitutional.. If these policies have been adopted, he requested that they be revised. He suggested that a system be established, that the Housing Authority would have go through when purchasing land for subsidized housing, which would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed regarding how the policy is discriminatory. (c) Alan Horowitz, 10475 S.W. Grant Court, read a motion passed by NPO # 3 opposing the concentration of public assisted housing or of building homes of significantly less value or architecturally incompatible with the existing houses in the surrounding neighborhood. (d) Mrs. Allworth, 10455 S.W. Grant Court, commented that subsidized housing does involve a certain class of people and she does not like to see that class of people being concentrated in her neighborhood. She does not oppose the house that is presently there, but looking at the houses that are being built, they do not fit in with what is now in the neighborhood. She wanted to know what the Housing Authority was going to do to make these houses blend into the neighborhood. Also the benefits, rights and duties of undivided and commom ownership of Tract A Ihis land is in the center of the cul-de-sac, and has been keep up by the six property owners. She feels this should be split 10 ways to include the subsidized housing lots. Lengthy discussion followed regarding area known as Tract A, value of the homes and compatibility of homes being built. (e) Dayton Page, Washington County Housing Authority, informed the Council that Lot 1 was an acquistion and had been built by the builder who had built the other homes in the neighborhood. The property was not landscaped at that time, but has subsequently been landscaped. Regarding Tract A, they do have a commitment for the ongoing maintenance of Tract A and will participate, but they do not want to enter into a homeowners association. Regarding the appearance, homes will have cedar siding and different elevations. (f) Councilor Brian questioned how many total units have been constructed, developed or acquired in the City of Tigard. Mr. Page responded that 10 units had been acquired, 22 units of new construction, and a total of 63 units of section 8 existing in the City of Tigard. (g) Lengthy discussion followed. (h) Legal Counsel summarized the City's position. The issue being, is the Council satisfied with the current policy and undertaking the obligation under the existing agreement. Discussion followed. Consensus of Council was they were glad the current agreement was fulfilled & will live with the situation. PAGE 2 -- COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 73 1983 r f 7. WORKSHOP AND REVIEW OF CITY AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION POLICIES WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS. (a) Lucille Warren, County Commissioner, Rt. 1 Box 82A 13 Newberg, stated she had brought Dr. Martin Nizlek, Transportation Manager of Washington County along to assist in the discussion. Also with her is the Urban Planning Manager, Yvonne Addington. (b) Mr. Martin Nizlek reviewed the process to develop the transportation plan to compliment the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Washington County. He showed proposed traffic alignments resulting from the traffic studies for the 135th, Scholls Ferry, Murray Road, Gaarde Road, Bull Mountain and Beef Bend areas. He read the conclusions of the traffic study which was done on SW Durham Road, which did not support the limitation of truck traffic at this time, stating that transportation modeling effort indicates the need for Durham Road to function as an arterial, given projected development in the area. o Councilor Brian expressed appreciation for the explaination. His feeling at the time of receiving the map showing the bypass, was that the County showed it as the single alternative for the Murray Road Extension. The RTP and the Public Works Department had conceded that the Murray Road extension should be depicted as a three head arrow, showing that it's undecided which rcute would be best. He felt the City Council 's position was to oppose the extension as depicted. He also felt that the Murray Road extension should not be done at least until tha Reusser Road extension has been completed. o Discussion followed regarding Durham Road being an arterial. o Mayor Bishop felt the planning was done improperly and encouraged using alternative routes. Discussion followed. o Lucille Warren, expressed her thanks for the opportunity to make the presentation and assured the Council that the County would be looking at this plan closely during their public hearings process. o Wes Myllenbeck, newly elected County Commissioner, commented he was happy to be here working with the City. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS LEFT - 9:25 P.M. RECONVENE: 9:47 P.M. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 83-06 AN ORDIANCE AMENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. o Staff requested amending from March 1, 1983 to April 1, 1983 �cc `( ose (a) Councilor Brian moved and Councilor second to approve Ordinance 83-06 as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - URBANIZATION CPA 13-83 (a) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED o Director of Planning and Development Monahan stated the Planning Commission on January 20, 1983 had recommended adoption of the Urbanization element. o Associate Planner Coursolle gave an overview of the Urbanization element. Discussion followed regarding areas of interest and the Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. o Consensus of the City Council is to amend Urban Planning Area Agreement to be able to annex in areas of interest. (b) PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball, 11515 S.W. 91st, representing DJB Inc. and herself, read a letter into the record, regarding annexation and de-annexation of her property. o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 S.W. Walnut, representing NPO # 3 expressed concern for Item number 11 regarding annexations and 10.1.1 b regarding the non remonstrance requirement. o Mayor Bishop noted that Vitz Ramsdall, representing NPO # 3 had spoken at the January 26, 1983 meeting regarding this issue. o Associate Planner Coursolle commented that regarding Item number 11 that there would be instances where you could not avoid that problem. o City Administrator commented that the State of Oregon has one of the most restrictive annexations laws in the United States. He suggested that they not give up any authority granted under the state law. o Mayor Bishop suggested not including item # 11. o Mrs. Ball requested staff tc respond to whether she was or was not in the City; City Administrator stated to the best of his knowledge Mrs. Ball's property is in the City. The staff will review and respond to her and the Council. (c) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (d) City Administrator discussed rewording of 10-1-1- (e) Bob Bledsoe questioned if it was proper for city staff to offer changes of wording after the public hearing has been closed; Public Hearing was reopened. (f) City Administrator proposed wording changes to items 10.1.1, 10.1.2 (a) and 10.3.1. Discussion followed. (g) Bob Bledsoe, was concerned with the procedure, that changes should have been presented through the Planning Commission. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 1 _ - (h) Further discussion on wording changes for policies. Including deleting wording in 10.1.3 and replacing with, " The City shall consider annextion requests outside the Tigard Urban Planning Area and within the Urban Growth Boundary consistent with policies 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 and agreement between the City and the County. (i) Bob Bledsoe commented that 10.3.1 as adopted by the Planning Commission would prevent irregular urban growth boundaries. He did not feel the changes proposed were different from what they had proposed. (j) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (k) ORDINANCE No. 83-07 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBANIZATION ELEMENT OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. o Councilor Brian questioned policy 10.1.1 b, asking for a clarification from staff. Discussion followed. Legal Council suggested wording changes. o Councilor Brian moved and Councilor Scott seconded to approve policy 10.1.1. a. as amended to read as follows: "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:" Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. o Councilor Brian moved and Councilor Cook seconded to approve policy 10.1.1 b. as amended to read as follows: "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 EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: a) WATER; b) SEWER; c) DRAINAGE; AND d) STREETS; PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 2. THE FORMATION 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." Potion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. o Councilor Brian moved and Councilor Cook seconded to approve policy 10.1.1 c. as amended to read as follows: "THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPON ANNEXATION." Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. o Councilor Cook moved and Councilor Brian seconded to approved policy 10.1.2 & a. as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 6•. Councilor Brian moved and Councilor Cook seconded to approved policy 10.3.1 as amended to read as follows: "APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LAND ANNEXATIONS 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(b)(2)". Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. o Council Brian moved and Councilor Cook seconded to approve Ordinance No. 83-07 as amended. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item 1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting. 10.1 LETTER FROM SENATOR JIM SIMMONS - Regarding vacancies on boards. a. Councilor Brian suggested sending the letter to the Tigard Times. PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 IMW -WON 10.2 REVISED CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY - Consensus of Council was to receive and file. 10.3 LETTER FROM RICK GUSTUFSON, Executive Officer for METRO, asking for the City to appoint someone to represent the City on Friday, February 19, 1983 at 2:30 P.M. to meet with Senator Hatfield to discuss Metro items. Consensus of City Council to delegate the Mayor to decide who the representive would be. 10.4 SOCIAL SECURITY WITHDRAWAL MEETING - Schedule February 17, 1983. Staff advised that 75% of employees and City Council must attend. Consensus of City Council was to cancel the meeting and have Kirk Burger from LGPI discuss on City Council agenda. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: the Tigard City Council went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (1) (h) 6 (f) to consider issues related to pending litigation. RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION: 11:34 P.M. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 83-10 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY AND PURPOSE FOR ACQUISITION OF A CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE 72ND AVENUE AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, t DIRECTING AN ATTEMPT TO AGREE WITH THE OWNERS AS TO COMPENSATION THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY. (Connie's Market) (a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 P.M. City Recorder - City of Tig ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983 h. Da to I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Descrip tion: Oppaaen t C a�- ) _; ... Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation RISEN 111111 IN i E DATE �2 % I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please Print your name) i ITEM DESCRIPTION: ( � r �(+ , Zc��, fdrl e ►�+''7' PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 9 v MINI 1 1, i 0 JUMMOM *9500 ard Public Schools, District 23% _ es Templeton Elementary i �9$ S.W. Murdock Tigard,Oregon 97223 Area Code(503)620-1620 January 31 , 1983 L 3 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Sirs, s I have some concerns regarding the safety of the intersections at 96th and 97th and Murdock. As you know these are the intersections adjacent to the Templeton and Twality Schools. Not only are these roads heavily traveled at the beginning and end of the school days, but also have much pedestrian and bicycle traffic during these times. Since I started work here last July, I have witnessed several near ; accidents. The way in which these roads come together make them hazardous. I believe that it is quite possible that a school bus or students could easily be involved in a serious accident at one } of these intersections. Currently there are stop signs at the Templeton parking lot exit and for traffic traveling north on 97th where it meets Murdock. I feel that these streets would be safer with additional stop signs. I request that stop signs be placed at the corners of 96th and Murdock . and 97th and Murdock. (See addendum). Vehicles who aren't presently stopping at these spots are risking the danger of an accident. I appreciate your consideration of this request and am willing to meet with you at your convenience. Sincer ly, Ki Gladder, Principal kg:bc ;tel C n G� s . 9 w . . 9 C 11W ��, Jim 9 ?pc)55c�cA Lkai��A cre- )A- rha'd t ZLII to 7C%�. I l S �' �. cy l - 5 7C' � r 1 /37 v s i i �ov a Y�e IVIV� C:S2Y�S 2�e iGZ�� r/ ted 4-v 5: �v. �s 42 V 15%/x- -� 'tet jZ �a 56;J, 60'j C- Oarto"--se, /,�Zo S-5- "2�o ko s<- Vur,t. r ., �.-- rs .J.•�os� �l.s tom. O � a M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MAYOR WILBUR BISHOP DATE. FEBRUARY 1, 1983 G SUBJECT: T.U.R.A. AT-LARGE VACANCY I have conferred with John Cook and Bob Jean as the Appointments Advisory Committee and would like to recommend Mr. Bob Nunn to the above referenced position. Mr. Nunn is a Tigard resident on Ash Avenue, a Bond Attorney in Portland and is interested in the Downtown Revitalization goal . Attached is the necessary resolution which I recommend be approved. WAB : dkr Attachment t al0 O ^J O O O O p O O O CD p O n N O O .7 J IE H N T ,p o o O o o p W O O O N O n 2: O v v O Ob O O O O m m O N O O al0 O p O p O a C Q O O O �I O O t\ N L)C) O G O O .oM Ip O v N m O O O O C O :+l O O vi LID J O O O O O O O O Cl O p O O m m .--' O O O ✓1 .D F OIC O _N O O m m O O O m C O W U I Vl O Om O .O ("1 N O m M Ul ✓1 N ul "1 N m I U' O{N O Ir n o I a N N C1 a -I{ O — u'I n O c1 .-+ O m •--� n - O O O O O �--� mO Ic> N Op � U N 1 1 _ WOOmOOOoONm tf1 O p n C) OO a' W Ulc:, N C= U O H N N .--� C W Lo a d U W a T W P4 6 to did ra d aq v cn d W v W �VcG d W d W d R1 6 u-1 O IO O I O m 0 0 0 0 aF0 mo c) cn, �N � O O I—'nm O Oo �n �nO ON W o'O IO ^O rj�tlp ✓1 N O m N m N 1 O m N c+1 vl i �+'1 N ^�7 Y v ^ C) N C F' cn d.--1 d � m.-+ r+O .-+ r'1 a W H 1 cn N N N N 1 p a v oa o W H m W > zo �' o W U or; a m x o d v * * W W d W da46 cn 6 rn d H na d as d 6 d W 6 d F' O y a U U Cd a a y. 'd F d d Do O Z F tN O pHd 2't cA O U O a a Yd a¢ 6 cm W .tl x CO H a ? F U Z 3 CrF..I F F x d Q { V p .y W Uj H H W cn O U O' N H W U W [Wr� O O O A ti H d U U Z a H Z Z a t7 5 a Z Z � H Z M' F 1 U Z a -� Z W W a !�1 C.� cw .d-7 Z PO.. r CW.� F m 0 lF/J cc: m N O G �c II II O U � e e e • W e O P. e • vJ Ln • • F 6 U U e oz— 1 COOPERATION AGREEMENT 17 This Agreement entered into this lith day of May. 1981 by and between the Housing Authority of Washington County herein called the "Local Authority") and City of Tigard 1/(herein called the "Municipality") , witnesseth: In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1 . Whenever used in this Agreement: (a) The term "Project" shall mean any low-rent housing hereafter developed or acquired by the Local Authority with financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government") ; excluding however, any low-rent housing project covered by any contract for loans and annual contributions entered into between the Local Authority and the Government, or its predecessor agencies , prior to the date of this Agreement. (b) The term "Taxing Body" shall mean the State or any political subdivision or taxing unit thereof in which a Project is situated and which would have authority to assess or levy real or personal property taxes or to certify such taxes to a taxing body or public officer to be levied for its use and benefit with respect to a Project if it were not exempt from taxation. (c) The term "Shelter Rent" shall mean the total of all charges to all tenants of a Project for dwelling rents and nondwelling rents (excluding all other income of such Project) , less the cost to the Local Authority of all dwelling and nondwelling utilities. 2. The Local Authority shall endeavor (a) to secure a contract or contracts with the Government for loans and annual contributions covering one or more Projects comprising approximately TWFNTY TWO (22) 2/ units of low-rent housing and (b) to develop or acquire and administer such Project or Projects, each of which shall be located within the corporate limits of the Municipality. The obligations of the parties hereto shall apply to each such Project. 3. (a) Under the constitution and statutues of the State of Oregon , 3/ all projects are exempt from all real and personal property taxes and special assessments levied or imposed by any Taxing Body. With respect to any Project, so long as either (i) such Project is owner by a public body or governmental agency and is used for low-rent housing purposes , or (ii) any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions, or both, in connection with such Project remains in force and effect, or (iii) any bonds issued in connection with such Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest, the Municipality agrees that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes or special assessments upon such Project or upon the Local Authority with respect thereto. During such period, the Local Authority shall make annual payments (herein called "Payments in Lieu of Taxes") in lieu of such taxes and special assessments and in payment for the public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge for or with respect to such Project. NINON (b) Each such!. nual Payment in Lieu of Taxes _ -ill be made after the end of the fiscal year established for such Project , and shall be in an amount equal to either (i ) ten percent (10%) of the Shelter Rent charged by the Local Authority in respect to such Project during such fiscal year or (ii ) the amount permitted to be paid by applicable state law in effect on the date such payment is made, which- ever amount is the lower. (c) The Municipality shall distribute the Payments in Lieu of Taxes among the Taxing Bodies in the proportion which the real property taxes which would have been paid to each Taxing Body for such year if the Project were not exempt from taxation bears to the total real property taxes which would have been paid to all of the Taxing Bodies for such year if the Project were not exempt from taxation; Provided, however, That no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body in excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to such Taxing Body for such year if the Project were not exempt from taxation. (d) Upon failure of the Local Authority to make any Payment in Lieu of Taxes, no lien against any Project or assets of the Local Authority shall attach, nor shall any interest or penalties accrue or attach on account thereof. 4. during the period commencing with the date of the acquisition of any part of the site or sites of any Project and continuing so long as either (i) such Project is owned by a public body or governmental agency and is used for low-rent housing purposes, or (ii) any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions, or both, in connection with such Project remains in force and effect, or (iii) any bonds issued in connection with such Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest, the Municipality without cost or charge to the Local Authority or the tenants of such Proiect (other than the Payments ' in Lieu of Taxes) shall : (a) Furnish or cause to by furnished to the Local Authority and the tenants of such Project public services and facilities of the same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants in the Municipality; (b) Vacate such streets, roads, and alleys within the area of such Project as may be necessary in the development thereof, and convey without charge to the Local Authority such interest as the Municipality may have in such vacated areas; and, in so far as it is lawfully able to do so without cost or expense to the Local Authority or to the Municipality, cause to be removed from such vacated areas , in so far as it may be necessary, all public or private utility lines and equipment; (c) In so far as the Municipality may lawfully do so, (i) grant such deviations from the building code of the Municipality as are reasonable and necessary to promote economy and efficiency in the development and administration of such Project, and at the same time safeguard health and safety, and (ii ) make such changes in any zoning of the site and surrounding territory of such Project as are reasonable and necessary for the development and protection of such Project and the surrounding territory; (d) Accept grants of easements necessary for the development of such Projects; and (e) Cooperate with the Local Authority by such other lawful action or ways as the Municipality and the Local Authority may find necessary in connection with the developmen' and administration of such Project. 5. In respect to any Project the Municipality further agrees that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request therefor from the Local Authority: (a) It will accept the dedication of all interior streets , roads, alleys, and adjacent sidewalks within the area of such Project , together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated areas, after the Local Authority, at its own expense, has completed the grading, improvement, paving, and installation thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality; (b) It will accept necessary dedications of land for, and will grade, improve, pave and provide sidewalks for, all streets bounding such Project or necessary to provide adequate access thereto (in consideration, whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Project site for such work site were privately owned) ; and (c) It will provide, or cause to be provided, water mains , and storm and sanitary sewer mains, leading to such Project and serving the bounding streets thereof (in consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Project site for such work is such site were privately owned) . 