Loading...
City Council Minutes - 10/25/2005 Agenda Item No. For Agenda of 4 as 05 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Tigard Cite Council Meeting Minutes Date: October 25,2005 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding Councilor Sally Harding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Torn Woodruff Absent: -- genda Item iscussion U Comments Action Items follow up Study Session IT Director Ehrenfeld and City Manager Council consensus was for GIS Prosser presented information on the request staff to proceed and place Coordinator for a GIS Coordinator Position. (See October this before the City 14, 2005, memorandum on file in the City Council for consideration. Recorder's office regarding the Creation of New Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Council requested that Coordinator.) the information presented to the City Council During Council discussion, the following contain a breakdown of comments were noted- how the position will be o Concern about adding this position now, funded; i.e., how much referring to the hard choices made during wiII be funded from the the Budget process. General Fund, Water o Support for the position as it appears that it Fund and Sewer Fund. will save staff time in the long-run. o Concern that City's ability to fund an economic development position in the future not be jeopardized. o Suggested that an outside resource be used to coordinate and get the GIS internal system updated. Staff noted that this position would be funded from several sources, including the General Fund, and the Water and Sewer Funds. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 1 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) Study Session City Manager Prosser reviewed the following Admin. Items administrative items with the City Council: I] Council received additional meeting materials N/A for Agenda Item Nos. 4, 9, and 1 1.1. An extra copy of this information was distributed to the City Council. Z Chamber Representative scheduled to be See Citizen present during Citizen Communications. Communications — Items noted during the October 18 City Agenda Item No. 2. Council meeting to discuss with the Chamber Representative included: Issues regarding telecommunication Iegislation and the recent Washington County Visitors Association action regarding Hotel/Motel Tax. L The Tigard Chamber is holding a 50t1' Consensus of Council was Anniversary event, Harvest Hoedown on that it would not November 4. Check for Council member authorize sponsorship. attendance. The Chamber is requesting City sponsorship for $500. El School District is requesting personal contact Consensus of Council was information. Council members received a to release the information copy of what staff prepared to release to the prepared by staff. School District. 0 Rescheduled,training session with Joe Consensus of Council to Hertzberg, December 16, 2005, 12-6 p.m• reschedule as noted and reserve 12-6 p.m. if that much time is needed. • Community Conciliation Proposal. City Consensus of Council that Manager Prosser reviewed the Portland State the City was not Univeisity Proposal fol•Assessment and interested in pursuing the Convening of a Collaborative Process for Bull proposal. It was Mountain Development Issues. The cost suggested that the would be $15,000 for the initial work plan. Council would consider if City Manager Prosser suggested it might be funding could be found; possible the cost could be split; i.e., the City, Washington County, Bull Mountain interests. i.e., a grant. During discussion it was suggested that dialogue between new parties would be the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,2005 Page 2 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) better route to follow. Council members expressed concern about spending this amount of money without the sense that something would come of it. Executive The Tigard City Council went into Executive Staff shall proceed as Session Session to discuss real property transaction directed by City Council negotiations and to consult with legal counsel to negotiate a real estate under ORS 192.660(2)(e) and (h). transaction. 1. Citizen o Pam Brown, President of the Tigard Area Communication Chamber of Commerce updated the Council on Chamber activities. There was brief discussion about the National Chamber of Commerce's decision to support the position of the telecommunication industry regarding franchise fees. Ms. Brown advised the City Council that the Tigard Chamber supported the City's position. Mayor Dirksen referred to the recent issue regarding Hotel/Motel tax for which a portion was allocated to Chambers of Commerce in Washington County by the Washington County Visitor's Association. President Brown noted the work being done to resolve the issue. Council members asked that the City be contacted if there was anything it could do to support the Chamber. o Wade Longworth asked for an update on the "variance" granted for a strip mall on Schoils Ferry Road. City Attorney Ramis noted this related to a Measure 37 claim. At this point the applicant can proceed unless enjoined by the court or if some other action is filed. i Tigard City Council Meethig Minutes October 25,2005 Page 3 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) 3. Consent 3.1 Approve Budget Amendment#5 to the FY Motion by Councilor Agenda 2005-06 Budget to Expend Department of Wilson, seconded by Homeland Security Grant Funds for the Councilor Sherwood, to Washington Square Mall Buffer Zone approve the Consent Protection Plan — Resolution No. 05 — 65 Agenda. A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET The motion was approved AMENDMENT #5 TO THE FY 2005-06 by a unanimous vote of BUDGET TO ACCEPT AND EXPEND City Council present. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR THE Mayor Dirksen Yes WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL Councilor Harding Yes BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PLAN Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 3.2 Approve an Amendment to the Tigard Police Officers Association (TPOA) Agreement— Side G Letter 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award a Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail -- Segment 7b (Fanno Creek to the Proposed Wall Street) to Andersen Pacific, Inc. b. Authorize an Amendment with Norton- Arnold and Company for Consulting Services to Implement Phase Il B of the Urban Renewal Plan Public Outreach Program. 4. TriMet TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen MOU updated the City Council on the progress for Discussion -- improving transit services within the City. 2"d Year Highlights of his report included status of the Progress Report commuter rail project, pians for sidewalks, expanded and upgraded bus service, relocation of Line 38, and work completed on a retaining wall and shelter on Pacific Highway. Mr. Hansen noted that TriMet has experienced recent financial challenges, which has slowed the progress on some of the items to be addressed in the MOU. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,2005 Page 4 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Hansen advised that TriMet would complete the MOU work even if the time period needs to be extended. He also said TriMet would continue with maintenance of service established as a result of the MOU after the expiration of the MOU. S. Meeting Mr. Garrett noted ODOT has pledged City Council members with ODOT $500,000 to cover the shortfall for the indicated a willingness to Region l improvement to the Hall Blvd./Highway 99W discuss jurisdictional Manager intersection (an MST1P3 project). In return, transfer of Hall Blvd. Matthew Mr. Garrett requested a conversation about a Garrett potential jurisdictional transfer of Hall BIvd. Mr. Garrett referred to issues regarding a City Engineer Gus Duenas crosswalk alignment with the Fanno Creek and ODOT employee Path on Hall Blvd. He suggested this issue Dennis Mitchell to resolve could be resolved, especially if this would the crosswalk issue for the result in a safer pedestrian crossing. Fanno Creek Path connection. Mr. Garrett noted the traffic light is being installed at the library. Mr. Garrett agreed coordination of signal lights should be examined. In response to a request to consider an additional crosswalk at O'Mara, Mr. Garrett explained that crosswalks located close together create a false sense of security and are not safe. There was discussion about the location of the traffic signal and whether it would have been better to locate the signal at O'Mara/Hall Blvd. City Engineer Duenas explained that the O'Mara intersection did not meet the warrants imposed by ODOT, while the signal at Hall/Wall did. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 5 I Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) S. Meeting Tigard was pleased to receive the TGM grant with ODOT for the Highway 99W Corridor Study and also Region 1 looking forward to begin identifying specific Manager projects. Matthew Garrett continued 6. Status City Engineer Duenas presented the staff City Engineer Duenas Update — TGM report. Key points included: advised staff will keep Grant — Hwy City Council informed as 99 Corridor c ODOT has been supportive. this project develops. o Access management and parallel routes will likely be components of the study. Councilor Woodruff o Improvements will be reviewed also for requested opportunity for pedestrians and improved circulation. citizens to give input. o Land use (redevelopment) will be considered. o Potentially controversial when more details are produced about possible projects. o The next step will be to prepare a Statement of Work with it anticipated that a consultant will be selected in March 2006 and the Study started in April 2006. 7. Goal Update City Manager Prosser presented the staff report. See written staff report for a summary of progress on goals. With regard to the progress on the "work with Staff to obtain and then Metro" goal component, Mayor Dirksen post information on the noted a meeting was held with area Mayors, City's website. )PACT and Metro officials. He suggested information that was generated from this meeting be posted on the City's website. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 6 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) 8. Public The public hearing was conducted through Motion by Councilor Hearing— receipt of oral public testimony. (See Exhibit Sherwood, seconded by Sunrise A for a summary of the public hearing through Councilor Woodruff, to Annexation oral testimony.) keep the record open for seven days for written A request was received to leave the record testimony; that we allow open for seven days. another seven days thereafter for rebuttal, Written testimony will be accepted by the City and move this decision to of Tigard until November 1, 4 p.m. November 22. Applicant rebuttal is due to the City by The motion was. approved November 8, 4 p.m. by a unanimous vote of Council present. The hearing will be continued to November 22, 2005. No additional testimony will be Mayor Dirksen. Yes received. Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 9. Annual Set over to a future City Council meeting. Police Report (City Recorder's note: This item was later scheduled for the November 22, 2005, City Council meeting.) 10. Waive Associate Planner Pagenstecher presented the. Staff will return to City CWS fees staff report. Clean Water Services (CWS) has Council with a requested a fee waiver from the City of Tigard recommendation and to process Code and Comprehensive Plan report on impacts of a amendments. Staff recommended the City City-initiated Code Council deny the request as standards for a amendment. fee waiver were not addressed. Council reviewed and discussed this item with City staff and Kendra Smith of CWS. City Council members discussed pros and cons of the City initiating a Code amendment to facilitate CWS' request as it works to improve water quality and manage water quantity to Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,2005 Page 7 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) 10. Waive meet the intent of the Clean Water and CWS fees Endangered Species Act. continued Mayor Dirksen said it was his understanding it was not possible for the City of Tigard to waive the fee because of a technical issue. City Manager Prosser noted the Intergovernmental Agreement specifies what activities the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services shall provide. The IGA did not include Code amendments and for that reason staff has recommended denial of the request. City Manager Prosser noted that Bill Gafft, CWS General Manager for CWS left a telephone message about his concerns. The issue is that CWS needs to do some work within the wetlands next to the Durham Plant. The City of Tigard Code does not aIIow work on the wetlands under the conditions that CWS has requested. Therefore, CWS talked about doing a Code amendment. Because this is not a City-initiated project, there was need for an applicant to bring this forward. According to Mr. Gaff, City of Tigard staff asked CWS to serve as the applicant; CWS did not feel that this was their issue. In addition, CWS staff members have done some work preparing a draft Code amendment for the City and for that reason, Mr. Gaffe does not think it is appropriate for CWS to pay a fee. Mr. Gaffi asked that if the City Council appears to be inclined to deny this request, that this be set over for further discussion. Mayor Dirksen said he did not think there was any question that the work that CWS wanted to do with regard to stream restoration is something that would be beneficial. He did not think the City would want to stand in the way. He said he would like to find a way to work with CWS to make this happen. CWS Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 8 Agenda Item Discussion 8t Comments Action Items (follow up) 10. Waive has done work researching the Code and CWS fees recommending language for an amendment. continued Mayor. Dirksen asked if staff have reviewed the CWS Code changes to determine if they are applicable and if the City would want to adopt them. Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised he has done a cursory review of the work done by CWS and, while it has been well done, some changes are needed. Mayor Dirksen indicated he was in favor of the City staff working with CWS on the proposed amendments. He suggested the City be the initiator of the amendments. He said he did not think this could be decided tonight as further discussion is needed. He requested staff study the issue to determine if this is an appropriate option to pursue. Councilor Woodruff said he was interested in cooperating with other jurisdictions especialIy if they are doing something on behalf of the City or to its benefit. A Code amendment application fee is $10,000 and City Manager Prosser explained the fee was based on a time study calculating the staff time for work to process specific types of applications. Councilor Wilson noted that fees are not a tax or a revenue generator, but the intent of the fees was to make the Planning Department self-sufficient, supported by fees from applicants for reviewing their applications. CWS has done some of the work and it would be reasonable to reduce the fees, but not waive the fees. He also noted the need to be consistent with all applicants noting requests from non-profit organizations, churches, and efforts the City would like to support. However, he added that he would support the Mayor