6. If by reason of the Municipality's failure or refusal to furnish or cause to be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed hereunder to furnish or to cause to be furnished to the Local Authority or to the tenants of any Project, the Local Authority incurs any expense to obtain such services or facilities then the Local Authority may deduct the amount of such expense from any Payments in Lieu of Taxes due or to become due to the Municipality in respect to any Project or any other low-rent housing projects owned or operated by the Local Authority. 7. No Cooperation Agreement heretofore entered into between the Municipality and the Local Authority shall be construed to apply to any Project covered by this Agreement. 8. No member of the governing body of the Municipality or any other public official of the Municipality who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to any Project during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest , direct or indirect, in any Project or any property included or planned to be included in any Project, or any contracts in connection with such Projects or property. If any such governing body member or such other public official of the Municipality involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of his tenure any such interest, he shall 'immediately disclose such interest to the Local Authority. 9. So long as any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans (including preliminary loans) or annual Contributions, or both, in connection with any project remains in force and effect, or so long as any bonds issued in connection with any Project or any i ies due to the Government in ct onect ion with any Project remain unpaid, this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed, or modified without the consent of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality hereunder shall remain in full force and effect . with respect to each Project so long as the beneficial title to such Project is held by the Local Authority or by any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, authorized by law to engage in the development or administration of low-rent housing projects. If at any time the beneficial title to, or possession of, any Project is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Municipality and the Local Authority have respectively signed this Agreement and caused their seals to be affixed and attested as of the day and year first above written. (SEAL) CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Corporate Name of Municipality ATT.c7: v I i DORIS HARTIG Rorder WILBUR A. BISHOP Mayor Type Name and Title Type Name and Title l (SEAL) Housing Authority of Washington County ATTEST-/ Chairman Derryck Dittman Dayton Page, Executive Director Typ, Name and Title) O•DONNELL. DATE February 7 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean , City Administrator 1727 NW, HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 Oft 1C:e of the City Attorney 15031 2224402 FROM RE Procedure for Termination or Modification of Current Cooperative Agreement with Washington County Housing Authority In light of the controversy surrounding the Housing Authority project on Grant Court, our office was requested to investigate the potential for modification or possible termination of the city' s current cooperative agreement with the Authority. This agreement, signed on May 11 , 1981 , calls for the development or acquisition by the Authority of twenty-two (22) units of low rent housing within the city. Under the agreement, the Authority is to make annual payments in lieu of real or personal property while the city agrees to furnish taxes or special assessments, the customary level of public facilities and services to these units and otherwise cooperate in the development of such housing to the extent allowed or required by law. The city' s obligation extends through the following periods, whichever is longest: 1. During the time in which such units are publicly owned and used for low rent housing purposes; or 2 . While any contract between the Authority and the federal government remains in force; or 3 . So long as any bonds issued in connection with the project or monies due to the federal government remain unpaid. Notwithstanding the extended duration of the agreement, it remains effective only as to the 22 units addressed herein. In other words , any additional units required or constructed by the Authority require and are subject to a new agreement. Since all low income housing to be developed and operated pursuant to this agreement is funded by HUD subsidies, the federal government is very reluctant to construct such housing in the face of opposition from the local community involved. Consequently, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 expressly provides that HUD cannot enter into a contract for federal subsidy of such housing until a cooperative agreement between the city and the local housing authority has been reached. 42 U.S.C. § 1437 c (e) (1) (2) . In a similar manner , the nature of the city' s minimum obligations as set forth in these agreements is controlled by statute. Obviously, the federal government is seeking to ensure the continued viability of these programs and protect its investment by eliminating the sion of public services such as fire possibility that the provi protection or water' service may later be curtailed or otherwise adversely affected by the municipality. In essence, the signing 1 of such an agreement is prerequisite to the construction of low t income units within the city, and the refusal to do so may allow Cuyahoga the city to effectively veto such projects. Mahaley V. SLP:mch 217183 - Page 1 O'DONNELL. DATE February 7 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean , City Administrator 1727 N W HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Office of the City Attorney RE Cooperative Agreement with Washington County Housing Authority Metropolitan Housing Authority , 500 F2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1974) : Hill v. Gautreaux , 425 US 284 (1976) . Nonetheless, I must add that the city retains an obligation to accommodate such housing needs, if identified, under Goal 10 and ORS 197 . 295 through 197 . 307 . Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held in Mount Laurel II that municipalities in New Jersey had a constitutional obligation under that state' s constitution to provide low income housing . As to the cooperative agreement at hand, the rights of both parties to modify its terms or terminate it altogether are controlled by Section 9 , which provides: 11 9 . So long as any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans (including preliminary loans) or annual contributions, or both , in connection with any project remains in force and effect, or so long as any bonds issued in connection with any Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with any Project remain unpaid, this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed, or modified without the consent of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality hereunder shall remain in full force and effect with respect to each Project so long as the beneficial title to such project is held by the Local Authority or by any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, authorized by law to engage in the development or administration of low rent housing projects. If at anytime the beneficial title to, or possession of , any Project is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions hereof inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other public body or govern- mental agency, including the Government. " As stated, the city must obtain the consent of HUD prior to any change in the terms of the agreement, be it modification or termination. Since the Authority' s financial commitment to HUD g includes operating deficits as well as capital construction costs, 3. I cannot envision a time within the near future where such consent by HUD will not be necessary. In an effort to obtain the terms of such consent and an under- standing of those circumstances, if any, in which consent has been granted, I contacted Mr. Robert Chatham, counsel to HUD in 4 Portland. He is well aware of the Grant Court controversy, having been advised of the situation by Dayton Page. According to Mr. Chatham, HUD has not consented to termination of a cooperative agreement in the 13 years he has served as regional ..counsel. . .He did indicate, however, that his agency has consented to numberous modifications of either existing agreements or the form agreement { SLP:mch 2/7/83 - Page 2 v mgr ®mer®>saess. O'DONNELL. DATE February 7 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bob Jean, City Administrator 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222.4402 FROM Office of the City Attorney RE Cooperative Agreement with Washington County Housing Authority used by most housing authorities , often on the basis of the municipality' s need to accommodate recent charter or ordinance amendments relating to procedure in its provision of public services. However, he stressed that the applicable regulations provide that any such modification is subject to (1) approval of the Housing Authority; and (2) conformance with applicable federal and state statutes. Consequently, HUD will steadfastly refuse to entertain a request for modification which does not have the Authority' s blessing. It would appear that a proposal for modification could be premised upon the city' s new Housing Element Policy relating to undue concentrations of subsidized housing. Obviously, the policy limits the extent to which the city could approve location of such units within its corporate boundaries. As a practical matter, however, I am informed by Mr. Chatham that, with the possible exception of the Grant Court properties, all 22 units addressed in this particular agreement are either built or are under construction.. Since the current agreement relates only to those units, any such modification would appear to be of little value. Nonethess, I do suggest -that future cooperative agreements, { if -71y, entered into by the city be negotiated to reflect this PC,--icy. Notwithstanding the limitations noted above, the city is not without means to prevent a reoccurence of the circumstances surrounding the Grant Court project, or otherwise exercise control over the siting of subsidized housing within the city. First and foremost, the city is entitled to notice of each application received by HUD for federal housing assistance money to be spent within the city. 42 U.S .C. § 1439 . Morevover, § 213 (a) of the Act provides the city with notice of and an opportunity to object to specific sites to be considered for the construction of new units. The city may object, but only on one ground; namely; that the proposal is inconsistent with the city' s Housing Assistance Plan, which the city has adopted as a prerequisite to receipt of community development block grants. While an objec- tion of this nature serves as an automatic veto of the Authority' s proposal unless HUD expressly overrides the city' s determination of inconsistency, an objection .based upon an alleged violation of the city' s comprehensive plan or implementing ordinances does no-. On the other hand, Mr. Chatham indicates that such an objection nonetheless carries great weight in light of HUD' s desire to avoid conflicts with participating munici- palities and a possible denial of the necessary permits. On January 15, 1982, the city received notice of the Authority' s intent to construct new units on the Grant Court properties and a request for objection or comment within 30 days. According to SLP:mch 2/7/83 - Page 3 Tam® �_��ps®��s- O'DONNELL. DATE February 7, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean, City Administrator 1727 NW. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 2224402 I FROM Office of the City Attorney RE Cooperative Agreement with Washington County Housing Authority Mr. Chatham, HUD' s failure to receive any response led the agency to assume that the city had no objections. If an objection was received, he suggests that, in all likelihood, the Authority would not have been allowed to proceed for the above reasons. For this reason, the city should carefully review future notices from HUD and respond as appropriate. Furthermore, the city' s HAP should reflect a new housing development policy recently adopted by the Council , and thereby provide an additional and more specific basis for an objection, if raised. The fact that each cooperative agreement is effective only as to the specific housing units addressed therein provides the city with another means to clarify its position on the type and location of new housing construction. As noted earlier, each such agreement extends only through development and subsequent operation of the specific units involved. Of the 22 units addressed in the city' s current agreement with the Authority, each is either built or in receipt of necessary approvals from the city (assuming the Grant Court permits have been issued) . While the agreement binds the city to continued service of these particular units, no additional site acquisition or unit con- struction will be funded by HUD unless a new agreement between the Authority and the city is reached. In the event a new agreement is proposed, the city is free to negotiate its terms so as to accommodate the city' s concerns regardings undue concentration of subsidized housing. As a final note, it appears that the Reagan administration has effectively eliminated all funding for the construction of new federally assisted housing during fiscal years 1983 and 1984 . According to Mr. Chatham, the central thrust of federal housing assistance is now toward housing assistance payments, which supplement rental payments of low income persons, not the con- struction of new publicly owned housing. Title 8 of the Act, S 201 (a) (a) , 42 U. S.C. S 1437 (f) . Indeed, the formation of a housing authority is held to be less important under the Act of 1974 than previously. Practically speaking, this means that the Authority will not likely be approaching the city in the near future with a request for a new cooperative agreement calling for the construction of additional units. However, this does not mean that the city cannot continue to provide its fair share of low income housing through the supplemental payment program referenced above. E s I hope the above is of assistance to you. SLP:mch 2/7/83 - Page 4 TItACT At Each lot in :4insome- Terrace has the ?tPpnefits, ri;rhts and duties of undi_vi('ed and common OTNMership of "-ract All as quoted from each title lnsur<nce nolicv. The following is a recap of the costs to da to re-riuired to maintain Tract A: X982 5 bags of Caseron (5 lb each) P S20 per bag X100. 2 units of barkdust 240. 2 bottles of Cleanup @ $6.49 each 12.98 5 hours labor - 1 Person @ $18/hr 90. 72 hours labor - 6 persons C 12 hrs each @ $1.8 1296. 4983 1 bottle of Cleanup 6.49 12 hra labor - 2 persons C 6 hrs each 21.6. TOTAL EXPENDED TO DATE $1961.47 � *This amount has been paid solely by six Property owners. The duties have not been shared in any part by the owner of lots 1: 79 9 and 10. The following is an estimate of costa expected in the next month to maintain Tract A. 5 bags of Caseron @ $20 Per bag $i.00. 20 hours labor 360. $460.00 The coat of labor was dete inkd by a survey of Portland � landscape companies. ($18 per hour was consistently reported as minimae. charge.) arw�r�ac®s�r� eaf®rte®®�� — POSITION PAPER City of Tigard Housing Policies POLICY 6. 1 .1 - The city shall provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and residential types by various prices and rent levels. POLICY 6. 1 .2 - Subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable development standards. To prevent the geographic concentration of public housing and insure a balance in the distribution of such housing, the minimum distance between subsidized housing units located within a single family zoning district shall be five times the minimum lot width on any street in the development. For purposes of this policy, the term "subsidized housing" shall mean any housing developed or constructed by the Washington County Housing Authority with financial assist- ance of the U.S. Department of housing & Urban Development. These eoiicies appear to replace policies and implementing strategies previously reviewed by the City of Tigard dated April , 1982, as an attempt to meet metropolitan housing goals and eliminating the prohibiting affects "for ownership or rent affordability for a higher percentage of Tigard households". Your original draft contained eight (8) housing policies, all of which were designed to promote and encourage a diversity of housing densities and residential types that are available at various prices and rent levels to households of all incomes. A great emphasis was placed upon the city's responsibility to provide safe, sanitary, and convenient living conditions utilizing existing or planned public facilities in an efficient development process in a manner to encourage ownership and affordability to all income levels. it would appear that your new housing policies still supports the contention of a diversity of housing densities and residential types, hoping to encourage various prices and rent levels, however, F you have totally divorced yourself from the concept of meeting the City of Tigard,s E needs as stated in previous goals, 6.1 .6, 6.1 .7 S 6.1 .8. Instead, you have created a new housing policy 6.1 .2, which is discriminatory in practice and economically restrictive. It's obvious from this approach, that the philosophy has been taken : that if the problem is not recognized, it will not exist. Your new-policy, 6.1 .2, is a clear attempt to segregate the Housing Authority of Washington County from other housing groups regardless of the proposed housing type or social-economic i clientiel targeted for activities by the Housing Authority. The first- part, fE t i "subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable development standards", f is a reiteration of the rules and regulations that already apply. However, it would tend to indicate that the Housing Authority, by virtue of serving low and meoderate income clients, would intend to develop housing that was low and moderate in standards. This statement has no foundation that we can determine and would appear to have originated from some predetermined prejudice. This policy goes on to read: " to prevent the geographic concentration of public housing and insure a balance in the distribution of such housing, the minimum distance between subsidized housing units located within any single family zoning district shall be five times the minimum lot width on any street in the development". In your plan, you identified that within your jurisdiction, thirty-three percent (33%) of your population met the requirements for subsidies under a HUD regulated program. And yet in your policy, you are restricting the availability of housing to one in six. By your own count, there are one-thousand, nine-hundred (1 ,900) households within your jurisdiction that qualify for, or need, housing assistance. Of this number, five-hundred and ten (510) are seniors and it is hoped they would not be affected by this policy. The Housing Authority, responding to the needs ` identified by the City of Tigard, has responded and attempted to provide for the city, assistance in meeting those needs. The Draft Comprehensive Plan Report on housing, previously issued by the City of Tigard, stresses in several places, a recognized responsibility on the part of the city to encourage the provision of subsidized housing "in order to maintain the quality of housing stock and 'allow for adequate and affordable housing for all of Tigards` residents, the city will cooperate with Washington County Authority. . .1° (page 75) "A basic responsibility of a community to provide affordable housing for those people that wish to reside in the community regardless of income." (page 71) For reasons which we are not aware, the city has acted not to support these ideas but to limit an agency which could help meet these policies by restricting our ability to respond. Policy 6.1 .2 not only segregates the housing, it encourages only larger concentrations of low and moderate subsidized housing and families to apartment complexes that we want to avoid. There will of course never be sufficient funding to meet the total need as defined. It would be our recommendation that the city work in concert with whatever agency is available to help meet the goals of the city and the phis-)soppy embraced by i_.C.O.C. 's Coal 10. The Housing Authority stands ready to assist the city if it can, and asks only that the city not limit our ability to help by adopting restrictive policies. E f i t i HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY t I i 3 o-t a w WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150 N. FIRST AVENUE HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS February 3, 1983 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman ROOM 48- 886 BONNIE L. HAWS, Vice Chairman 1503!648$ EVA M. KILLPACK JOHN E. WEEK LUCILLE WARREN Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Tigard P .O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Status of County Planning for Roads in Tigard Area Ladies and Gentlemen: Washington County Commissioner Lucille Warren has asked that 2 prepare for you a report of the County' s recent efforts to (, plan for County facilities in the Tigard area. Two reasons have generated this need: = 1) Development of the County' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and 2) the feasibility analysis of a Local Improvement District in the 135th-Walnut area. Commissioner Warren has also asked me to summarize this Department' s position on Durham Road in light of recent studies carried out on that roadway as well as in relation to our trans- portation planning efforts. Sincerely, Larry Rice Director o ublic Works 4 LR:MCN: ss Tatin �, ik, Attachment Transportation Manager CC: Board of County Comm. County Administrator Rick Daniels Frank Currie an equal opportunity employer COUNTY ROAD PLANNING In the spring of last year the . County contracted with Metro and jointly developed an extensive upgrading of Metro' s computer model used for analysis of roadway needs. This model encompassed the entire urban area, including the City of Tigard, allowing a detail of traffic analysis to at least the arterial and major collector system never available to Washington County jurisdictions previously.l In the late spring of last year the County Planning staff (assisted by Metro staff) collaborated with city staffs to establish concensus on population and employment projections for use in the transportation model . While staff representatives from Tigard were made aware of this effort at interagency coordinating meetings (Planning Directors ' meetings) as well as through correspondence from Metro staff , no input was received from Tigard. Given the City' s non-response to requests to participate in reaching a mutually agreeable set of population and employment projections, Metro staff utilized previously adopted regional control totals to estimate Tigard' s .share of future growth. Subsequently the computer model was run to analyze road needs. One readily apparent problem to the .transportation planning staff throughout the analysis process was the magnitude of congestion to be witnessed along Highway 217 and sections of Scholls Ferry Road and the increased encroachment this would generate to local Tigard streets such as Walnut. Given the fact that the County functional classification plan as well as the Regional Transportation Plan have for some time called for the Murray extension, it was logical for staff to investigate this alternative . I would note here, as I do under discussion of the 135th Local Improvement District, that County staff has made every effort to respect the character of the land use and the terrain of this area. : In this respect efforts to minimize the size of any extension of Murray were quite explicit and this was one of the primary reasons for looking into the Aloha bypass using Beef Bend and Reusser Roads. � This brings us to the County' s evaluation of the traffic requirements in this area. Attached you will find diagrams which evaluate the following configurations: 9 1. No new road extensions. 2. Murray extended to 99W. 3. Beef Bend-Reusser bypass. 4 . Beef Bend and Murray extension. 1 I would note that Metro staff has informed us that Tigard staff has made partial use of the information at Metro but has not used the model to evaluate its proposed transportation plan. .21201 County Road Planning Page 2 Not having benefit of the City ' s transportation analysis efforts we are not able to contrast these values to the City ' s. We stand ready to do so, however. In viewing the alternatives shown in the referenced diagrams, staff noted the congestion on Highway 217 ; a facility which I 'm sure you will agree would be extremely costly to expand given the existing structures and land costs in the area. We feel it is important, however, to recognize the regional significance of improving the accessibility in this area. Frankly, given the vacant developable lands not only in Tigard, but . in Beaverton and other areas of the County, the only sound planning approach is to provide the urban services which will be necessary to accommodate this growth. Finally, I would note that our plan recommendation (which has been available since mid-November of last year) embodies the objectives discussed above. That is, improved Washington County accessibility to meet State planning guidelines are met while minimizing neighbor- hood encroachment as well as potential costs to the public for new roads. 135TH-WALNUT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT As you are most likely aware, the County and City staffs have been cooperating in establishing a Local Improvement District to place improvements on portions of these facilities. I would like to take this opportunity to note to you two efforts which the County has absorbed to further this effort. First, in May of 1982 the County expended some $2000 for services by Metro to carry out a special traffic analysis. The purpose of this study was to provide preliminary information to the Local Improvement District consultant on the traffic which a Murray extension would carry and, thus, the relief to 135th and Walnut. (This effort, of course , was superceded by the broader Metro modeling effort completed last September. ) f The second effort which the County has supported to assure the provision of appropriate urban services was a supplemental $6000 agreement with the Local Improvement District consultant to evaluate alternative alignments for the Murray extension. (This process is nearing completion and an alignment map will be presented in discus- sion with your Council. ) In summary, we feel our process has been open, cooperative and C comprehensive as LCDC would require in meeting the intent of the goals . We hope, when briefed on these facts, you will realize our attempt to respect the neighborhood needs but, also, the need to consider the broader travel needs of other County residents. yes -.sees County Road Planning Page 3 DURHAM ROAD In joint discussions with Tigard and Tualatin staffs last year, it was decided that a series of studies be carried out to investigate the following: 1. The need to restrict truck traffic .(over 30 , 000 pounds GVW) on Durham Road, and 2 . the feasibility of using the Tualatin-Sherwood bypass as an alternate route. Several studies were carried out in this regard and, while we have not been able to compile a final report on these efforts, the following represent the major conclusions which can be drawn: 1. The averaae (three axle +) truck traffic on Durham Road (99W to Hall Blvd. ) is 200 per day during weekdays and about 75 per day on weekends. 2. Very few of these heavy truck movements occur between 10 :00 PM and 6 :00 AM. An average of only about six per night was determined. 3. Noise studies carried out by the USDOT over a one day period found only two violations, neither of which were heavy trucks. 4 . The Oregon Trucking Association looked into speeding on this facility and found that smaller, step-type vans and delivery vehicles are responsible for speeding violations, not heavy trucks. S. The Oregon State Speed Control Board carried out speed and accident studies and found the existing 40 MPH limit to be appropriate. 6. The. proposal to route truck traffic to Tualatin Road and the Tualatin-Sherwood bypass cannot be enacted at this time because of the inability of a number of intersections to safely accom- modate trucks. i 7. Metro and ODOT will be conducting a travel survey in this area later this year. Additional data could be developed from this study (if appropriately structured) to determine if the proposed Tualatin truck route would divert a significant number of trucks to make this a viable option. In summary, I cannot recommend the limitation of truck traffic at this time on Durham Road. Further, the transportation modeling effort previously discussed indicates the need for Durham Road to function as an arterial street given projected development in the area. (See previous figures in this report. ) County Road Planning Page 4 It may be possible to improve Durham Road while protecting and buffering surrounding residential neighborhoods. The County stands ready to discuss this option with Tigard and; indeed, we need to move forward in this area given new development that will require County permits in order to access Durham Road. Finally, it appears that both the County and City transportation planning efforts have arrived at differing conclusions as to the appropriate functional classification for Murray' s extension and for Durham Road. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to review the technical information supporting the City ' s recommendation and the subsequent opportunity to work with your staff in resolving the differences_ MCN: ss , i c ,I I ��,•., t: �`,\ vim. �<�»I �_ .�` \�^� d rla,ve,iA 3 \N, _ o^.�t Irr+v<" i• "�. _ -tom .cam a Ir r a vertdn rn l-. _ •t_ F,.- ,s:F� r!y �":: =Lai. xYo..s tet' 9a ir i.• I €M1 „r a4 gurr /" a 9 � S aC"•r. Al — . ///� _Kin 7 •.<e i 1 1 Gt9pY0 .rr[.�.o ,,fi• = TualatinNORTH g� p 1M 211i FS �Z •� - .. —— r-• � . _ ;'� oro, �--ti ,`rte� She ood 8 :c sr"srr L NA$r 4C+J►co ...................... 1.�. .. .. .o�_ ,'......... ... _•- + s e I.M.LL CC LEGEND L ll S Conge3ted Road Section I ' (Level of Service'E' or Worse) i=1GElRE 4 ashington ROAD SECTIONS with SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION aunty 1980 Traffic .on Existing SYsfem PU®UC WORKS lasllJ� Ll�1MaR - �Q _lBMW am Via. u.y -----VJI. •�`... a w. t W-1 nLLt�yVaN CO - f � � T' ifs- --_-___ ryb� .• �u i r.ero•rr- nws '''lr �' Hiljsboro y �J � C els V rh I t ,b s� Y.� Be erten -4 �••�� " � s� o.ws roy 1 j Iv¢ � iro p.. (� �.,. - %fit• /F—.nfllon ar - • I 5�`S - - ��✓ as.� 1 J •-9 . I r �!^t r_ ,J• ¢'t'i. Q��-.: Y. jr m �s I v rove 11 �Iaa arar•u wo - TuNORTH a 1 � If I Ing __• r : = r N t .` � -• �� oruri I L.1 Sher_oodg a _ 0 ; ' ... ..._.. TWwLL CO • —�I�� ..--.......v7a? f LEGEND t_— g — .Dori � �...... 1 Congested Road Section ro (Leve! of Service'E' or Worse) f FIGURE 5 ashington ROAD SECTIONS with SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION � ounty Year 2000 Traffic on Existing System PUBLIC WORKS ` t ---- ._ — — �fl. 3 MN.N„ wI _____ 4•p season . lu�'Mr�Guw co �nGrOq CCla Tu- � `KI bor0 r4 �r F" LN W..n'T Y y 1qq o z a _ z + a Loo r ^•w wl ro 'i Fcrm.nyton r I1 S w : um u.nr i�o s+ Y ol.: c pw ens f, It i r J i \ .ru.v ro h 'Ir Tua 1 - Iv Gp�a i HOMM " - She mood Jose• rt.o � : "• I ca .:w.0 CO —— —, :..................... T _,.—. ....,.....,.... ...3..... ..nn ......' .. .. ... _ .....- '-, 4 `rb j t; + ia I r vn • / LEGEND Ixn � I Congested Road Section (Level of Service 'E' or Worse) FIGURE 6 ashington ROAD SEC'T'IONS with SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION ounty Year 2000 Traffic with Only Reglon.Transp. Plan Improvements PUBLIC WORKS t K Wet U—. LUULL--amCO hLil-Grc,o 61 J lil boro L it MO.. Be vert4n L L i V COOD� .............mm T .......... ........ I & u— is ................. fes„[rk Lzi Kin! KXXTM Tualatin 0 1 rrA 2ni ............... r �i'_Sher 00d Lcc 14-11 CO ....................T LEGEND L congested Road Section (Leve{ of Service'E' or Worse) ashington ROAD SECTIONS with SIGNIFICANT CONGESTIO ounty Year 2000 Traffic on Present Functional Classificati PUBLIC WORKS M' l\ 1 \-tom ', ��•r.r ..n ms's - umon _ rw•" FwLrzieu.t.e CU — 9i.a -•� - iloboro ' s5.«rtGtOn U� ler �. •tti% _ _ 1 r.•wc.rr. ."orfs J_ `+ 4-• '' .. — I L•wf4 •u - _ �r J J�f t � L w 'M ".Oft• - 1 a �_ �a.00 Abna Be ertdn �5\y c tJ _ �,n 'f _ o..n - (' F"I°. _.t • it _ ti i - ,.f,rfw w�LFfOw' w wt� ��' f'qI �� ,----••ia\ L f CI J S a ` ra IKKpr.. 1 4•L ,I. tt •,` Coon, I - Farmmgton rt - tv sr s _ 15„ •\ / � � I 1 � C.w:+L.~Sf � — —u s•rf_f.zr — 1 t •• of i ' .�f4 I l r r �• J i •r1a6 ,-�Osw F. r L� � fit• D+�- -Ci • 1 —�e ., .ir �Qwr to l'. arar•r wo Tualatin NORTH Gi ......... R ................ 7ffi 21:1 I—Sheood ^t s.•u• e•w r LEGEND a r - ti 3 fn a.• .Dore l Congested Road Section (leve! of Service 'E' or Worse) — ; aoec•r( SEE ALSO FIGURE For intersections with Projected Congestion FIGURE 8 ashingtoin ROAD SECTIONS with SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION ounty Year 2000 Traffic on Recommended Functional Class.blain PUBLIC%VORKS .7i� '.r.� .—�-.T�•s;� ../. �'�~"�iD + _�r �^�t� "sJ�Nq EI T �'J ./.r.. 'jf ( -� �t a :i �� • �a �ori ij MAW mmummm nz •y. .\_ y_� � S yaT —+ _ +•r ISI _ � �.. z? � Y s -- rlAs cr Yashington r000 oq"W Pt1BUC WORKS - �mm® ' /; `.` �/p r•��r `� .+• -� '_moi "Hil;saoro t` ti" �� b - •p�fay - ' •Ir r�1• - �..re 'by O.s 8e vertan .f�i �, r �• I �.�r '1...ra..0... •r Z� cl � ° ; 4,e a .1•- � 4 a -'r }_ COOp.. it tea. aj 5w ylgar ~V� �to t a. urn 're s• s +.. �°._ r "� j.. - u •ter-- �_t � �r. .�. ITI Tualatin , ¢ �rvBrgNya . 1st °e — . r — '_She ood Cc ashington W 0044 aunty 14.5 CUT W ro PLJBUC WORKS i 2/3 . � i?5-tb► V !3 5-% 2�3 NIX LEGEND Lane Requirements EXISTING/ YEAR 2000 Congested Road Section (Level of Service (Level of Service'E' or Worse) Ounty ECT PUBLIC x Q 0 z � S N _ Sys �6 I ZI s7t V N 13 5 -t+ ,M U RRAY tel N LEGEND Lane Requirements EXISTING/ YEAR 2000 Congested Road Section ��►► (Level of Service 'D') (Level of Service'E' or Worse) .... ashengton � �� «� aunty PUBLIC WORKS w1JA^ jtrxu6S5jt-5sgF 1DE149 1MFVtCNFoP 2 fL O Z `V s� 2d3 7-13 1 A •O 135 J..1% H Z <- ♦ R _ o 1vS U 1ZKA'',( �..• c� LEGEND Lane Requirements EXISTING/ YEAR 20GO Congested Road Section (Level of Service 'D') (Level of Service'E' o: Worse) $EBF 8V�t? jf7. ashing$on LANE. KFAPIVOMENTS ounty .1 1014 lL;suc%VOR cs ®ffi s -• o z tJ .� Ya � d- 3 V3 C? 125-'x• 135 41% v AL1 .•V �J5 � LEGEND � Lane Requirements EXISTING f YEAR 2000 Congested Road Section (Level of Service "D') x (Level of Service 'E' or Worse) BsmV F-� .....> ashsngton IAN - �KFI ®unty PLIBUC WORKS �� I t January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: CPA 10-82 Natural Features and Open Space Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us in November, 1982. Our style has been to copy staff's wording in lower case lettering, and to insert our proposed modifications and additions in SOLID CAPITALS. We use brackets C I to indicate proposed deletion of staff's wording, and vie use parentheses ( ) to indicate our editorial comments. We plan to have representatives from our NPO at the public hearing to further explain our reasoning for the proposed changes from staff's drafted version of a z,;::- comprehensive plan for Tigard. We will be assailable to answer any questions you may have at that time. Lou Ane uortensen, Chairperson BB NPO 3's recommendations regarding Natural Features & Open Spaces 3.1.1 The City shall designate on a map areas having physical limitation (poorly drained, seasonally flooded, ground instability, AND STEEPLY SLOPED) and shall incorporate these designations in the Tigard Community Development Code and Map, and shall develop AND ADOPT graduated develop- ment restrictions according to the distinct characteristics of the constraints and anticipated limitations. 3.2 Floodplains and We tl xnd s Findings (additional) ACCORDING TO THE 1981 STUDY BY CH2M-HILL FOR TIGARD, FLOOD LEVELS OF TWO TO FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAY BE EXPECTED IF NO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TAKEN. 3.2.1 The City shall prohibit development in the floodway and shall limit development and land form alterations within the 100-year floodplain in a manner that: a. Minimizes losses due to streamm flooding and seasonal ponding; b. Maintains the water storage capacity of the floodplain; and 7 C. Maintains the stream bank vegetation; AND d. MAINTAINS OR IMPROVES STREAM FLOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIGARD'S MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. 3.6 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policies 3.6.1 The City shall encourage private enterprise and intergovernmental ageements which will provide for open space , recreation lands and facilities, and will preserve natural, scenic, and historic areas. LAND PROVIDED FOR SUCH OPEN SPACES SHALL BE COUNTED AS PART OF THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE TOTAL DENSITY TRA14SFER ALLOWED ON THE SITE. 3.6.2 ON ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FLAP, THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE AS OPEN SPACE SUFFICIENT SITES FOR C0,14MUNITY PARKS, INCLUDING SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL NEEDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELDS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND TENNIS COURTS. WHEN POSSIBLE, THESE SITES SHOULD BE SELECTED CLOSE TO HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING. The City shall coordinate with the school districts to eliminate any UNNECESSxRY duplication of .recreational facilities. I unless they are needed. WHEN REQUESTED BY THE OWNER OF PROPERTY DESIGNATED FOR COMMUNITY PARK, THE CITY SHALL ENTER INTO A PURCHASE. AGRL-EMENT-FOR -THE PROPERTY. s January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO . 3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: CPA 11-82 Transportation Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us on December 1, 1982. In the first two pages, for findings, policies, and implementation, Our style has been to copy staff's wording in lower case lettering, and to insert our proposed modifications and additions in SOLID CAPITALS. We use bracelets E I to indicate proposed deletion of staff' s wording, and vie use parentheses ( ) to indicate our editorial comments. For the last two pages, we have simply used lower case. We plan to have representatives from our NPO at the public hearing to further explain our reasoning for the proposed changes from staff's drafted version of a new comprehensive plan for Tigard. We will be available to answer any questions you may have at that time. 7 (Z�Lou Anensen, Chairperson BB t 8.1 Traffic Ways Findings: (NPO #3 recommends the following substitution for the 10th finding. ) A need exists TO COMPLETE A SYSTEM OF MINOR COLLECTOR ROADS IN THE UNDEVELOPED AREA (FEST OF 121ST AVENUE AND 135TH AVENUE, BOUNDED ON THE NORTHWEST BY SCROLLS FERRY ROAD, AND BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD. A NEED EXISTS DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD TO COMPLETE A BYPASS ARTERIAL ROADWAY BETWEEN MURRAY BLVD. AND PACIFIC HIGHWAY. ATTEMPTS TO USE COLLECTOR .STREETS SUCH AS 121st AVENUE OR 135th AVENUE FOR ROUTING THIS TRAFFIC WILL RESULT IN SEVERE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE PLANNING AREA. WHENEVER THE LOCATION OF THIS BYPASS CONNECTION FROM MURRAY TO PACIFIC HIGHW' Y HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CITIZENS OR BY THE COUNCIL, THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN THAT IT SHOULD BE PLACED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN. (An addition) Policies 8.1.1 The City shall provide for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and ALLOWS FOR anticipated future growth and development. 8.1.3 -- (Please refer to our last page for our recommendations. ) Implementation Strategies : 7. C. Limiting residential land uses along major traffic ways; and LIMITING MAJOR TRAFFIC WAY'S THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 10. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY NAME IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, EVERY COLLECTOR STREET SHALL INTERSECT '.+LITH ANOTHER COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREET, AND SHALL BE PLANNED TO ULTIMATELY END ONLY AT AN INTERSECTION vrITH ANOTHER THROUGH STREET. IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THIS THROUGH STREET MUST BE ANOTHER COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREET. ONE STREET RICH SHALL BE EXEMPTED IS SE 92ND AVENUE, 14HICH :NDS AT THE ENTRANCE TO COOK PARK. (This is an addition to promote an efficient and safe network of streets. ) IN 8.1 Traffic Ways: Implementation Strategies (continued) 11. IN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THE UPZONIN�= OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY .SERVED BY A COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE "ONTINGENT UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLECTOR STREET(S) ACCORD= -... i0 THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS, UNLESS THAT COLLECTOR STREET IS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY NAME: IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: a. THE PORTION OF THE COLLECTOR STREET SYSTEM DESIGNATED AS THE PRIMARY SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY SHALL BE FULLY IMPROVED FROM THE PROPERTY'S ACCESS POINT TO THE NEAREST ARTERIAL STRET. b. NO SECTION OF A COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE OPENED FOR SERVICE UNTIL BOTH ENDS ARE CONNECTED TO INTERSECTIONS WITH OTHER COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREETS. THAT PORTION WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE PRIMARY SERVICE SHALL SERVE AS A SECONDARY SERVICE. THE CITY MAY ALLOW THE SECONDARY SERVICE TO BE VOT FULLY IMPROVED; BUT IT MUST BE AT LEAST OILED-GRAVELED, AND CAPABLE OF PROVIDING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC. (This addition promotes an efficient and safe network of streets, and provides for orderly development in commercial and industrial areas. ) 8.2 Public Transportation Policies: 8.2.1 The City shall coordinate with TRI-MET to provide for a public transit system within the planning area which: i a. Meets the CURRENT needs of both the current and projected, for r the Tigard Community; b. DESIGNATES FUTURE ROUTES FOR PROJECTED NEEDS; (aa addition) f f. F,XCEPT ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS, USES BUSES SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN THOSE CURRENTLY IN USE, OR ELSE USES VANS; AND (an addition) g. PROVIDES FOR THE INTERSECTION OF AS MANY ROUTES AS POSSIBLE AT THE 4 PROPOSED TIGARD TRANSFER STATION. (an addition) E C F III. Functional Street Classification (page 12) 2. Major Collector: Standards: Right-of-Way* 42-72 feet Pavement Width* 32-54 feet Lane Widths: 12 feet per moving lane 9 feet per parking lane 4 feet per bicycle lane (each way) Moving Lanes 2 - 3 (middle turning lane) Volumes 1,500 - 10,000 vehicles per day Driving Speed 30-40 miles per hour 3. Minor Collector: Standards: Right-of-Way* 40-64 feet Pavement Width* 30-48 feet Lane Widths: 11 feet per moving lane 9 feet per parking lane 4 feet per bicycle lane (each way) Moving Lanes 2 Volumes 500 - 3,000 vehicles per day Driving Speed 25-30 miles per hour 4. Local: Standards: Right-of-Way* 40-50 feet Pavement Width* 30-34 feet (no other changes recommended) Existing Streets According To Each Classification (pages 14-15) Gaarde Street and 121st Avenue (from Gaarde to Walnut) should be both removed from the list of Major Collectors, and classified as Minor Collectors. See our presentation under Chapter 11, Special Areas of Concern for _ne �•easons. a In "developing areas," the burden of proof shall be on the developer to show that less than the maximum is adequate; and in "established areas," the burden of proof shall be on the City to show that more than the minimum is necessary. NPO #3 reccomends the following substitution for the section on page 21 concerning street improvements in the NPO #3 area. IV. STREET IMPROVEMENTS NPO #3: This area interfaces with the County's CPO #4 Bull Mountain area. A major concern within these areas is the future connection from Murray Blvd. , north of Scholls Ferry Road, to Pacific Highway. The routing of this connection has been discusse.3d for over 20 years, with a diversity of opinion; however, the City Council and citizens in the planning area have consistently concluded that the Murray Boulevard Extension should be placed west of Bull Mountain. The alternative of placing this arterial to the east of Bull Mountain is unwarranted for three reasons. Firstly, present development and road construc- -tion does not allow for the placement of such a road all the way to Pacific Highway. Secondly, such a connection would dump large volumes of traffic upon collector roads through existing residential neighborhoods, resulting in the degradation or destruction of those neighborhoods. And thirdly, placement east of Bull Mountain would result in more additional traffic being placed on Pacific Highway than with the westerly route. The conclusion is that it would be poor planning to connect Murray Blvd. eastward to the collectors in the NPO f#3 area. The connection should be to the west of Bull Mountain. Based on the land use designations on the CPO #4 Bull Mountain plan map and the land use designations on the NPO #3 plan map, there is a need to establish a series of minor collector roads to move the estimate3d trips per day from the local streets to arterial street connections. Caution should be used in the placement and development of these collectors, so as not to create an attractive thoroughfare for regional traffic. With this caution in mind, at least one collector linkage will need to be established from Bull ;•fountain Road northward ultimately to Walnut, so that Pacific Highway is not used excessively for local area traffic. Proposed connections and specific projected travel trips for the area are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. NPO #7: 4. The extension of Murray Boulevard to PACIFIC HIGHWAY as provided in the NPO #3 section. t 8.1.3 NPO #3 recommends adoption of the following policy presented at the C.C.I. by Adriane Brockman, with our changes noted for part D. 8.1..3 The City shall require as a precondition to development approval that: A. The development abut a publically dedicated street or have access approved by the appropriate approval authority; B. Street right-of-way be dedicatecE where the street is substandard.- in width; C. The developer commit to the construction of the street, curbs and sidewalks to City standards within the development; D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing COLLECTOR AND LOCAL streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impact ON THE SURROUNDING AREA; E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided where the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use is of a type which generates transit ridership; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled, persons, and that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. ®� o f, January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: CPA 12•-82 Housing Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was attached to the memo from the Planning Dept., dated 12/9/82. Our style has been to copy staff's wording in lower case lettering, and to insert our proposed modifications and, additions in SOLID CAPITALS. We use brackets to indicate proposed deletion of staff's wording, and we use parentheses ( ) to indicate our editorial comments. We plan to have representatives from our NPO at the public hearing to further explain our reasoning for the proposed changes from staff's drafted version of a new comprehensive plan for Tigard. We will be available to answer any questions you may have at that time. Lou Ane :4ortensea, Chairperson BB i - NPU #31s RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR HOUSING These proposals are alternatives to the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies for Housing, as distributed in the memo from the Planning Department, dated December 9, 1982. This set of proposals supercedes previous ones from NPO #3- 6.3 Established Residential Areas Policies 6.3.2 a. The density within 100 feet of each property line shall not exceed 25% over the density shown on the comprehensive plan for the adjacent land, unless there is an intervening ARTERIAL OR 14AJOR COLLECTOR ROAD. 6.3.4 IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S) . (an addition) Implementation Strategies 1. The Official Development District Map shall ALSO indicate those areas that are already 10Established Areas." Established areas SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST THOSE areas which have been determined to be "committed areas" on the "Buildable Lands Map" required by LCDC Goal X10. (Each "established area" should be designated so as to include all of the existing neighborhood, including undeveloped lots. ) 5. WITHIN THE DESIGNATED "ESTABLISHED AREAS", THE CITY SHALL ASSIGN TO EACH IDENTIFIABLY DISTINCT AREA THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH MOST CLOSELY CORRESPONDS TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. OWNERS MAY APPLY FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS APPLICABLE TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, BUT THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPATABILITY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. (an addition) 6. UNLESS THE PLANNED USE IS OTHERWISE, THE PREFERENCE OF THE CITY IN ZONING AN AREA OF UNCOMMITTED LOTS SURROUNDED BY ESTABLISHED AREAS SHALL BE TO CHOOSE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT SHARES THE GREATEST PORTION OF THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA IN QUESTION. THE CITY MAY GRANT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNERS TO DESIGNATE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT IS 'WITHIN THE PLANNED USE DESIGNATION, PROVIDED THAT IT IS COMPATABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: Residential Established and Developing Areas Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us in December, 1982. We have marked up the copy with the few changes- that we feel are appropriate. Staff has not vet indicated where these sections are to be placed. NPO #3 definitely supports these measures, as modified; and we would like to have them included in the comprehensive plan, or else as part of the Community Development Code. 0/�6111 6a'l"- Robert Bledsoe , Secretary NPO #3 ESTABLISHED Dis,miCrS I. Development Within an Established Ilistrict In an established district, a parcel of land may be developed in a manner essentially similar to and compatible with existing development on other parcels in the vicinity and, if appropriate, a conditional development may be permitted subject to Planning Commission approval. A proposed development is similar to and compatible with existing development if it meets the requirements of the following sections. S�II. Residential Parcel Size Consistency t (1) Except as provided by subsection (2D to be compatible with established development a proposed residential development shall not cause the creation of a parcel of land smaller than the adjusted median of existing residential parcels in the area. The adjusted median parcel area shall be determined as follows: (a) List in order of increasing size the area of ea,:h parcel, any part of which lies within (250) feet of a boundary of the subject parcel. only parcels within the established district shall be listed. (b) The area of the median parcel is the area of the parcel one-half of the way down the list, or in the case of an even number of parcels, the first of the middle two. r (c) The adjusted median area is the area calculated by dividing by three the sum of the areas of the median parcel and the next parcel above iv►q�94 a � and below the median on the list. (2) A land parcel smaller than the adjusted median zxrea may be authorized cinder a ministerial procedure with mailed notice to abutting landowners upon. determination by the Director that, for the type of development proposed, parcel area is not important to retaining compatibility. The applicant shall supply a list of the owners of property to receive notice. III. Siting Consistency. (1) Building setbacks from property lines and lot coverage shall be consistent with those on adjacent parcels but not less than those contained in the Community Development Code. (2) In addition to limiting building height as determined by the Community Development Code, a building that the Community Development Code would permit to be in excess of thirty-five feet in height shall be no higher than the average of the height of the buildings within (50) feet. -1- ��®r�bsi?� �®ow�as�i•iR8/ice IV. Development Type Consistency (1) R proposed development shall either be of the same type as is found on abutting parcels of land or shall be evaluated for consistency by the Planning Commission as described in subsection (2) . To determine where development is of the same type, the list found under permitted uses In the Community Development code shall be used. Only development on land parcels that meet all of the following conditions shall be included in making comparisons for type consistency. (a) The parcel abuts the proposed development or is directly across a street from the proposed development. s (b) The parcel has either been developed �M subdivision s or is committed to a specific type of development. (c) The parcel is within the established district. (d) The development on the parcel is not a conditional development or a nonconforming development. (2) If. the same type of development does not exist on each abutting parcel to be considered, a development of the same type as any abutting development—which may be allowed, subject of approval after satisfactory fulfillment of the fronts following criteria. Determination hall be made by the Planning Capon the Commission with mailed notice. The mailed notice shall include mailing same to owners of property within (250) feet of a boundary of the property to street be developed. 300 (a) New development shall be arranged and constructed to protect adjacent development that is of a different type from detrimental effects due to noise, odor, fumes, dust. glare, heat reflection, traffic, vibration, and conflicting appearance. (b) The scale of the development proposed shall not cause detrimental effects on the general area out of proportion to that due to the existing development of the same type. i 4 i l i J -2- DEVELOPING DISTRICT I . Development Within a Developing District. Except as indicated by the comprehensive plan, the overall character of new development within a developing district has not been predetermined; thus, each new development proposal shall be,_ decided on its merits pursuant to sections II 6 III. New development in a developing district shall be approved only where necessary and adequate services and facilities are available or provisions have been made to provide these services and facilities. A development and its use lawfully existing at the time this ordinance becomes effective is a conforming development unless it is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. II. Development in an Urban Developing District Except as otherwise provided in section III, in a developing district a development is permitted if authorized pursuant to the Planning Commission and determination that the development is consistent with any emerging patterns of area development in addition to compliance with the comprehensive plan, other requirements of this ordinance and applicable standards. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing shall be provided by mailed notice to the owners of property situated within (250) feet of a boundary of the property to be developed. 300 III. Exceptions to Planning Commission Approval for a Developing District The following exceptions are made to the requirement of section II. (1) Residential development without a subdivision request shall be approved through site design review. (2) Land division shall be approved under the land divisions sections of the Community Development Code. (3) Conditional development shall be approved in accordance with the applicable section of the Community Development Code. - i -3- f January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard P1azning Commission SUBJECT: CPA 13-82 urbanization Attached are changes recommended by HPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. if, as in the past., staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us on December 1, 1982. Our style has been to copy staff's wording in lower case lettering, and to insert our proposed modifications and additions in SOLID CAPITALS. We use brackets to indicate proposed deletion of staff's wording, l and we use parentheses ( ) to indicate our editorial comments. l We Aslan to: have representatives from our NPO at the public hearing to further explain our reasoning for the proposed changes from staff's draft:.d version of a new comprehensive plan for Tigard. We will be available to answer any questions you may have at that time. Lou Ane :?orten3eae Chairperson BB t NPO f#3's recommendations regarding Urbanization: 10.1 URBANIZATION �Y Findings: 10th To assist in the financing of street AND PARK facilities and improvements, Tigard has imposed a Systems Development Charge (SDC) on new housing development. 12th Water in the Tigard area is provided by the Metzger and Tigard Water Districts. These districts Eare3 in turn [merely providers PURCHASE their water from Portland, Lake Oswego, and other•=.sources. Policies: 10.1.1 The City shall promote an orderly growth pattern. based on: d. The ability- of the City AND THE SERVICING DISTRICTS to provide an orderly and economic provision of services and facilities; 10.1.5 THE CITY SHALL DISCOURAGE EXPANSION OF THE TIGARD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN IRREGULAR PLANNING AREA AND INEFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. E. Implementation Strategies: 1. THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE THAT ALL THE URBANIZABLE LAND WITHIN TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA BE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. 3. The City will phase Lthe 7 annt�ations Lprograin �o allow for 4. a. Urban development inside Tigard Urban Planning Area (T.U.P.A. ) will be ENCOURAGED TO BE annexed to the City of Tigard. 11. THE CITY SHALL NOT ASSEMBLE, NOR PRESENT �O THE E METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ANY ANNEXATION PROPOSAL WHICHAINCLUDES NON-CONSENTING LANDOWNERS AND WHICH WOULD CREATE AN "UNINCORPORATED ISLAND." r January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO 1#3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission SUBJECT: Locational. Criteria Attached are changes recommended by NPO #3 to a draft version of this element of the comprehensive plan. We have referenced our recommended changes to the most recent draft version that we received prior to our consideration. If, as in the past, staff renumbers the items in subsequent drafts, then our references may not match the draft version presented for your consideration. The version we have reviewed and referenced was received by us on December 21, 1982. Our style has been to copy staff's wording in lower case lettering, and to insert our proposed modifications and additions in SOLID CAPITALS. We use brackets C ] to indicate proposed deletion of staff's wording, i and we use parentheses ( ) to indicate our editorial comments. We plan to have representatives from our NPO at the public hearing to further explain our reasoning for the proposed changes from staff's drafted version of a new comprehensive plan for Tigard. We will be available to answer any questions you may have at that time. C� Lou Ase ,.ortensea, Chairperson BB I i f f i NPO #31s recommended changes regarding Locational Criteria: 12.1 Residential Locational Criteria 1. Low Density Residential A. The -following factors will be the determinants of the areas designating for low density residential on the plan map. I (1) "ESTABLISHED AREAS" which are committed to low density residential development. (This modification is likely to be more encompassing, designating neighborhoods rather than lots. ) (5) AREAS WHICH CAN BE BUFFERED FROM MORE INTENSIVE LAND USES. (an addition) B. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the low density planned areas through zoning. (3) SMALLER LOTS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO AREAS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF TRANSIT AND/OR COMMERCIAL CENTERS. (This replacement of staff's (3) and (4) contains the essence of their intent, r without being as biased toward higher density. ) L(4)] (delete) 2. Medium Density Residential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for medium density on the plan map: (2) AREAS WHERJE ACCESS TO THE NEAREST MAJOR COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREET IS NOT BY MEANS OF ROADS THROUGH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. (a replacement) C r January 11, 1983 FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Three (NPO #3) TO: Tigard City Council and Tigard Planning Commission. SUBJECT: Special Areas of Concern--NPO #_,3 Attached is a proposed_tsection for the chapter Special Areas of Concern. This section represents special concerns of NPO #3 area that will likely not be dealt with adequately by the other sections. Most of the material was expressed in the NPO #3 plan adopted by City Council in 1975. W® will refer to this section in the discussion of transportation and housing, since the concerns are related. Representatives from our NPO will be at the public hearings to further explain our reasoning for these proposals. We will be available to answer any questions you may have at that time. Robert Bledsoe, Secretary NPO #3 r 11.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #3 Many of the older residential neighborhoods in NPO #3 were developed along country roads that were lightly travelled, but which are now somewhat heavily travelled. Some of this increased traffic results from local develop- ment, but most of it is through traffic which must use these:- roads since no arterial has been built. Further increases in traffic, and consequent widening of these roads, will result in the destruction or degradation of high quality residences along these roads. This is particularly the case with 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street, which have right-of-ways of 40 to 45 feet that are offset in some places. The comprehensive plan for NPO #3, adopted by the City of Tigard in 1975, supported and implemented the conclusions of Carl Buttke, the consulting engineer who performed the traffic studies for the various NPOs. These conclusions were that 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street should be develo-ped as two lane roads limited to a total of 30 feet "to avoid motorists from forming a third lane, but providing sufficient roadway width for turning vehicles." The 1975 plan included provisions forthese roads to have pedestrian-bicycle paths, and to have restrictions on parking. Also, low densities were planned fnzr the neighborhoods serviced by these streets; one reason was to avoid further overloading of these streets with additional traffic resulting from _¢her densities. The City of Tigard, in the 1975 plan for NPO #3, opposed a proposed Murray Boulevard Extension through NPO #3. It has been the opinion of both the City and the local residents that the Murray Boulevard Extension to Pacific Highway should be located to the west of Bull Mountain. Completion of this arterial linkage would remove much of the through traffic from what i should be neighborhood collector streets. i i FINDINGS: The development along most of the collector streets in NPO #3 is predominantly low density residences which are in good condition. It is the. desire of the %,ity to maintain the livability of these neighborhoods. : f MISSION!; NOR RK 0 0-00-1=®m t • t i 11.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #3 (continued) FINDINGS: The present right-of-way along much of SW 121st Avenue and S-4 Gaarde Street is only 40 to 45 feet wide, with offsets in some places. Widening to major collector standards would severely impact the existing homes on these roads. Much of the traffic now using SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street is regional through traffic that could be much better provided for by a properly located arterial connection between Murray Blvd. and Pacific Highway. Increasing the planned densities on tht: undeveloped land along 121st and Gaarde would eventually add greatly to the traffic problem on those streets. SW Gaarde Street and SW 121st Avenue south of Walnut both have many uncontrolled contrary to the requirement for a major access points; this condition is collector to have a minimal number of controlled access points. A connection between Murray Blvd. and Gaarde St. and/or 121st Ave. , either directly ora indirectly, has been proposed many times in the past. Such a road would function as an arterial, and would be inconsistent with the planned t residential land use - This proposal was considered in detail in the 1975 NPO #3 Plan and was emphatically rejected by the City of Tigard. l POLICIES: 4 So long as a reasonable alternative exists, development shall not be 11.3.1 planned so as to result in the destruction of quality single family residential neighborhoods. f IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES: i 1. SW Gaarde Street and SW 121st (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall be and be developed as two-lane roads with designated Minor Collectors, pedestrian-bicycle paths and restricted parking. The actual width of these streets shall be determined at the time of improvement, depending l on the right-of-way available. i' 11.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #3 (continued) IMPLEI-tENTATION STRATEGIES: 2. The undeveloped land along SW 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall remain planned for low density development. Medium and higher densities shall be located closer to arterials instead. 3. Existing and new minor collectors shall be developed so as to discourage their use for through traffic (as arterials). 4. The City of Tigard shall work with other governmental bodies for the development of an alternative extension of Murray Blvd. to Pacific Highway west of Bull Mountain, or on another route which does not utilize roads through existing residential neighborhoods. C �� l1:eo®ti®mmor�®�sQr�u®mmo•� - ' ar : 7 ar�3Lc e ai 17575 S. .'. : 7 a; :_vcrat c rzc DD, .Ira- a r-' r~gyres r t ref ears L r . ,ti, c ,,2 tic- Ci 5-, o T i r r✓d , 3t ia Harz Z� .the ruc a"ze�fi, , ,isutLated .t�ze annex�t�cn o_ �rzaf'� z „ , (: WDV d t a Zt, .Zh a CL✓, a� Tir..cf..d, li�weven, on tri c;� f, f 1668 -e tJzc hcza necesr J�� arLu�re2 a ca��l e� tlzc rlurc�t 25, ?981 �n a`�e.vz. whr rJz G and which wou£d hnue ora tt-ed OW �a''.,e p1r ar. <hz Cwt 07 Tirwnrl. Tni.a zama Lwa-L day-t i an Ae- n a';-��.ea on .tap c-r Sze Ci,tr: ZCp 8-81 (7668) ALLC uri-- a n o t a Ar 1'-i-e Il .ran c aL o, Tac Lar 5200 C eisr vrzLt�ea'. Th i.e c crr e nate c m� in ty Th.La .tax Lal 5200 orjlzed Lr L�z� L az ar� d to ,iLe Ci�- o C Tir �1 Tice' an S� � 14, 1981 •E-, P---Zof jt•i an I.C. 87-101,-. Oun. �-ti_on .c.d an-' w.e wo�..i' ul,'�'_' a7[�i.'T Tlif i ITt' SF1,� T'!75 t IOr'TC:7 TO TI 3011:'."�. CC?:,':7SSJOi.' Jr.'STF1^LJ OF T.flt: 0,','� J".JC'i J;'.'C1L�F� to 'ILL TI-1ZT'J._.GL T"Ro �ilT ;i.' e crrsu�ze;. J T.'JS SC T,-,^T T/l 0T,' :J,7LL r^�.rzathef rrr ,: inn ve �I_ arL SCa:"'S , . 7T T S� '� SE 1�J L � IiOT Isil'� TC FL :JS: _ . J-7T," _ r r_J 'T �(r (1"F.•L�C..J L�J-�LL ..J..�r Li-..=i.:l ( J'.J u,'zetz Fne ` rcndc�lrisor_, crLz a�.�a,lzc"_, an., 7 Iza Cacurt ae i a ri'za t}z�' I,�1 2rs� ,rrr �e �L,/ :ecarzarr o �r�r�t.d Rat o arts f o cr 1: c� 1aL ' -,-. �-:.c. 1.cnJ orr. ...��-��,. -irr. .fr^ .aatze t1t Lza&LY' aunt �t �zcc.��✓ Lir c c tc�c' Zac,� ^�.cL� no.- aruzb. �- _ arz: ' hG1 E' aniswaa,ec! i.a .7S T"� C7T = C,' TJG Thz 1 rue war i £i�'z e o a ar 3 F0.? S 'r'':.TJ:.� T.": i�C :�� ? JF T,-._ ; r:"a`C: JS C" :J,'�1 JS rLS e ,-i�.S,.fvr. I Jrz. f.'erz i`iaaz tiJa a t the Lowz�-��: Carzrc.a a i on a.dzuA-ed rtie that i. we wk�e afzrze:.ed to are Gi.tt,f of T r`nrzr:! we aar no:t %a a.e--c eQ' r rtL;zarrt orlr a ah rnr to �.a de-aru -ted aria' a a J Via' zrw-L-i L'rr arzd J haus ta.4 c= r.-oa, +,L c Cauazci-4 and .i he ztag .a;_ th- • Tu asd.,o JT TO 3= J1. T;.L- C7T ' Or Dctrz ett.��d ti on we wotzLc' .f iJz e arzer r te. ..Do x,D l �G:= :IJT, 1,�. ('/t% TJr: Jl.' RLC,,-`'D T S SOT TO i' :'2LE TC T;tGi'C'.T�� L;"L��S T'' 7 i.i': :Si:S Ti- 33L i�:`. �',r;'CVED '_;'.'-D .. e --rte.�.".i� ,.� t WO�"IC.T SD r-"==- 7, --l? I:vcu i.t a ^_�.1.� ✓L �.c t-a a ;zaa�r -i,Li.t" tz�t we wcf: nelacz annc-,ec to t e Cu a� Trrricc t z s e Saczetrs c° S� eon_ ,:au�aG cz 10, 7987 Jcrzia flan�ir, P c zct.�a .trza c ocl�rzeru-a awn. to Cit, ;;ecam c,= �`r CLQ o- TIL c', r �u na- ti'� ea-e- 7 666 rzruxnttan docluzPn_tb as a�n�zau t ze i'aryl- cr c! (: aa: r_ r;sec Lcrr�i Gcvc:lL:CJL� JIl/ruin^J. CrJI U LLJJ d1 IJn on reE>.ta�z s 12, 79617. The &.,JJT ;-d L—n vn th7- 1668 dczw-wn td zznt .ta the S.tc- e a the- Citi_ c,_`_ Ti-aal" A Lx.art` w.L..'z dacu^zer rrr_-c z --aAt o;" CadL arzca 87-30 wa-6 a ztjoan- ztat uw-at A.i.an ed [704-ILZ r. ;'iaf�ttr., Cz s ;'ccanr cr me ccs� l otA cat: or l,'ou z"�s, 1981, whi-'L zt c -- .ir .,2cl-i "J �w 'ze�z ce�r tL u� �:'�� J ruzuc rcrz�rs ed th-- IxwjiLtit .cart- e.r OAd nDjw-e 87-30 o L-'za CLty o� Trranc' cYR rritiz rze oniu-Lw-C in mct r..a zeaaiaa az oue.tadian o: thz of,, rzecaadd o,° .tlz.c Cis-: c= T.L^-cry' arzc .i:-zr✓t tAe h;�h .c.q,,-r.. .i.e a r..a� .inzzrzdrtii;u a,•'_ .tr..e wira.C.e Li OfL; ")aT-70";" w.e walt-& CI TT aazarrvtec:, A-S TILL T : GF TJG:.?� Co L v �," : S, OF T147S vJSG? i -J` ,zJ.:.,,L I �:�L C ..'i.. - -` 87-30 / u- 1668 z eR J z ua theSr cn��an�= a! S tr te'd a;L rr ce an FcGn ucr✓ 1, 1903, -tlz.c S1Lr,.r a S-at4---� .Elf CL&J R.ac Clzld L D.av :"Zczz -t r'-r hc� Lz ca A e�-t avcd � o S��r c'e F i.�_ U17-53. r'L"'OT-'Ccr QLCST70ii U..-- Uncd anad.e a.LL avLC.t'- -a e dtJa^R eta-t��nt Sa_t ea de R a tnc Ci�,t Cauzci E...i%•'OT_ j ?rj TJO;. rrz n.�^raved Eiwm the Secn. �-J% y,L Ti" illiS rrou Ccl �.e Eilz e [3zcaa�z .th-e Le,=-t daccuzert�s Zz i�J'- cj��d A'r'OTiG C2L!ESTJO;. zJe riouCd f to '� �, a-� S.tr�e in��i� �; JS T.'JS T," ''C'SGt`'.' T;''C the CLt� ot_' Tu..a.,cl anr-; dert-- - :-,/` SC'.T U!'E" DO1.� S C7T=r OF TJX. �.JV rr CS i,._ S T.''7 _ '' ; 'CT S:'G/l Lj J:'r T" C7T _ .'I T. r``..T • G Fp? Cr_T,�, L#rid aRatric's rt��i� orz WZ trow:r_ Li�.e arrawr . TO ME DO" ..r Cc:�y:r:JSSJGt.' �:. �. JS Ti�S !J'l� T.�;r CCS%!:'TL'_ i �S LIS Oi,' T'lC C((�'i�': %'C.'SJVC �L' 1i:?i� . S J;'. T''% CC .T :? /V ;-, L� ►�'1 ' - , 1. t✓._j Mfr',':-.�, /� �SL. .%V/ 1_c. Fr, y% `J ArzatfLes acLPistian we wouic £i1iz an�sty^ �' . .JS T' S :J'!" 0:. T.'i f�ii'S J r S.... �T Tr_ ��. F CT20!OL 1T.1:- SC:✓JC -7ST?.JCT T''EL S;'G3 LS J;'.' T,''L I'' '"T- a.:% i.'GT T;''l ��" T._� :Jizc / (;r f✓t a u�^ Sep vise U.u.t�t Laz t �=^� �= t'.J?.Cr_Q/1�50R, cra/L a t•tafUL1' �rYl J •ten_,( ., a I .t.'LC r r• 1 d 6 mor ru ca d�-c' oR t/z etJL , n. o1s L i ar th, is �' tit�a c_i not izcv tiz e �u ruz�r � ' ti:^..c:Jc Ll-:r."i2 a..•:..-. i^tt6� .�1F�L Lp- .ta.Ld � !1 h LcJzue et�r' a me vs J ;'r c! deer r-t"- •' ` ar..c' c � eresa tad On many a��Laud J t i aged �- ` L7G✓S GT.".:�' =i ': STJC• ,1:��:.�._ .Ei..�..c mac:,-s..ec. i� r 'C:.' C,'. T.__ �_ �..�L .��: ._ . TJ2.CLL_2� tJ./ W-JL; IJP ^J Cli% GC1..�3C Gl1TLL 2 1981 zvLZ ' tic e^ c ee�c�t,L^uaz i'z ib .L6 E. c=urn aR1 1 , /i'�i1La^af�i'.cR :n M L.acc-�and uouru-a/tls t d r, .ti-✓: Rac-t,.ar-' za ams dc�s,:i_�.ed w tlzer.: r , TtL� rc.i /.L.:- -i d LI:Ld d�c^ll z .^�. •...,.^.n r r .�3.- i"lZj�i C( ^Jl.CJIIL'-Z_ %i: � "-317--87. CQ�yILl,.a.d.l.aRo �r r . r7rc'CV-, CL& JLI�'1 , . marc n an hr� i s made ;'C'-t 0 .t,.e -=81 (1 obe /rrrn e,�ti_ar_) fLeccv' r Rac, ' 1J/rv� rZat? 1 t •- • G'Ctl��^..d ^ _�i?G;:_LJ17/'...^'.. t:L(ifIL:J7. LI'LL.GZ c^._.�' G��S�._J:^� �-�-�� Sl1LGL (�LC plc uGJ1[�?�L - L iz-.uz to e .cad �onL' ice,eGT.Ga Tr c r d 2aZ "�:r aR l�Vis_ -_.^vL - %�. ��c� ^.. ley a' t ^ `r 2afS-3 L i c U1lJIJ l !'d u= tJLe ;- Pi:.icR t 1J27 a/LtClt�- alLLC�S L L ! - J _J -a l.�I-^G✓ �L r LjC L Jr_ (!u .��' � 1rL3 -SLI'_ SG21!1;C; J1.L-v✓�- Gam^ -1�G3 ? .� 1 1 Z 1 RG!, .c i n . 1 +�JL:� -cam•_.l.-•�.'_ i2f2tG rI CeC1 L t.f .t a .--cr�Z. J a i J7� �' d..(_ L,-,3 .6-;f tczZ a c irc�.G' u'LC ;�or_u�c vR au ha e1zf,, c L.:r�irL ev_ z, :r�irr i-z �z cCc c c , di�.ectinr. w._ z ete. da ue til 't nom, ins a �:a t cz`cz�z Etat cuc ;%�E ;=at y r_t�so d:�au ;JLor tJ e CawLtj-t .vLcza�' :•'L: n e:..ov.c ' a ca.rzC G%=.,_ 11-. !' o' atm_ _ .i,2 -tL7 •L, rrs^ ..:_C�� rx rnLL�L% U _ <x_LJ✓3. uc �L^U^_ G <!_ ' /^_ IL` _�'�CJ... �� Ll.G in the Ci- -, a;° Ti-r✓c' c.L a tom t, Te amu,--z-,! 7, 7953? �. J.� rf lzreJ uLa�' c a h e� aeuL nr an c�L uz itjLe Cif.1, a-,° Ti,-,,—,.'? !'• J," T'Z.0- al2zu'JL J "'.a" aa.e acc .int --t"ZIC CQtuz.t,. a:-' .t!LC �y e�s� tZ'.C_' Cur ? J." t✓.c c/ze .int .t,i= C''urt t.;.c a-:-' .ti Lc 'vtP.is•CJ..t .tu.7.,� ,=o 17r1 -. -tv 0.,i2,er_ Guol at .1 c . ze fuze a s -Z'z n,�ee l o,� Jzf T.Li�uu,Fe.? Da real! Pzc-z .,,a %t!t1 L' au1L -?JELL �.^� �t r e aR 3z ® :fG d art�Lt rr ir2^ c Lzectiu •^- an 3 r/�.t fu btaR , J .�, L aznec lln. r_ aR fLUlLZ(nLt'. ac✓s .P-L.-GJZ l:.r•._:J.'. -CJ: ,_�71� �7 G�� '� �" ` ✓^ r :r.L.-` n^_.� � '� n /LC.CS -' � .^ r..CL... .r- 'f. r^-.:_vaZ•:_ _.•..C.t � Raw_ L.�._.�L�i.�p�.l Il/.�.!��'n.(w, ...0 ao /'-?T:�.w-'.:._� L.C�.�.'.� �'.b:,•!'.-•f.� f L:''� -�J.:, JiL('1.1J U::.'JUrL n..lu t' v r' r r .taL;r � za .Lt z ! i .^�C' r rz t Z+= G LU'�[�1L. r }` ^✓Lau:.r..e Theis OJR -�c".�.-er..a;�.i.^ �z:� a a:��e .d•en.d.. o-= un.�.cs %�.� .�r�a^.n-n_d.e ,dl .�z[.�Lr�;�:�t, n / ctc�c:n�_ cr_r' C•ruL rs c;e rnr_ u,_ A=asc.,_ c - vaTcr_r- Tar-6r.. s, -r-oun c!_ C12 G z GC? )�n�fn TJl_/! '�.��• T;u-3 a.LC_ ar z o-. Wit_ �J2�L r0: t llLlr 1L Clza Gi,_r ifl= GLJ5 C7t T�^tNc: CJIIL -1J�Ll:%nl�� f Cr n n t -c r � r i •- �:.-CXllz.�. L' ' 'L a R/LxLC n orf U.r .:17�iLt�LJ.1I.� C_C..�R at2: ....':C:r'l Lc. :CS� .'..... uu,s✓1.^_:�._ _J2? /•� � r -l.L -t L%C GSL C771L L/ OT eu;2r sar !-?[L3 1 1T J2 Ta^Gi.ILVL to a.GGOn�;';l..C-.':ti�j ��^,_%:.._ .iJL_ ^i^..?�:v: O_ OL'1L .G'3�:.L'!L(.� .^L'!j!� CI'•fl.UL {�'^,�L�C.CS f✓LG QlLC: ,� R!' ,,:r'. G_ 1l� t ^___•�^ CdSGt Uz nCtILC1lLlL^ r-CAVL.C'Z.64 j-- and Gar3t^lI1GG��LtI£ .uJ//J• /��J ._IInJL, tJ.a r. rl L?J ,✓J, fL.GU J.d a zr- .6U-f:Lr-L/K. C a �CJl.Ie 10� COILCSvZIl G_C VC U.E a_c:�La: La.C,-6. J 2P1:GlJZ ! i C'AG'JL[5. u ' ,., �2./LCIIG... .1,_;'G .✓.-._ .70LlJLC..IL,� CQ:"U.21.6i5-G.a/L Q12i? i3PJ7.: t-a aRC:.' a�.1ZGLLLC.` ;.0 i_tL J.0 JL�CJL rIL n/n �` y / 1 Win` nr JJ-- c / / (� L.-can L SL:J L G? tG' 81-30 dazj J7.2.:.i.. a c),nL.irZtk. , _ �L- J r' n n r 17'- J ` LJ'Z,LClL .!n'�•-.C'�d .(J:.L' .dlJCn..II. �f..1Z.��1.'ZeR-� Sy .the Ci-t-,, a-�' T.Lcaul Cit; .z�s�xr:re�r�'��3��' arts! tlzc t?�zt. a,' ,�etrerLce c'occcmeJLti 34-317--57 �t o--r tiu:a PuG(,:.G lLe ncL �e an, tt c,-t t a;'' Tiranc! o, 4 — March 31 , 1981 Portland Metro. Bndry Corm. 320 Ski Stark St. , Suite 530 , Portland, OR 97204/' Dear Donald E. Garison: Please be advised that we have received and filed, as of Harch 30, 1931 , the follow'sny Final Orders: 1690 - City of Cornelius 1678, 1679 - City of Fairview 1674, 1675, 1676 z 1691 - City of ii i l l sboeo 1689 - City of Milwaukie 1677 - City of Molalla 1680 - City of Oregon City 1683 - City of Portland 1682 - City of Sherwood 1667, 1668, 1684,9 X1685 -- City of Tigard 1664 - Clack. Co. Serv. Dist. No. 1 1672 - Wolf Creel: Highway Dist. Our filing number is 31-53. Sincerely, .Raym- nd A. Phelps, Jr. RAP:riz cc: Clack., Melt., and Slash. Co. Clerks PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOEEF�"�1ENi T BOUNDARY CONNiISSION 320 S. W. Stark (#530) - Portland, Ore. 97204 - Tel: 229-5307 FINAL ORDER RE: BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL M. 1668 - Annexation of territory to the City of Tigard. Proceedings on Proposal No. 1668 commenced upon receipt by the Boundary Commission of a resolution and property owner consents from the City of Tigard on December 5, 1980 requesting that certain property be annexed to the city. The resolution and property owner consents meet the require- ments for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490, particularly Section (2). Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Commission published and posted notice of the public hearing in accordance with ORS 199.463 and conducted a public hearing on the proposal on February 12, 1981. The Commission also caused a study to be made on this proposal which considered economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections and physical develop- ment of the land. FINDINGS (See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto) _ REASONS FOR DECISION (See Reasons for Decision on Exhibit "A attached hereto) ORDER On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed above, the Boundary Commission approved BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL NO. 1668 on February 12, 1981. s NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT the territory described in Exhibit "B" and depicted on the attached maps, be annexed to the City-of Tigard as of the date of approval. PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY C NMISS ION Date: °mss i,. .: (C' i By: Peter NkDonald Vice-Chairman Attes Page 1 - FINAL ORDER i f i EXPIBIT "A" Proposal No. 1668 FINDINGS On the basis of the public hearing and the study the Boundary Commission found that: 1. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the city and contains - 23.79 acres , 28 single family residences, one church, and an estimated population of 70 persons and is evaluated at $1,548,500 2. The city desires annexation to extend the city limits to the Portland city limits, its urban planning area bowidary, in order to regularize its boundary and plan for service provision within that bo un da)ry. 3. The proposal creates an island of unincorporated lands surrounded by the city to the west. 4. 'Ihc territory is developed with low density residential uses. - it is desig- nated Urban on the Metro and Washington County Framework Plans. The city plans the area primarily for commercial Office-Park. S. The LCDC Goals have been considered and the proposal conforms with the statewide goals. The staff report is referenced for a goal-by- goal analysis 6. The territory is within the Metzger Water District which curmntly scrvcs the arca. The district has several lines in the area. Nietzger Water District provides service for this area of the city and would not be adversely affected by annexation. The district has planned supply and storage adequate to serve the area. 7. Tlie territory is within the botuidary of the Unified Sewerage Agency. The agency does not have a collector system available in the area. r►cvelopment of the industrial park will provide gravity service to Failuio Creek, crossing under Ih�ry. 217 in the vicinity of flunziker St. The petitioners have also petitioned the city to form a focal Improve- ment District to obtain sewer service. The city anticipates forming the L.I.D. and planning the construction to serve all of the Tigard Triangle area. g. Fire protection is provided by Washington County/RFPD #1 which also provides fixe service for the city. The district would not be adversely impacted by annexation. REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The annexation is consistent with regional, county, and city plans and with LCDC goals. 2. Annexation will make available a full range of urban services to the area which is part of the Tigard community. 3. Annexation is a step toward regularizing the city boundary and improv- ing planning implementation and police protection for the arca. Page 2 - FINAL ORDER EXHIBIT 'B" Proposal No. 1668 Annexation CITY OF TIGARD A certain tract of land located in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West and Section. 36 T1SR 1W Washington County,Oregon to wit; Beginning at a point North 10 06' West'30 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 25, Block 1 of West Portland Heights, as platted; thence, along the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 25 and the West line of said Lot 25 and Lots_ 24, 23, 22 and 21 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 21; thence, Westerly along the North line of Lot 6 said Block 1 to its North- west corner and the east line of S.W. 70th Avenue (platted German St.) thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 6, Block 1 and its Southerly extension to the Southwest corner of Lot 8, said Block 1; thence, Easterly along the South line of said Lot 8 and Lot 18 of said Block 1 to the Northwest corner of Lot 15, said Block 1; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 15 and its southerly extension to the Northwest corner of Lot 7, Alock 10 said West Portland Heights Addition as platted and the South line of S.W. Baylor Street (platted Second Street) ; thence, Easterly along the South line of S.W. Baylor Street and its extension across S:W. 69th Avenue (platted Washington Street), a distance of 235 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 9 said West Portland Heights Addition as platted; thence, Southerly along a line half way between the East and West lines cif said Block 9 to the Southerly line thereof and the Southwest corner of Lot 23, said Block 9 and the North line of S.W. Clinton Street (platted Third Street) ; thence, Westerly along the North line of said S.W. Clinton Street, a. distance of 260 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot Z5 said Block 10, thence, Southerly along the Southerly extension of the West line of said Lot 25, Block 10 and the West line of Lot 5, Block 11 said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted and its Southerly extension, a distance of 360 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 17 said Block 11; thence, Westerly along the North line of said Lot 17, Block 11 to its Northwest corner; thence, continuing Westerly along the extension of the North line of said lot 17, Block 11, a distance of 30 feet to the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition as platted; Page 3 - FIXA.L ORDER i WWII #1668 thence, Southerly along the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, a distance of 1070 feet to a point on the West line of said West Portland HeightF Adaition, as platted, which point is Westerly 30 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 21 along the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 18; thence, Easterly along the Westerlv extension of the North line of said Lot 18, Block 21 and said Southli.ne and its Easterly extension, a distance of 249 feet to the East line of said Block 21 and the Northeast corner of Lot 26, said Block 21; thence, Southerly along the East line of said Lot 26 and its Southerly extension, a distance of 160 feet to the Northeast corner of Block 30, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence, Westerly along the North line of said Block 30 and its Westerly extension, a distance of 249 feet to a point on the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, said point being 30 feet Westerly along the Westerly extension of the North line of said Block 30; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Addition, as platted, a distance of 610 feet to a point which is Westerly 30 feet from the North- west corner of Lot 9, Block 31, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted along the Westerly extension of the; North line of said Lot 9, Block 31; thence , Easterly along the Westerly extension of, and the North line of, said Lot 9 and Lot, 36 said Block 31 and the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 36 to the centerline of S.W. 69th Avenue (platted Washington Street) and the existing city limit line; thence, Northerly along the existing city limit line 130 feet to the interset-Liiolt of the centerline of S.W. 69th Avenue and S.W. Gonzaga Street 1platted Seve:101 Street) ; _ thence, Easterly along the center line of S.W. Gonzaga Street, a distance of 290 feet to the intersection of the centerline of S.W. Gonzaga Street and the Southerly extension of the West line of Block 23, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence, Northerly along said last mentioned Southerly extension and the West line of Block 28, a distance of 350 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 9, said Block 28; thence, Easterly along the North line of Lots 9 and 36 and the Easterly extension of Lot 36 said Block 28, a distance of 230 feet to the center line of S.W. 67th Avenue (platted Lincoln Street) and the existing city limit line; Page 4 - FINAL ORDER #1668 thence , Nortlhc•rly along the centrrliue of S.W. 67th Av`ilte. aSdist nee of 130 feet to the centerline of S-w. I ranklin Street (p nce, Westerly along the centerline of S.W. Franklin Stroet , a distance of the thefeet to the centerline of S .W. 68th Avenue (platted Grant Strect) ; thence, Northerly along the centerline of S.W. 68th Avenue , a distance of 130 feet, to a point Easterly 30 feet along the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 27 , Blocic 22 West Portland heights Addition; thence, Westerly alone; the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 27 , nd 18, ck 22, nd ts the Scionhaslnlattedpto theaSouthwesto1 corner ofsaidsLot o18,at handtheJest Additio P line of said Block 22; thence, Northerly along corner`JoftI.otline l5oandsaid Black 22,22' a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest thence, Easterly a distance of 100 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 15, Block 22; thence, Northerly along the East lines of Lots . 14 , 13, 12, 11, 10, 9 and 4 er of said Loth4 and the Southline of S.W- of Block 22 to the Northeast corn E1mhurst Street (platted Fifth Street) ; !_hence, Easterly along the South line of S.W. Elmhurst -Strret and its Easterly extension to the Northwest corner of Block 23, said 1Jest Portland heights Addition and the East line of S.N. 66th Avenue; line of said S.W. 68th Avcnu thence, Southerly along; the East e and tile rst e id line of Block 23 said .'est Portland ►ieig;hts Addition, as platted, a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 9, said Block 23; thence. Farr.-rly along the North line of said Lot 9, a distance of 100 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 4, said 31oc-k 23; thence, Northerly along the East line of said Lot L, and its Northerly extension across.S.W. Elmhurst Street to a point on the Soutit lime of Block 18 said West Portland Heights Addition, said point being; the Southeast corner of Lot 22, said Block 18 continuing Northerly along the East line of said Lot: 22 and its Northerly extension to the Northwest corner of L.00 36 said Block 18; thence, Easterly along the Northline of said Lot 36 and its Easterly extension to the Northwest corner of Lot, 9 Block 17 'gest Portland heights Addition; continuing Easterly along; the :forth line of said Lot 9 and its Easterly extension to the Northeast corner of Lot 36 said Block 17; Page 5 - FINAL ORDER E #1668 1 thence, Northerly along the Wcst line of S.W. 66th Avenue (platted Garfield Street ) a distance of 410 fret to a (winL un the '.Just line of said S.W. 66th Avenue and the Northeast corner of Lot 32 Block 14 said '.lest Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence , Westerly along the North line of said Lot 32, a distance of 100 f,=et to the Northwest corner thereof; thence, Southerly along the West line of Lot 32 and its Southerly extension to the, Northeast corner of Lot 16, said Block 14 ; thence, Westerly along; the NorLh line of said Lot 16 and its Westerly extension a distance of 260 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 16 of Block 13; thence, Northerly 5U aeet to the Southeast corner of Lot 13 , Block 13; tliencc, GaatLrI5 -100 feet to the bouthpnst- corner of Lot 32, said Block 13; an easterly extension of thence, Easterly 60 feet alongAthe South line of said Lot 32, Block 13 to the Eastline of S.W. 67th Avenue and to the Northwest corner of Lot 14 , Block 14 , said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thcnc: , Northerly along the West line of said Bl$pck 14 and its Northerly extension and `thce West line of Block 7, a distance of 635 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 9 said Block 7 ; thence•, Easterly along the North lines of Lots 9 and 36 said Block 7, a distance of 200 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 36; thence, Northerly along the East line of Lot 8 said Block 7 and its northerly extension to the Southeast corner of gnosis 4 said West Portland Heights Addition; as platted thence, Westerly along, the South line of said Block 4 and its Wc•clerly extension to the Southeast corner of Black 3 said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence, Northerly along the East line of said Block 3 and its Northerly extension to the North line of the West Portland Heights Addition/ as platted, and the existing city limit line, thence, Westerly along the North line of the West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, and the existing city limit line Lo the POINT OF BEGINNItiG. n,..-.. s rrarnv nnnrn ®s!®.!�!•® wii.aiw.slll� rev et�c�� Proposal No. 1 8 Wa-& qL= J- 7,2S W-m. ® 1! , 04 . I BEET' _ �'�Ll _• — L3 _ � — _ � }- Roo i7 Z al zao o caan� _2+ .. .. ... 1 J OG 20 ! 20 Igi 19 1 ' '- " ' =' L7 0T _ T 7 Sot to i • 19 w `• .•— 1 .•. ,• 4J • i. L est W 400 j GO(AL w -zoo' t , ,300. . T.O. . i • 1 ' 1 t� � t '� i t t 'moi o T, w Q; $.10, 11. t2. O- 11 K t7 '•D.•O tl,1113 a 1, 14, 49 �fi ba: -I!it.:] ,4 1!',cam a � f t0.11,1 13.S.W. :SWW w SAYLOR STREET � W �2 1 s. i, It 7} b�Y 3, f. 7..+•• 22 4. •20.-c 11lco I ke00 •2;� 2$ ( 93 `'1 3e�o•' '' Fi AREA TO BE ANNEXED t 2100 � .f—..• 241.e= 9i� '94C2� .a. .•. r �'t— 102!00 3• •00_ 1 44pp i to ,2 _ T — _36� ,e O 3273 ,tl 3700 - 3— — — as I ,zzevo 9s ta_ b,T I_,♦ _ �o_2l CO y, !Go— 3_00 52 ' -38_ e3 1300 32 - ..� 13 1 31 31:2 .t♦Y --,,ca zw— — Lz.oo a2 I 7S— — — �0� F. '!— — 3600—p ' ch, t3 1 H r t: , 36x i7_p_ _ L —¢3tI6�. ® Kb_ I 1• -�_a so r-00 Stet. zm 1 t9 ,r_ 34Q•• zee—y! t�177 _ I — (' I , 7 to.•a 1 If 1 \eD.o 27 L 23001 1 1 •1 itT T•1�� —T 3100` , t I l E es?oa I 3•CO t l6c i <I .a3. rob. ZZ,Y3_2425 8G 2712.1: i.:D Yt 2S to m zs (is 2c 21 22 23 a•25 M. 9-.421: r, s SW c.LINTOUP ® ¢ STREET O if 41 3: C. 7. iz 3: , 7.�1 ,r2 3T4TTs�7W - 1 •e00_ D s 30b •000 3e U 1_ t sz- 3, - •0 33 ,, 10 to _ _ _ or o — 35 _ a7_o�. 3e� T 33 t1 12 t efoo-3sJ _ t ' a 32 t3— ' ' esoo_zz soo ; _ 3 _z r f♦c`ia�c an — 3,� ri30030 K!_0 2! ,• ' —i..::TT 161 174900_ — '^ 7 27 1 t9 V c 27 1 to t 27 ¢ t• , 7losi 1 1 1— 1 T •4Qp T E� 1 1 , t T 7 T T T 36: 31. l ! I ! ! 2_I �SI� 1 1 � 1� � 1 net r } 1 i i I w • 1 I ! ; 1 ! w4 1 I ( 1 1 1 :7 I � t �� i ! •• ST d,o m at, a$2v n ai t 2.to ztl ziY+:Z5,x i '•r a:aal:s.21,ah.x. S W _ DART�ljT•p� ./ See a,6 PROPOSAL NO. 1668 CITY OF TIGARD FIG. 20— - Propisal No, is ` NE Ifo NE I/4 SECTION I T2S RIW W.M. ® 3Q a+25 cttlopq CQIINaT OREGON c ('' /•��m - See .20- SCALE 1'•100• �i e•L ]'..'Q' a laam_� - - - - - � ` m sw DARTMOUTH SZ ,..; '� •«'••• r I T 1 t r+Terllrw�.s'•.t •r 2700 •� • 11 ale,a •17;a [ 1 . 2:6.114 tar 316 }S r10 • if e _ is Vil y -_ - --- - - - ` -� i uj Silt _ — --a = Z: Z AREA TO BE ANNEXEDIll ICE � '!-°' -• � �_-_-_-'' -"- Z ' _ • W 30 r 1 3i°oT Ir'/s ao'r.'ar a,i•�a[s ,[sl3n�a•It:ta.2+l a[K � ; � 1 I [ 1 1� 1 1 1 , [ � — 1 • , , 1 L t ' [ � 1 1 7 i 1 i / � 1 1 1 • 1 � 1�•��••1+�Me+i�![+: 1__t_1 I l I.J._ _�. _l_�_t_►- Ks..•• � : S.W. ELMHURST W Q ip t t a•oo 1 [ I , 11C f1 ! �a'WD • 1 • 1 i l , 1 1 1 1 , j I ' 1/1 a•S 19••1 T•e - - •IIIt a s a'e•via ' ' ' • I [ 1 I I t i .J, 1 s 1 [ � 1 � � � � � �� 1 I / t I ' 1 7� 1 • ' 1 L t_I_L - -4 1 a• ,F•--� z— _ s•- - - se _ l -- - - - _ --:;- - SS-- -- CITY OF TT_GARD g _ __ 32 SO 25 - - _. " "1•co is - _ _ _- - --[ r a - •T - - -- --27 fill �_ T T 1-'-11 i T an Z7 • • , 1 1 1 1 • 1 ' i i I [ 1 1 •RlaD alfa t••a9• • 91>aa•'a7 aElae�a Aia [ 1 1 1 I 1 ' ' 11.- S.W _•.- trRA �� • a� fill H -sclI i a a,� t: •� an_ 7 i eor� - -' -- - -• - - --- '0_-4 3aC I a 36 1 Sa 3 O 26-1 1 C: a g — p. � so • _ — _ $ caw -- - - -- -- - 7.00 - �IAJD 210 7 I TT ? ,I . ' , , � • , ; 1 . [ � � � 7Olb 12as 2a;ae'aD�- � �'. 'i 4.9,]a a•t a t 23i:e'».ai I 1 1 t i 1 1 . 1 �'i I 1 / [ [ • « 1-9 •!�: - -- ST �.Zee- PROPOSAL NO, 1668 - — - — -- City Of Tigard F(2b • i ' Proposal a. 16c � SE I/4 NEI/4 SECTION I T2S RI W W.M. WAS1+0dGTON COUNTY Ot+EGO:d SCALE t'•100' SEC -AV 2S 1 ue I Se i LLSy I' Li � ' EX 1.1-TR—E—ATO BE ANNEXE a SW vmmttttlll�®Imaimn GONZAGA (TTM) ' I'00 , .. r I z 0 '-, � � V/ 1 .�� I I •:.rte ; 1 I�==o LLJ Pw� X60. 1^_.—— — �+m "� `600— _200 i ` 0 .— :2200 — L..— c:100 = �— -- 300 o S��L sao .3 ti -- —I '•�^�•— `2306 —.� —.- 1 �L 1200' T J sa n i '1 I ; 3 :z aid t ca_a I i c: T T T T , 1E y —t sEt[ ,m•.. I i I a 1 I 1^, .o� H•", 1 I ( I`� i i 2 1 1 ® .,„_— ,:n' 1 -� � ' I � I •i ,Cf' ' H j •I r� �! i � 1 f � � �----� A--� - -----=HAMPTON - -e-N1 ST 1' Ic 3•cc` t`.I r � .3~.•s is -L I _, '� j j I •°' ' 1A cm -% 1_ 11 _ __' I �_i t , ! 1 •t i 1 .....1 ' 1 24 3.9 _ 1f in_ 1 �_ _— _. -_1r +-20 1- •N- -+y f- '--r- - — Q SIA to �e.20'a1'22'-_3 11 12•j. ra. } t t I t =�. •.!r•`or'• ..�o�u I � � �1 -� ' :-� ��.i rS?r. � � f PROPOSAL NO. 1668 eMOi CITY OF TIGARD FIG. 2c . t • I i { ' i t i ' f NOTICE TO TAXING DISTRICTS ORS 308 . 225 Ai PROVED AS PEr, FROM: ORS —"CS 227? This is to notify you tthat your boundary change in �>'.1 �7 .tet;-F 0V'1 County, for STATE OF OREGON APS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (r? `(� AA U-R MAPPING UNIT SALEM, OREGON 97310 DESCRIPTION tx MAP has been: ! ErRReceived I TO: 2Approved 4' T Disapproved (see notes) i ) If disapproved, please submit corrected '1 description and map. : k `P F Notes: !S I FOR RAPPING UNIT AND ASSESSOR USE ONLY Department of Revenue f i 1 e no: DQ f2 34 -'3t-1 Boundary: change proposed change Q received from: �VYl.f C L The change is for a: Data received: ` f iD Formation of a new district (Description I I Annexation of territory to a district R8P 0 Withdrawal of territory from a district Certified by registered surveyor or registered engineer: ^ k C Dissolution of a district 0 yes F, CC County Assessor Boundary Commission (when appropriate) + z Department of Revenue ABA-0-39(11-75) I f I � !i r j DOC- 34- 31 -1 - PORTLA\."D N1L'I'ROPOLIT.kN AREA, LOCAL G0% BOUN114RY CO SMI SSION 320 S. W. Stark (1#530) - Portland, Ore. 97204 - Tel: 229-5307 FINAL ORDER RE: BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL N0. 1668 - Annexation of territory to the City of Tigard. Proceedings on Proposal No. 1668 commenced upon receipt by-the Boundary Commission of a resolution and property owner consents from the City of 5, 1980 requesting that certain property be annexed Tigard on December to the city. The resolution and property oumer consents re meets for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490, particularly Section (2) . Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Commission published and posted notice of the public hearing in accordance with ORS 1. The and conducted ed a public hearing on the proposal on February ' ► also caused a study to be made on this proposal which considered economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections and physical develop- C, evelop- mens of the land } FINDINGS t (See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto) REASONS FOR DECISION (See Reasons for Decision on Exhibit "A attached hereto) ORDER On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed above, the Boundary Commission approved BOUNDARY C1 NGE PROPOSAL NO. 1668 on February 12, 1981. NUK 'II-EREFORE eTdattachemE.a)ps�abe�annexed2torydescribed Exhibit IS *heCity of Tigardasof td the depicted on th date of approval. PORTLA\D ?ILETROPOLITA.N APNEA. LOCAL GOVER�'%o"'T BOUNDARY CO'M41SSION l� 1. A rC By: Date:—! _, :'" • _ _ - �� Peter McDonald Vice-Chairman Atter . f 'J Page 1 - FIN_AL ORDER (} �" EXHIBIT "A" Proposal No. 1668 r f FINDINGS On the basis of the public hearing and the study the Boundary Commission found that: 1. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the city and contains 23.79 acres, 28 single family residences, one church, and an estimated population of 70 persons and is evaluated at $1,548,500 2. The city desires annexation to extend the city limits to the Portland city limits, its urban planning area.boundary, in order to regularize its boundary and plan for service provision within that houndaYy. 3. The proposal creates an island of unincorporated lands surrounded by the city to the west. 4. Tile territory is developed with low density residential uses. - It is desig- nated Urban on the Pietro and Washington County Framework Plans. The city plans the area primarily for commercial Office-Park. S. The LCDC Goals have been consider-ed and the proposal conforms with the statewide goals. The staff report is referenced for a goal-by- goal analysis I 6. 'lire territory is within the Dletzger Water District which currently serves the area. The district has several lines in the area. Metzger Water District provides service for this area of the city and would not be adversely affected by annexation. The district has planned supply and storage adequate to serve the area. 7. 'lire territory is within the boavidary of the Unified Sewerage Agency. The agency does not have a collector system available in the area. rk velopment of the industrial park will provide gravity service to Fasuio Creek, crossing under lhvy. 217 in the vicinity of llunziker St. The petitioners have also petitioned the city to form a local Improve- ment District to obtain sewer service. The city anticipates forming the L.I.D. and planning the construction to serve all of the Tigard Triangle area. 8. Fire protection is provided by Washington County RFPD #1 which also provides fare service for the city. The district would not be adversely impacted by annexation. REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The annexation is consistent with regional, county, and city plans and with LCBC goals. 2. Annexation will make available a full range of urban services to the area which is part of the Tigard community. 3. Annexation is a step toward regularizing the city boundary and improv- ing planning implementation and police protection for the area. Page 2 - FINAL ORDER EXHIBIT "B" Proposal No. 1668 t ' Annexation CITY OF TIGARD A certain tract of land located in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West and Section 36 T1SR 1W Washington County,Oregon to wit; i Beginning at a point North 10 06' Wast'30 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 25, Block 1 of West Portland Heights, as platted; thence, along the Northerly- extension of the West line of Lot 25 and the West line of said Lot 25 and Lots 24, 23, 22 and 21 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 21; s thence, Westerly along the North line of Lot 6 said Block 1 to its North— west corner and the east line of S.W. 70th Avenue (platted German St.) thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 6, Block 1 and its Southerly extension to the Southwest corner of Lot 8, said Blcck 1; thence, Easterly along the South line of said Lot 8 and Lot 18 of said Block 1 to the Northwest corner of Lot 15, said Block 1; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 15 and its southerly j extension to the Northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 10 said West Portland Heights Addition as platted and the South line of S.W. Baylor Street (platted Second Street) ; thence, Easterly along the South line of S.W. Baylor Street and its extension across S.W. 69th Avenue (platted Washington Street), a distance of 235 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 9 said West Portland 4 Heights Addition as platted; E thence, Southerly along a line half way between the East and West lines j of said Block 9 to the Southerly line thereof and the Southwest corner r of Lot 23, said Block 9 and the North line of S.W. Clinton Street (platted Third Street) ; thence, Westerly along the North line of said S.W. Clinton Street, a distance of 260 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 25 said Block 10; thence, Southerly along the Southerly extension of the West line of said Lot 25, Block 10 and the West line of Lot 5, Block 11 said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted and its Southerly extension, a c distance of 360 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 17 said Block 11; thence, Westerly along the North line of said Lot 17, Block 11 to its Northwest corner; thence, continuing Westerly along the extension of the North line of said lot 17, Block 11, a distance of 30 feet to the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition as platted; Page 3 - FINAL ORDER rONM0aIa t #1668 thence, Southerly along the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, a distance of 1070 feet to a point on the West line of said West Portland Heights Adaition, as platted, which -point j is Westerly 30 feet from the bouthwest corner of Lot 18, Block 21 along the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 18; thence, Easterly along the Westerlv extension of the North line of said Lot 18, Block 21 and said Southline and its Easterly extension, a distance of 249 feet to the East line of said Block 21 and the Northeast corner of Lot 26, said Block 21; `_hence, Southerly along the East line of said Lot 26 and its Southerly extension, a distance of 160 feet to the Northeast corner of Block 30, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence, Westerly along the North line of said Block 30 and its Westerly 1 extension, a distance of 249 feet to a point on the West line of said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, said point being 30 feet Westerly along the Westerly extension of the North line of said Block 30; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Addition, as platted, a distance of 610 feet to a point which is Westerly 30 feet from the North— west corner of Lot 9, Block 31, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted along the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lor_ 9, Block 31; ' thence, Easterly along the Westerly extension of, and the North line of, said Lot 9 and Lot, 36 said Block 31 and the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 36 to the centerline of S.W. 69th Avenue (platted Washington Street) and the existing city limit line; thence, Northerly along the existing city limit line 130 feet to the intersc-otinli of the centerline of S.W. 69th Avenue and S.W. Gonzaga Street 1platted Seve-10i Street); thence, Easterly along the center line of S.W. Gonzaga Street, a distance of 290 feet to the intersection of the centerline of S.W. Gonzaga Street and the Southerly extension of the West line of Block 23, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; thence, Northerly along said last mentioned Southerly extension and the West line of Block 28, a distance of 350 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 9, said Block 28; thence, Easterly along the North line of Lots 9 and 36 and the Easterly extension of Lot 36 said Block 28, a distance of 230 feet to the center line of S.W. 67th Avenue (platted Lincoln Street) and the existing city limit line; Page 4 - FINAL ORDER #1668 - 2 c thence, Northerly along the c•enLerliue of S.W. 67th Aveltue , a distance of 130 feet to the centerline of S.W. Franklin Street (planted Si:cth Street.) ; thence, Westerly along the centerline of S.W. Franklin Stroet , a distance of 260 feet to the centerline of S.W. 68th Avenue (platted Grant Street% ; thence, Northerly along the centerline of S.W. 68th Avenue, a distance of 130 feet, to a point Easterly 30 fret along the Easterly extension of the South line of Let 27, Blocic 22 West Portland lleiyhts_ Addition; thence, Westerly along the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 27, the St•uth lint! of Lots 27 and 18, Block 22, said West Portland !!eights Addition as platted, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 18, and the West line of said Block 22; thence, Northerly along the West line of said Block 22, a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest corner of I.ot 15 and Block 22; thence, Easterly a distance of 100 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot f 15, Block 22; - k thence, Northerly along the East lines of Lots 14 , 13, 129, 11, 10, 9 and 4 3 of Block 22 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4 and the South line of S-14- Elmhurst Street (platted fifth Street); 1 Lhunee, Easterly along, the South line of S.W. Elmhurst Street and its Easterly f extension to the Northwest corner of Block 23, said West Portland heights ! Addition and the East line of S.W. 68th Avenue ; thence, Southerly alon), the East line of said S.W. 65th Avenue :and the West line of Block 23 said West Portland ideights Addition, as platted, a distance of lot, feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 9, said Block 23; thence. .F.actrriy along; the North line of said Lot 9, a distance of 100 feet to the S6utheast corner of Lot 4, said Block 23; thence, Northerly along the East lint: of said Lot 4 and its Northerly extension across S.W. Elmhurst Street Lo a point on the South line of Black 18 said West Portland Heights Addition, said point being; the Southeast corner of Lot 22, said Block 18 continuing; Northerly along the East line of said 1.ot 22 and its 'Northerly extension to the Northwest corner of Lot 36 said Block 18; thence, Easterly :.'long; the North line of said Lot 36 and its Easterly extension to the Northwvst corner of Lot 9 Block 17 West Portland Heights Addition; continuing Easterly along; rhe North line of said Lot 9 and its Easterly extension to the Northeast corner of Lot 36 said Block 17; Page 5 - FINAL ORDER I t #1668 thence, Northerly along the iJest line of S.`d. 66th Avenue (platted Garfield Street ) a distance of 410 feet to a paint un the 'Jest line of said S.W. 66th Avenue and the Northeast corner of Lot 32 Klock 14 said :deist Portland Heights Addition_, as platted; thence, Westerly alon+; the North line of said Lot 32, a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence, Southerly along the Uci;t line of Lot 32 and its Southerly extension to the Northeast corner of Lot 16, said Block 14 ; thence, Westerly along the North line of said Lot 16 and its Westerly extension a distance: of 260 feet to the Northeast corner of- Lot 16 of Block 13; t thence, Northerly 50 ;tet to the Southeast corner of I.ot 13 , Block 13; thence, Sastcrl; -100 feet to the southf-asr_• corner of Lot 32, said Block 13; an easterly extension of thence, Easterly 60 leer alongAthe South line of said Lot 32, Block 13 to the Eastline of S.W. 67th Avenue and to the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 14, said West Portland Heights Addition, as platted; t; 1 thence, :Ioriherly along; the West lino of said Block 14 and its Northerly extension and 'the West line of Block 7, a distance of 635 feet to the ` Northwest corner of Lot 9 said filock 7; thence , Easterly along the ;forth lines of Lots 9 and 36 said Block 7, a distance of 200 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 36; thence, Northerly along; the East line of Lot 8 said Block 7 and its northerly extension to the Southeast corner of Block 4 said IJc st Portland ileights Addition; as platted thence, Westerly along the South line of said Block 4 and its Wc-sterly extension to the Southeast corner of Black 3 said Wast Portland Hcights Addition, as platted; thence, Northerly along the East line of said Block 3 and its Northerly extension to the North line of the West Portland Heights Addition, as platted, and the existing, city limit line, thence, Westerly along the North line of the West Portland Iieig-lits Addition, as Platted, and the existing city limit line to the POINT 0I' BEG1::`II:�G. Page 6 - FINAL ORDER AUK Proposal No. / (06 8 1Yc�& 14 L 7a,5 "R i W s ex, I W-1». .0e 01 IY w —SFR E _ E"•�zlcoc� 1s:�c•-Ze".. ._'a-0•- 1lc7'_za� •• ._'_oo/"• }},--T�_z• an•• ,�iL'aoo loo :. .. ... T ,.. 13 3021 �' ^--- Ar - -�3� • 121 I a.. Is 7 301 1• L �0w t °7` �• j . ..- T ... r7 W L• t•_ i a 17 WsagY W ' t` ! 1 I j z 11200 ,.300' 1 i ?e. -� , T* 1 I �W ; "•1 W i 11 ,,, I i W 1 i I , _ aoo; ' I 1 Z I _ Q. !.10 u• 2 IS, Nr K 17 Q 1.9.p n.1 19,N ,Cr q, ' I r > Q t - , .• Qi !'1J N.12.SS ! 10.11,1 IA m,1a 16 Q SAYLOR STREET ui 2ozz 11960 I16co f 270p 3' 2Z T?•6i �i�•ai • S ,6 7 •• V AREA TO BE ANNEXED i , I ! 4 V 1 0Z•O 36 � �4'— x' �9r0�•_ 36 ! s00_ _ i •a00 - - a IQ 9297 � LI— { 1 I]— — _��\\, S•. ra 2090 9S t2J2312_— — - TL"1• 2� r3 •aoo '32t — Sa + a 3' , _ �'8— a2s MAP jF-fi2 a.ca = r - r - - -1 = " 3, 1 ,too _ 1 — o _ x L sa F- Is - so �s �9c00� vi = IS I X.X .L _a] -f C3 r = - la 3o iD 5000 3c.:1 a•~ SD �t1_—?3a03 g1�;� (tom f 1 :6 w ,j� t {, ze �23001 1 I •. - T� T�' 7 6.., �1 ti9.yo •_ i 1 I i I ! a alco' 1 I I �I "?°° S+COI I io 1, a i , i I i 1 , ` 1� ! I I i -� i I , :I a637��r 1 :1• 20 h a zs ze 2s x 27 ze I! m r° 3,• 1i ZS 2a 71 a6• 1!.2C 21. a2 23 Ze 221 a�+2�•2S a6 .. .•� a. i Sw CLINTOU5; �s��✓ „STREET - o 1 i^r•• a 3. s f�7•b 'moi— � pis �e 7cco I f f912\7 �s,t r 3t •t y: s.7,`6� I. z. 3 , s ";.� 1�+ t3 I ! 1 a3oo r Tal %—i-, 7"�' i r t + • � � I ' 1 � 1- i 1 I 1 I )r' 3 I I i 1 = '�oo_ .9sroo' 6600_36 sanoo i� s 3i yl 1 Z 1 52007--25 r, ?zoo- ash 33� 1z !sgoo ]s : _ ., . •,3l3co�T ! cco0 x , "ssco 1 — _ — r ] 6900 _ — 1� —' .. 3— _ a —17 2 0 31 .•�.._— — t9 r � C— 2f, ir6ailTa 2! ,a' f �' N 77 0 0129 1774 600_ 7y� �r'•� T} r• T71sa�f I f y .••1 1 1 1 .. >» I •f oa 3coo b ' T 36; 3e - z;z;2:b: �• „ 1 I ; 1 1 I I t 1 15 I I I �' =, 1 acz.zau:42:2.1 _9_ u 21211as2iziza. . 2aZ� zaas.z'% W DARTmouTH zs, e a, PROPOSAL NO. 1668 CITY OF TIGARD FIG• 20• t NO. t-Topisal T2S RIW W.M. " y 2S NE IX NE 1l4 SECTION t o wmSNINGrON COUNrr OREGONSee- ��. (�'.�• . SCALE 1"100 '11, UAP ' If t Stop S.WL DARTMOUTH ST �N-.:. i r � , �r•1lutwir�r'••t� w Y" 2% 'o l ' w ' ` t a` 1 2 SI•IS t ri• 1 ,211 , t t 99 IKOO I f 24 1 .e. _-.►- ei 16 L Q Sim- W 7•Ly t3 -- -_S7 - W WUJI ANNEXED AREA TO BE - - 23 �+J 1 ,e 1 25 26 Tf��pi71f72',S,•'tli7m L 1 � 1 I 1 i 1 i ' 1 ' t � 1••'si�l.,�••i�.Ni�� - Y ELMHURST -- y� It7 f c S.W(. t T�l-. T -j -i-1 1 1 1a! _ �a7O T i 1 1 t t CL I I j�p,T• I '; �.po ' i 1,2.) 15 1 e 1 - ' 1 T,a 1 Lb i Is S • ISIS, 1 i t• 1 1 , i ' 1 = i- t ! -` - 700- --1 r -ale3p0 3110 91th IF 3f — I---- - -- CITY OF TIGARD ' -32 25 — 1*00 is- T7 T r r TT-' 1 •...-ai�....ira-�,Sp i l 1 i � , � 1 1 1 ' 1 1 gi713,2117 ?•;JS 78 , 1 �g t.flm7.'72 23174 i!'2 •FRA •D r�� —,—r i— IL TOO 1 4 1 1 t , 1� 1. 1 •.ns• 1 wc31 � 1 ex++ol i e2poi i i t � 1 llsial• a ,lie < in -++•�'�' .:� d t 1 i scop _ _ e _. - -- --- _ ,p� ]G + f92 M IIs .giWwC0_ wo 30 - a•IT mom 'f ® �Sas o•� T- y4•co , r3r�3 1 5:� 1 t OC '�p} •r r 1 7 1 1 1 ll � i•129� 4• ',jbtlf, 20 Z. i , 1 , ` , ; ; t•1 1 V -1--1- ST � _�-j_1._i_ e.• f r ale, e S.W. — _ — ®�e-E- T—e? li(6► PROPOSAL NO, 1668 City of Tigard Fig 2b 1 ' f: Proposal No. /coG (3 R SEI/4 NEI/4 SECTION I T2S RI W %V.M. v.AS..a.GTON COCNTT OREGOY SCALE .'•100' SEE MAP 4 LS . .AA # I W 9 I } 1 Q � AREA TO BE ANNEXED a a 1 ! sw �o�m»�®e GON2AGA t�Twi S7= `. -�?r w •��-e �_ ; :�o i i i- I.r ee�--`� Fo0 l 1 10;0 .SOC �d: _-- -- .zzco .2_—_ L�oc_33o° = solo iJ t'°o_�—{f--- �I V # U. sac j I 3 :25400 :!C°0 1 I c; I I-i Ti T 3:o�o� 1t SEE.Aa l e�.a•. ' I �' I 1 ~ I > 25 1 . L-�:' ' . .� i .'N I , i �r I :: co i '• .:I� }y! :I C�: , - I --'HAMPTON ST " - 3100 , '(= •I�s��~. ; �j.. sr='3}',s I�..� L 14 34 3n I� 21 Zi— � a ... ! ..9'zu2 .2z�=s.2•z:,�: 1 I I ;—: � , # t ` ' , i � � , 1 ST. PROPOSAL NO. 1668 CITY OF TIGARD FIG. 2c i I L E NOPMA PAULUS 7777 SL ,c TAR OF STAT= a F TIGARD WASH1NGiON COUNTY,OREGON 2bovvmber 10, 1981 The Honorable Norma Paulus EE1@ , JSecretary of State _ j 981State o€ Oregon Salem, Oregon 97310 ULUE STAT Dear Mrs. Paulus: The Tigard City Council ratified and confirmed changes in the boundary of the City of Tigard by the Boundary Commission. I am enclosing For your records certified copyks) of the following ordinance(s)- Boundary Commission Order No. 1668, involving lands of Larsen Annexation dated May 18, 1981, City of Tigard Ordinance No. 81-30. Boundary Commission Order No. 1684, involving lands of Durham Annexation dated May 18, 1981, City of Tigard Ordinance No. 81-314 81-72.. Boundary Commission Order No. 1685, involving lands of Gentle Woods Annexation dated May 18, 1981, City of Tigard Ordinance No. 81-32 .& 81-73. Please acknowledge receipt of the ordinance(s) on the carbon copy of this letter and return same to our office in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Your cooperation in acknowledging this annexation will be appreciated. Sincerely, r risHar ig City Recorder DH:lw Enc. 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. Box 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 977223 PH: 639-4171 STATE OF OREGON) City of Tigard ) I , DORIS HARTIu, hereby certify that I am the duly appointed,qualified, and acting Recorder of the City of Tigard, Oregon. I further certify that I have compared the herewith copy of Ordinance No. 81-30of the City of Tigard with the original in my possession as custodian of Iseaocorrect transcript ofthe theCity wholeTigard, and that the herew_th copy Ordinance No. 81 81-30 THEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of IN o. 30 NVI the City of Tigard this _ 10th day of November , City ecor e j MENEM mw 7 C17): CC= TICpD, O^Gpvi ORDITIVANCE No. AN ORDIIvUUNCE R TION OF r a NDS BY THE BOD1 -- ATIFYING PN NO- 1668, AVD ADOP`IING FINTDINGS WITH F. 'jPcCB �� CO'-�SSION, ORDER ZONING pg�� OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO COtii ORc%1 t CPN 152 ,*D� i0 Tr.� 2970 AND D CLARII�G AN Ftii:�. � CO *r 4 P"k4 PS ADOPTED A'tiN'`'XSl'ION) '�;CY AVD F_ NG AV F.Fr FCI'IVE L>r'�T£. (ZCA 8-$1 I�apS J TION EdORT TITLE: Lassen An.-iexa tion TAX 11!,'P 1S1 36 DD; Dots 800, 801, 900, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1700, 1702, 2600, 3001, 3200, 3290, 3300, 3301, 3400, 34Q2, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5300, 3 3403, 3500, 3600, 5500 , 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6600, 6700, 680A -Jo0 6900, 5000° i 57076 6500, Tax Map 2S1 1Ats; 100, 1200, 1301, 1400, 1700, 1900, 2000021 0, 2200, 2300, 2301, 2400, 2600, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 3901, 4000, 4100, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4900, 5000, 5100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8700,• 8900, 9000 9103, 9105, 9106, 9107, and 9001- Tax r.t 91001 9101, p 2S1 lAli bots ,260 and 2700. F'n.R NummP, ZCA 8-81, PFZES T S�ASEi�I ZO desi V�vi'I CC�U`.i'Y VI":G LLSI�`i1^iOti, �rarious ZationS , and CP ZOt CHA�:WD T17 CITY OF TICAPD A-40 "2;t�lt�-fW^llv =sidential" -q rcial Professional" zones. Oregon of he6go od Corm;ssion, established pursuant to Cha 94 dated March 20, 1981 approthe ohpaolitan Area by its Final Order 0z1668 baimdaries of the Ci hereinafter described cha*�g_ j, the the -_ filed with the of Ti and a copy of said Final Order has bee-,-I .-he City of Tic-P---7, . P--wised Sta`utes _ roped a in acro,-dance t:*ith C�a2te_r 197 Oregor. _ within this Annexations. Co-pre.�:ersi�� Plan .:Lcz isnclu::.as the lz., a '-'4CW, T-rir,F-7F THE CITY OF T'IGAM Os;DAXNS AS FpL.j_a;S: SECTION 1: That the Final Order of :he dun1- 20th day of March, 1981, a � � Corsaission adopted on the by this reference made apart hereof, COPY "'hereof is hereto attached and confirmed and adopted by refe_�-ecce to the sara le, and the gal force and effect is, hereb maedi set forth herein in full. SECTION 2: That the boundaries of the Ci hereby changed to include the o� Tigard be, and they are Order of the Boundarylands as decrik�d in th; wi h;n Of Tigard are hereby emission, and the Corporate limits of the City 4 ereby changed in conformity therewith. Ordinance No. 81�_ =' �CvJrC i of ti-l=-! city of ^'� `i _i f S r r, :may SECTIO: 3: That tr L ,`. ., c tr s Ordin=: -e, in=lt�'�ig directed to, forts::_�h file a c ?: o -r, in the folle•:ring a copy of said prc officzs: ` (a) Secretary of State (b) Det-.ar. nt of pevemz and Taxation, Trashing`�n G^t"ity p- (c) Decartrrezt of Record= and EZectio:v, 1Ias}lington Comty (d) Departrant of Public Works, Attention: Surveyor, L•:ashingttsz County SECTION 4: Finding that the lands hereinafter described are now zoned as Washington County various designations and further finding that pursuant to ORS 197, the City of Tigard has adopted a NTO z 4 Plan for said lands on the area of g-7 Atlanta south to S:•7 Gonzaga Strz�-s and that ORS 197.175 requires cities to pct Zomig ordinances to ire le< int ui their Corprehensive Plans, and further finding that pursuant to procedures, the abowstated Zoning 1 p Arrendaent was presented at a public he—ring held by the Tigard City Co:ircil on Llay 11, 1981 and all interested p=r=oms t'ere afforded an opportun=ty to be heard at this Dubuc hearing. The Council adopts the following substantive findings: (a) That this Zone I61Rpint is in mnforranee ui;h the zipO Tvr- 4 Plan which. SECTION 5: Therefore, pursuant to the r,-qu.irer.ents of Chapter 18.88 of e Tigard M ncipal Code, this request for an A'end=int to the Zone 11ap of the City of Ticard is here by appro:red subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.20 of the Tigard P.,,�,mdcipal Come as e_roodied in ado?ted E,,ffli7it:s "A", and "B" attached and made a part of this Ordinance, lne designation of the subject property is hereby changed to A-40 zoning � ,• "Multi-fa-nily Residelntial- and CP " ,m , rcial Professional". Exhibit "A"'.' I--gal Description - Fbhibit "B": Tax Map SECTION 6: Inas mach as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of the people of tl,e City of Tigard that the farego :c, c`7-ar_ce ��+� bov da. -es of tr:= City and Zor_e �1_? n'= =:lt becc::e a z—.anent in 4-_ Y' is hereby declared to c}`st, part of the City's record.-, an Berg-ncy y passa— by the Ci and this Ord�*la.^.ce shall be effectave upon its Ly COu--Zcil, and approval by the Ma-Ynr. PASSED- By Q 1r�r% � vote of all Council rrrbers present, after being read t,,-o times dry nurber and title only, this 12 s day of a 1981. • Recorder - City of Tigar APP D: By the l��ayor, this /8 F- day of AI a= , 1981. 1 ;--Sayor - City of Tigard i�®.�® aartmmra� ' PORTLk\-D i-a 1 ROPOL N-N k r% LOC.- L GOI�Rt 320 S. W. Stark US30) - Portland, Ore. 97204 - Tel: 229-5307 FINM ORDER RE: BUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL NO. 1668 - Annexation of territory to the City of Tigard. Proceedings on Proposal No. 1668 _-orrznenced upon receipt by the BoLmdary Co 4, 'ss ion of a resolution and property c.sner consents from the City of Tigard on December 5, ing that certain property be annexed 1980 request to the city. The resolution and property o..,ner consents me-t the lregquvire- ments for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490, p Section (2) . Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Co-t,,assion published and posted and on this propswhich 1 notice of the public hearing in accordance with Ol 8I99.Th3 be nad.- onmission conducted a public hearing on the proposal on February 12, 981 considered economic, also caused a study to demographic and sociological trends and projections and physical develop- ment of the land. FINDINGS f (See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto) - REASOcNS FOR DECISIO, (See Reasons for Decision on Exhibit "A attached hereto) ORDER On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed above, the Boundary Comussion approved gOtT �4RY CHS\GE PROFOS.+L '�O. 1663 on February 12, 1981. \;Ojv TFMREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT the territory described in E.,chibit "B" and depicted on the attached maps, be annexed to the City of Tigard as of the date of approval- 'T h1EI'PPOPOLITXN AREA LOCAL GOVER Z'Eti BOUNDARY COMMISSION Date: t ` IC, By: - - Peter 'McDonald Vice-Chairman Attes . x� Page 1 - FINAL ORDER Proposal No. 1665 FIS-DI":r G`z the basis of the public hearing and the study the Boundary Co-IM-inissio:1 found that: 1. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the city and contains 23.73 acres, 28 single family residences, one church, and an estimated pop-.jl.ation of 70 persons and is evaluated at $1,548,500 2. The city desires annexation to extend the city limits to the Portland city limits, its urban planning area boundary, in order to regularize its boundary and plan for service provision within that houndsiy. 3. Ilse Proposal creates an island of unincorporated lands surrounded by the city to the west_ d. '1Ile tcrritoay is developed with low density residential uses. - It is desig- nated Urban on the DL-tro and Washington County Framework Plans. The city plans the area primarily for con nercial office-Park. S. The LCDC Goals have been considered and the proposal conforms with the statewide goals. The staff report is referenced for a goal-by- goal analysis b. The territory is within the Metzger 1 ester District which currently' sca-vcs the arca. The district has several. lines in the area. tdger water District provides service for this area of the city and would not be adversely affected by annexation. The district has planned supply and storage adequate to serve the area. - 7. 11je, territory is within the boundary of the ilni Fied Se�:cras;c ftgency. Zlze agency does not have a collector system available in the arca. M,velo4.ment of the industrial park will provide gravity service to F; ulo Crcck, crossing under Imy. 217 in the vicinity of fiunziker St. The petitioners have also petitioned the city to form a Local L-Trove- rient District to obtain sc.,cr service. The city anticipates fo nnirg the L. I.P. and planning the construction to serve all of the Tigard Triangle area. 8. Fire protection is provided by Washington County RFPD it which also provides f eae service for the city. The district would not be adversely impacted by annexation. RL-ASOLNS FOR DL"CISIDN 1. The annexation is consistent with regional, county, and city plans and with LCDC goals. 2. Annexation will make available a full 'range of urban services to the arca which is part of the Tigard community. ,. Annexation is a step toward regularizing the city boundary and improv- ing planning implementation and police protection for the area. . iti 1 t Proposal No. 1665 AnnexationF CITY OF TIGARD A certain tract of land located in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West and Section 36 T1SR. 1W Washington County,Oregon to wit; Beginning at a point North I 06' West'30 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 25, Block I of West Portland Heights, as platted; thence, along the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 25 and the West line of said Lot 25 and Lots 24, 23, 22 and 21 to the South-.Ie.-.L corner of said Lot 21; thence, 'westerly along the North line of Lot. 6 said Bloc: I to its North- west corner and the east line of S.W. 70th Avenue (platted German St.) thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 6, Block I and its Southerly extension to the Southwest corner of Lot 8, said Block 1; thence, Easterly along the -South line of said Lot 8 and Lot 18 of said Block I to the Northwest corner of Lot 15, said Block 1; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Lot 15 and its southerly extension to the Northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 10 said West Portland Heights Addition as platted and Che South line of S.W. Baylor Street (platted Second Street) ; thence, Easterly along the South line of S.W. Baylor Street and its extension across S.W. 69th Avenue (platted Washington Street), a distance of 235 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 5, "Block 9 said West Portland Heights Addition as platted; thence, Southerly along a lire half Gray between the East and West lines df said Block 9 to the Southerly line thereof and the Southwest corner of Lot 23, said Block 9 and the north lire of S.W. Clinton Street (platted Third Street) ; thence, Westerly along the North line of said S.W. Clinton Street, a distance of 260 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 25 said Block 10; thence, Southerly along the Southerly extension of the West lane of said Lot 25, Block 10 and the West line of Lot 5, Block 11 said West Portland. Heights Addition, as platted and its Southerly extension, a distance of 360 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot •I7 said Block 11; -thence., Westerly along the North line of said Lot 17, Block 11 to its Northwest corner; thence, continuing Westerly along the extension of the North line of said lot 17, Block 11, a distance of 30 feet, to the West dine of said West Portland Heights Addition as platted; the `~lest line nE said West Portlan3 Hei-hts t' thence, Southerly alont, point on the I est Aierice n, as platted, a distance of 1070 feet to a P edv which point line of said West ePt°from the land ebouthwest1corner nv aofpLot t1.8, Block 21 is :descerly 30 sion of the South line of said Loth along the Westerly extenline of of thence, Easterly 21 erIv Eas said Lot North extension, ' 18, a distance of 249 feet to the st line of said Block 21 and the Ea Northeast corner of Lot 26, said Bloclt 21; thence, Southerly along the East line of said Lot 26 and its Southerly f 160 feet to the Northeast corner of Block 309 extension, a distance o said West Portland Heights Addition; as platted; thence, Westerly along the North point donithe West 0nline sof'esaid lY extenSion, a distance of 249 Tatted, said point being 30 feet West Portland Heights Addition, as P Westerly along the Westerly extension of the North line of said Block 30; thence, Southerly along the West line of said Addition, as platted, a North- distance of blr feet to a point which is Westerly 30 feet from the North- west corner o£ Lot 9 , Block 31, said West Portland Heights Addition, j as platted along the Westerly extension. of the North line of said Lot 9, Block 31; thence, Easterly along the Westerly extension of, and the tiorth line of, rly f the said tot 9 and Lot, 36 said dtolock 31 and"line ofthesS� extension o W- 69th Avenue (platted re :forth line of said Lot 3 cit limit line; Washington Street) and the existing y the thence, Northerly along the existing city S. line 130 feet tlattednSt ve 10;ini - W of the centerline of S.W. .69th Aveau� and "S-N- Gonzaga Street 1p Street) ; ' thence, Easterly along the center line of S_L:_ GonofSzaaa Street , a distance t te:sign of the ktest line of Block 23, said West Portland of 290 feet to the intersection of the centerline of S .W_ Gon�a.1 cruet and t[:e Southerly ex Tatted; Heights Addition, as p and t - thence , Northerly along said2nce ofmentionedast 350feet°tohtheyi'orthwestncornerhe West line of Block 28, a distance of Lot 9, said Block 28; sterly thence, Easterly along the North linedistance ofof Lots 9 a230eetnd 36 dtohtheacenter extension of Lot 36 said Block 28, a line of s-W. 57th Avenue (platted Lincoln Street) and the existing city limit line; Paaf- d - T:T\TIT nnn=n x1665 thence, riortltc sly along• the cenLerlitie of 5.1•;- 67Lh Avelil a di-tance or 130 f S.h'. Franklin Street (plat Led Lji.=:tft Street) ; feet to the centerline o thence, westerly along the eenterLine of S.W. Franklin Street , a distance of 260 feet to the centerline of S.W. 6Sth Avenue (.platted Grant Strecti ; thence, Northerly along the centerline of S.W_ 6Sth Avenue, a distance of 1301 feet , to a point Easterly 30 feet along the Easterly extension of tite South line of Lot 27 , Blocic 22 West vortland Heights Addition; thence , Westerly along the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 27, the South line of Lots 27 and 18, Block 22, said (Nest Portland !!eights Addition as platted, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 13, and the Nest line of said Block 22; thence, Northerly along the West line of said Block 22 , a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 15 and Block 22; thence, Easterly a distance of 100 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 15, Block 22; thence, Northerly along the East lines of Lots 14 , 13, 12, 11 , 10, 9 and 4 f, of glad: 22 to the Northeast corner sof said Lot 4 and the South line of S.11. Elmhurst Street (platted Fifth Street) ; tht!nce , Easterly along the South line of S.W. Eliniturst Strect stud its Easterly extension to• the Northwest corner of Block 23, said West Portland Heights Addition and the last lute of S.W. 63th Avenue ; thence, Southerly along; the East litre of said S.1d. 6SLh Avenue and th;• idest line of Block 23 said Gest Portland iieigllts Addition, as platted, a distance of loci feet to the :•:orthwv st Corner of LoL 9 , said B ocl: 23 ; thy=»ce . .F.asr.•rly along the North line of said Lot 9, a distance of 100 feet to the S6utheast corner of Lot 4 , said 110r1: 23; thence, Northerly along, the East line of said Lot 4 and its Northerly extension across 5.14. Elmhurst Street to a point on the South line of Bleck 18 said hest Portland Heights Addition, said paint beim; the Southeast corner of Lo: 22, said Block 18-continuing :Northerly along the East line of said LOC 22 and its Northe_l• extension to the Northwest corner al Lot 36 said Block 18 ; thence , Easterly along; the Northline of said Lot 35 and its Easterly extension •to the Northwer.t corner of Lot 9 Blocs: 17 West Portland sleights Addition; cont=nLsr Easterly along rhe North line of said Lot 9 and its Fasterly extension to the Northeast corner of Lot 36 said Block 17; i i ;.l 66th Avonue Cplattcd Ga-field Scrc^_ : i thence , Northerly along ti1�_ l:�•st l inc u, S . I--!distallCC of 410 f a ort to a print oil tllc !;,Sr line of said S .!.- C,Sth 'vcnu- . the `:orttleast eorncr of 1.at 3'l. 13lc,ck 14 said 'lestportLan<I Iic7t,,h s AddLticlr_, 35 pl3lLed ; tl1e .cc , Westerly alo�lti; the north line of said l.ot 32, a dLGtanccl of 100 Beet Co the Northwest_ corner thereof; thence , Southerly along the hest lisciicolf Lot Iilock3142nd its Sc�utllerly cr.[cnsion to the NorLhcast corner of Lot 16 , , Westerly along; the 'forth line of said Lot 16 and its Bloc'_cc13y extension thence a discnnce c: Z•SO icer to _--- `:ocrhuast corr.�r or Lc[ 16 o thence, No=theriv SU feet to the Solitlle:sst corner of - I.ot 13 , Block 13 ; thence , Sasz.=r15 -100 feet to the �outh?asr_ corner of [.ot .i2 , said Bloc'-. 13; an. easterly extension of Block 13 thence , Easterly 60 feet a longA�llc South line of said Lot 32 , to the Eastline of S ..-I. 67th .Avenue and to the -:or til�rest cor c: of Lot 14 , Blllcl: 14 , said IJcst Purtl:lnd Elei�hts Addition , as pl:tittcd ; thence , ,Iorthcrly along; the :Jest line of said Block 1-'.' and its `:urthcrly ! cc of b35 Eec[ to the extension and `the ►Jest line of Block 7 , a distan Northwest corner of Lot 9 said 51oc1: 7 ; thence , Easterly along; the Borth lines of LoLs 9 and 36 said Block 7, a dist;_zcc- of 200 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 36 ; Cjjt!nc , *Iortlierly :tlon4' the East lint of Lot 8 said Block 7 and vxCe � its 2:urtherl} d- ecnsion to the Sclutheast corner of Block 4 said 1•'rst Portlan:'. He Lghts Add it iGn; :15 plal_ccd tilenLe , :?estc•r1y alen� the South I1lSc3iof .jSjcdQor[ 1,k 4 anis an:I Hcail�Ls ,-'lcluitiol ,cX�e?I?Gtr=_ CC til.,.! Southcast cornu r o� SI:�c _ 3 3 and its Northcrl•� extcnsion thence, Northerly along the East line of said Bs Addition, platted ,latted , .and the to the .forth line o.` the hest Portland Height existing city limit line , tllellce, Westerly aloe, the North lisle u£ the West Portland IEcigilts .Xddicion, as Platted, and the existing city t line Lo the 1'0Z:IT tat. GEG1.:`:l::G . t prop os C y14 L" I� ! LJS CC- / • �'..'1 fir^ - � � � A �I � � I S _ SfFZ Er ET- �' —_ _ - 2, :'nc�o._�ca"_z•� .. .cr'_ 1 j_o' •+ iLzao ,00_z. JC-Z .. L raJO•_ + _ _ _ a a _ t - u •^e(z _�� is Ir___ _ a a ( - Zt� •__- � - T - - �7 iA - �. 7 ].:1 •1 T LI L f .. yIL `° —!� s SVl a ... r• 9:,YLOrZ STREET uj LLJ ..' ,2 a a, f; T's 9'•t�rrlB O ]. ac-c �,s'a: h.:J :lob a�^�' 1 *s1j�a'_:a.rs 'i -T.'• �= 'sed] ` AREA TO BE ANNEXED t 11 I rr�zree _ _ T _•_ �� •, z�__ Sey 'lao�'- ... ss I � �.__ �,e-� i1 C"- - - - _vI . - �13- -- -Y - -�. t �277J •, l t2_�_. tl_ -]1 1 t2_ _- � Lr= .d J0.2]CC yj Z�=J- ]_3C 77 '3 _.`8- �J ■ r3 T a7C3 }z , - - �•'•-�`' r7 ! 33 1 _ ra- - - 3t °'r - � ra- - I' 3. f ra•_o- I - 3r Yap a 2CJ- '_aL -.;4 F-• ''s- 3, � }_ �: 13cca y-� o� �•-'• �j .c ' _0-3 r1S'iT_� -1 ii © �,5� -_ •-I� r,i6��_1.. � ley'] 30 'r33^.Q h^.3l 3s i r"a 13+C3211 1 %1Ta, re - 'r7- T._ Ti27 a 1r 3.00 ^ tta' ]+.ro25 zst3 3 Sr3>;Z2a 2z zs ar' M Z3 z:a:s. alt v3 a•23 76 • �� .70 ' Sv/ CEIPITOt� �� :1 oEET _ a 7C G6 Sr l� �9 SS T,g� �•ir yjl 3t •r ]: S. T `r`dt ; 3• ♦ 3 .3 2: - - 21 �'�J -J ro:�_Y� .,32�—Y seCO-•- 1�3J3-1t L"1:.^._-_3S_ 9 • 1 ]z c� '7•,-i i 3. 1 1 fr T 33-r Co •3aCC_; 94 32 an _ y_j ��•• _ r r 30 1 Lta t-• - -v fZ 1 19i- - �vl ,y r• ,� l ],�� i a, 23 i rT S5 19-_ 29 r ►-Ts iJO- -- ''g } . • . - -• - f- - i T1 1 r•1 TT 7•sj TT t� •'. T.,. 27 �re;--��t I qj t 1 11 1 A-00 379 l! ! 1 ; = - B'r-•"•;? Zi Sr zZn an2K •,92r ar rl� zti.)zd a, zci2ri yr•2,22+„, S m z+_�-• s al 7.� _:c'. • y ' ,:4* .. ✓a S W _ - f:A.wR'Gel1T}i ST � b i PROPOSAL NO . I668 I. a <.y;v�. It-r NE 1/4 5E7CTI0N I T 2 S R I W '•'�-'•j- . Ell m r 1ra5•.�+G'0'/ CCv•+Tr OaCG^•• }��` a4-1 - F 9 0. Cy- • tii DaRTNCUTH SZ _ ..lr'yt {��)• --j o a �� ~S-A 11 1:1]•�• �• 4 t t t i t i•� . Sl Dlai] a' fie i , it) �a ]IQ• 7ta . r ; i t t 1 ; - 1 i 1 1 { ' t 1 , 1 1 1 t • 1 i 1 1 - 1 I- — -- -_-1 IZ 9[D y - �_V t,�1}i .a. - fzy7 t].0- J A]:J W 3•WV 17 -V ( J�I-,n �RE:� TO BE ANNEXED a t w ria - _ .7 ,- _ r -t . i r • r' �i► - l t �'_I- izm i 1 1 F° 1 � js:�•o� � • � I 1 1 'n a 211aa'is.v � n t t . s� � 1 � 1 1 ,• t ' 1 t 1 1 le�.�'.F'31/3- 3),7•r�{' ( 1 { 1 1 ' � t � y r l 1 1 I l / 1 C ELM-HURST t _.r�. r i r 7 i T T , ua 7 , C 1 e ti 1 - f CITY O_ TIG?i:ZD - - _44 _yam 25 JD .l. IL kD iada ay_ .a Lit- !- .• sr- �-�-r T 7 e- r 1 i TT yr _..ra9r• _rvi;,�p� d+•+ -•00 i la baa. ' 1 1 t 1 , 1 1 ' . 1 �a,.tlas?2•'33 7]13.'71'2 t 1 t 1 ; � t j ' i i f 1 ' ' ' �•` � :� —3 ' .•' •C p• a' -s.•1,�..-+lel - t- Y_] .� S. -a �^ 6 ^7� a�'-1Tr i->�•r f s.� r--T- '� I°"_' i 1 i-_a a ]1 .K 1 1 i i I I t I l I f I - 1 2 31 3.■ r; - Is - - ia-.a12 - _i V5 50 • '• e ' T d i.� t-1 • ; -r . _ ! Y Z -7 �gl�:-i_ 4�a.1 �- �,•+cb 1 •• . ,i e . � ' 1 � ; 1 . � r r ' 9 i lt�i'lail Zt�t•,:]I i . .i/es,is 3.13 12)I:.f t)1♦ t { 1 � I 1 ` 1 �. i I I 1 '. ` 1 1 t 1 ' �� ` �� .'.el- �- 1 �:a �_�1-! _ ..r �-•--i-�._LLi-l_ 1�e-p- $.W. '° ` =bbt-" -sta 7"� �Tr� �� PROPOSAL NO, 1668 -- — -- City of Tigard PRO- pirop 0. t SE V4 NEI/•;. 5ECTIGN I T2S RIW Wi't SCALE 1-•t00' SE[ ..aa 2S • te_ 2 see �►9. z6 �� ca I I t I u 1 u cL+ i I I AREA TO BE ANNEX •j g•,y �ar a T7letsaot a eaass s GO N Z A G: t�TM2 ST.: 11:1-3 1,bc z— to �� .. ' t _ i� ,� 1 1 J= i l � j ;e_o 1 1•` i t I F i t :53 - _- ' -6-J i w �29C0 cl La LJ LLJ _. s O t E C=-4 - - ;Z5 co ( ! ! • �q - I- I ! 1 I i , i tf'• � t 1 � fi t I t i t _I t� t 'ST I. I-.}+ t....�. t' �i :2'3�• 'stc''e-` - �_ t � � ' t ': i C I ( � � ' � � �_ _ .- T �• r•_a .J? •t 1. 7 t_- _ • i 34 e - -31 - -- s o Zs J T i 1 T r t T 1 r i i t v5 S Oe. E •x!•202-:22:3.2:2:. i-_ - '•�- +-t�'-•_ , '�' ! t t P,- 4 _ PROPOSAL NO. 1663 _ CITY OF TIGARD •...•; FIG. 2c THIS AGREEME..N is erre . d into t~ is * day or _ by WASHINGTON COUNTY , a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, herein- after referred t as the "COUNTY" and the CITY OF TIGARD , an incorporated municipality of cne State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY". WHEREAS , ORS 190.010 provides that units of local government may enter into agreerrents for the performance of any or a 1 1 functions and activities that a party to the agreement its officers and agents , have authority to perform; and WHEREAS , Statewide Planning Goal r2 (Land Use Planning) requires that opportunities for review and comment by affected covernmental units on plans and implementation ordinances shall be provided ; and that city , county , state and federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS 197-705 through 1;7. 795; and . WHEREAS, Chapter 655 , Oregon Laws , 1977, empcwers the Metropolitan Service District , hereinafter Metro, to adopt lard-use planning goals and objectives I for the district , review comprehensive plans adopted by cities and counties within the district and require chances in any such olan to ensure that the plan conforms ro the goals and objectives , and coordinate the land-use planning activities of that portion of the cities and counties within the district ; and WHEREAS , the Oregon Land Conservation anal Development Commission policy dealing t -with Urban Planning Area Agreements for the Metro Regior requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledger�nt of Compliance to subni t a stater. rit setting forth the means by which a plan for management of the unincorporated area within I the regional Urban Growth 8o_n;;, r/ wi 1 1 be implemented; and � i i ME cor:Gat1ble land -iSPs and the orderl•, conversion of rbanlz tc srban use-s , cons i ce r it mc:tua i iy aavantaceous to es t ao l ish : i 1 . A site specific Urban Planning Area, in the unincorporated land around the CITY and within the regional Urban Growth Boundary , within which both the COUNTY and the CITY may formally review and comnent on potential land use actions of mutual interest; and 2. A process by which land use conflicts in these areas may be resolved. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY Agree as follows : 1. Location of Urban Plannina Areas The Urban Planning Area defined mutually by the COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. The Urban Planning Area is also commonly referred to as the 'Tigard Neighborhood Planning Organization." (NPO) area . Urban Planning Area boundaries may be changed by Amendment (Section 4 below) . 2. Correlation of Land Use Plans in Urban Planning Areas_ A. The COUNTY'S Lomprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances are the- legally binding land use regulations in unincorporated Urban Planning Areas , in conformance with the statewide goals , and the MSD Goals and Objectives where applicable . B. At the time of this agreement. the CITY and COUNTY have found certain inconsistencies between each others respective Comorehensive Plans . Resolution of such inconsistencies shall be as provided in Section C below. C. Tine City and Count, :----cognize the necessity of achieving consistent / l Comprehensive Plan des ionac ions and norenclature in the Urban Planning v i .teer recocr. izec' -_ntY "al an of eve epren[" applying to the .,than Planning r= a in effect for a consider- able time , and :gay not Feet the current needs of the jurisdictions and citizens in the area. Therefore, the Count shall consider a legislative amendment to the CQ.unty Plan of Development wi thin the Urban Planning Area to reflect _;h"i ry Corrorehens i ve Plan designations and to include the City 's d 1 gs . This legislative amendment shall be a portion of County Ordinance 219 , scheduled for adoption prior to .July 1 , 19$0, i n con formance L,ri th the County 's LCOC Goal Conpl i ante Schedule. Nothing in this agreement is intended to pre-empt citizen involvement in the adoption process for Ordinance 219 , nor the ability of an individual to. utilize City or County procedures for amendments to the respective Comprehensive Plans . Review of Prcocised Land Use actions A. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and coamnt on proposed land use actions within the urban planning area prior to COUNTY action. Such proposals include: (1) Comprehensive plans or plan amendments including any proposed changes in land use designations or policies . (2) New or amended planning implementation ordinances and/or measures , including zoning and subdivision ordinances . (3) Cevelopmeent proposals and land use actions , including the fol iow'ng: a . Rezonings ; b . Conditional Use Permits ; c. Subdivisions and Major Partitions , d. Administrative approvals of items requiring public notice. �imbis 9�'I�ati® i�Gm—isB�®�feer�� i� f j i (4) Proposed public improvement projects , including: i a Construct ion of -z;or Coi lect ion/TreatTent systems (by the Unified Sewerage Agency) ; b . Major Street Improvement , Dedication , or Vacation (Public Works Department) ; C. Governmental Structures and Buildings . B . The CITY will provide the County with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed land use actions within or by the CITY which will clearly affect lands or facilities or services within the Urban Planning area, prior to CITY action. Such proposals include: (1) Comprehensive Plans , or plan amendments including any proposed changes in land use designations or policies . (2) mew or amended planning implementation ordinances and/or measures , including but not limited to zoning and subdivision ordinances . (3) Proposed land use actions within the CITY limits which would have a significant impact on lands , services or facilities outside the CITY limits , including the following: a. Rezonings ; b. Conditional Use Permits ; C. Subdivis ions ; d. Planned Unit Developments . (4) Proposed public improvement projects within. the CITY limits , including: a. Construction of or major chances to Water Distribution and SeKace Collect ion/Treatment systems ; b. Street Construction, Improvement, Dedication or Vacation; C. Park or Recreational Facilities ; d. City Structures and Buildings. Page 5 (5) Annexations :o the CITY. C. The following PROCEDURES shall be followed by both the COUNTY and the CITY in fulfilling this Agreement . (1) The CITY or COUNTY , whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency , shall submit a copy of the proposal to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency. at the earliest opportunity , but no less than 14 days prior to the date the originating agency 's staff report must be in final form. if the proposed land use action -.,oul d create an i r.cons i s tency between the CITY Comprehensive Plan and the COUNTY Comprehensive Plan, additional review time may be requested to allow completion of a joint study as noted in Part 3 above. (2) The agency receiving the referral .,ay respond at its discretion. Cornnei:ts returned to the originating agency should be in written i forte, no 'less than 7 days prior to the date the originatir.z agency 's staff report must be in final form. Oral response may also be made at the time action is taken. Lack of response sha i i , be considered "no objection" to the proposal . (3) Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action . i f, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency , the responding acency rray seek administrative appeal of the action or other appeals as may be available. 4 . Arr&n dme n t 5 This Agreement and the Urban area may be am. nded only by th- mutual written concurrence of both parties . The parties will jointly review this Agreement five years from the date of execution to evaluate the effectiveness of the administration of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments . 5. Special Policies A. Annexations to the CITY within the Urban Planning Area will not be opposed by the COUNT`! . B. Annexations to the CITY outs i 'e of the Urban Planning Area wi 11 mar bC 1 supported by the COUNTY or_CITY . C. The CITY and COUNTY will cooperate in planning- for urban facilities . O. The COUNTY will not approve a land use proposal in the Urban Planning Area if the Cl ii presents evi .ence to show that the proposal would not facilitate an urban level of development in the future upon annexation to the CITY . E----The COUNTY w 11 request that the Un i Pied Sewerage Agency (USA) prop ib i t the connection of nem developments (i .e . , built after adoption of this agreement) within the Urban Planning Area to USA system facilities / without prior approval of the City of Tigard. This Agreement commences on 19 r IN WITNESS WHEREOF The parties have e;-,edited r`, i- Urban Planning, Area Agreer-en` .i on the date set opposite their signatures CITY OF BY ATTEST: 1-74 WASHINGTON COUNTY Chai rman, Board of County Commiss ione rs APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF CO'VIMISiSIC"N RS Recording Se:re t a ry MINUTE ORDER ;; .......:1-L..:.'...�. . ........ D a — -�5 si ��►.,,: ,� CLShY.Or-.»E uGAMU 1 Zia, EE.OERTON z. w Yti � / __ '11 I' •/ r=te_�_/1�� ' CIO- y. _._1, / f t1 ^( - ., /.��..-- :� '■� �I-lo\ lam:%!� `� I i i/L__—a _ TIGARD"\,_1- - '.rf 4/1 41 v �"�'��,' •'. � %��i: rJ'J tom\: 1-� , :il ..I .{ • :j1 �' L- j�'i'�- ''.�. '•:i A�� _i..r— -_�_: I Cir•i �a• KING J TIGARD3 .{ '� is {_i.i. � _ - ! = _- __ '��e�C�� !A� i r-� .' .• „ ! i rs TjCJ!�,av wQ-S+-AI e.- ;Cr.4 C4C)U ,�. ,may-►JJIM6' 4' -�•1 p.�� p�.�p L+ T e ♦ 1 w�A - � �1 1_\�►-�-LLQ .:? ?'� I i.,�we-^•16o\.ip.� �C t�!l !�/0 Ja-i-:a ir.L i' e� �� v� 1 I TUAIATIN r�� i I This agreement is enterea into by arc? between the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" , and WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter refer- red to as the "COUNTY" 1. This agreement shall amend the agreement previously entered into between COUNTY and CITY on March 4 , 1980 . Except as hereinafter provided all the terms of the original agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Section 3.C. (1) on. page S of the agreement of March 4 , 1980 is amended as follows : "The City or County, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall submit a copy of the proposal to the other agency, at the earliest opportunity , but no less than 14 days prior to the date the originating agency' s staff report must be in final form. Such notification shall be by i certified mail return receipt, in order to guarantee notification has been properly given to the responding agency. The originating agency will not proceed with a land use action without the receipt demonstrating proof of notification according to the time requirements of f this section. If the proposed land use action would + create an inconsistency between the City Comprehensive Plan and the County Comprehensive Pian, additional review E- time may be requested to allow completion of a joint study as noted in Part 3 above. " 3 . This agreement amendment shall be effective upon the siq- nature o-f both par- -Le-= . DATED this day of October, 1980 . , City Ot Tigard � By ATTEST: DATED this 16th day of October, 1980 . APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONECR�S Washington County , Mi ller M. Durls MINUTE ORDER 9 • -gD "�""" Chairman, Board of County Commissioners DATE ........._�..... n BY ,CLERK of THE aoy(aa j/ RVording SjFe ary /21PPROVF-D AS TO PO::%7. emoeoo®��Gi7ARar��l5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 82- •� `1 AIv ORDINANCE SPECIFYING THE ANNEXATION POLICY FOR VARIOUS UNIN- CORPORATED LANDS WHICH ARE WI'T'HIN TIGARD ' S URBAN PLANNING AREA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 79-26 , PRESCRIBING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, in the past, the City Council has attempted to encourage annexations that would establish straight, compact and logical boundaries for the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it is necessary to establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental, and social impacts of proposed annexation on the community, to insure adequate staff review, and to insure compliance with the requirements of Tigard' s Comprehensive Pian, ORS Chapters 197 and 222, concerning annexation, and ORS Chapter 199 , concerning local boundary commissions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the above policies, the City Council hereby determines that this document denoted as "annexation policy" for the City of Tigard is a desirable and necessary guide to decisionSon the future boundary of the city and is hereby adopted and promulgated to be utilized in the development of the comprehensive plan for the area involved; and WHEREAS, the lands that are the subject of this annexation policy are not subject to provisions of the annexation rule, OAR 660-01-315, because they are located within the acknowledged Metropolitan Regional Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, to insure that the provisions of this annexation policy become immediately effective in guiding annexation decisions of property owners, the City Council, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, and thereby preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents thereof, an emergency is declared to exist and the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval. by the City Council. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. INTENT 1. The City is committed, to maintaining the highest practical level of service to residents. Therefore , the City should consider the impact each annexation will have on the level of services provided and the general "quality of life" enjoyed by the citizens of Tigard. 2. The City considers itself to be the most logical provider of cost-efficient urban services to those areas within Tigard' s Urban Planning Area. ORDINANCE No. 82- Page 1 { w�—�weww�wrw� �®®wavwoo� 3. The City shall not approve the extension of city or Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) sewer lines beyond the Tigard city limits except where the annexation applications for those properties have been submitted to the City or where a non- remonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City or where there is a potential or imminent health hazard. In health hazard situations involving land located in the Metropolitan Regional Regional Growth Boundary, the City is required by ORS 222. 850 to 222. 915 to annex the affected area, unless an .alternative plan I to alleviate the hazard is approved. Therefore, property owners affected by a health hazard annexation will sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance to annex to the city and submit the recorded copy to the City of Tigard. 4. The City shall actively seek to annex the areas served by all new city or Unified Sewerage Agency sewer_ lines that are contiguous with the city. 5. The City shall accept, encourage, and assist in the preparation of annexation proposals of all lands within Tigard' s Urban Planning Area . 6. The City shall actively seek to include all "unincor- porated island" areas into the city. 7. Land use designation and zoning shall be assigned to proposed annexation areas only after a thorough study addressing State-wide Planning Goals, city and neighborhood needs have been completed and adopted by the City. Section 2. PROCEDURE The following process shall be followed in the application and review of annexation proposals: 1. To ensure adequate staff review for annexation application, deadlines shall be established. Applications for annexa- tion shall be filed with the city prior to 5: 00 p.m. on the last working day in either February, May, August, or November. 2. The city staff shall review the annexation proposal applications and submit all required information to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission with sixty (60) days after the application has been submitted. Section 3 . APPLICATION Each application for annexation shall include the following material : 1. A statement of the availability, capacity and status of t existing water; sewer, drainage, •transportation, park, police and fire service, and school facilities. ORDINANCE No. 82- ,11_ Page 2 2. A statement of the increased demand for such facilities i to be generated by any proposed development within the annexation area _ 3 . A conceptual development plan which indicates the types and intensities of proposed land uses, transportation t corridors, significant natural features and adjoining land uses . 4 . A statement describing any potential negative physical, aesthetic and social impacts of any proposed development on the community as a whole or the neighborhood. 5. A map to scale of area to be annexed which includes the surrounding area, and- metes and bounds legal description of annexation area. Section 4 . REPEAL The City of Tigard hereby repeals its former annexation policy, Ordinance No. 79-26 , in its entirety. Section 5. EMERGENCY CLAUSE Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace , health, and safety of the people of the City of Tigard that the foregoing change in the boundaries of the City become a permanent part of the City ' s records, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council , and approval by the Mayor. PASSED- By the City Council by vote of all Council members present; after being read two times by number and title only, this ,-?- S day of ) ,.t e 1982 . f Recorder - Ci of Tigard SIGNED: By the Mayor on this „2 8 day of ��• N Q , 1982• Mayor - City of Tig rd f t � I `. i Z n cv 1cn O O to • O W ¢ a. -4 T A A O H w x H ¢ U L cn a � z O rn •.4 :n H w , oo �^ w a d r-+ d z w A H Cla W W r4 ^ I N `O z s o x ~ x E-4 W H U Q ¢ �' G C• Rpa a 4 1 s O E M `n cn x rte. a U (71 ZJH s4 P+ Z U s.+ w ..j w x w sa Cla x >7,ICI t4 •"4 ?+ W C) H H +v N Lla W d OU .-� O C4 a .� O T O O T O ?' C-) j O 0 w a 3 cn y M iJ M 3 M L M A3 F x � aaw � xu. c=. � v r� Ur� w rev f— i a M n .-+ -moi N V a 4*+ ¢ O O A O O p 1 `nz -+ z , 4 z -+ p a O W W x W x a x PL4 x W y OU W 3 0 0 >, o >, a >' x M L M L M LCl) M � x (L) U .r 'y a Z O W ¢ CA O U cC I ¢ a A 3 w w 14 oM U') a 0) �*, LI-I H O -+ OM�'3 r M 3 X X ,• t o � i o -4 X •X - rte. Lz+ X X X Co 77. n _ a -4 E W -jH P' C-4 V] U' N H P4 L 0 Cl) H Cn Z Q4 z r Oa O � '?r ¢ U o a d a ¢ v o a f P. A a OU O A a , , U w oco f p x a x a+ >~ a I x ro a. a x ao a' Q) ci 1 a y r o �, a o H o— r v oM � b u p H l M L M O O`GG ', M 3 p rHa O CO o U I� U r� Lv 1�l �7 r� W x Upz r '" x O U �D M � N N d CTJ E r " .0 •r y, }4 U ¢ ro z a � 0 �c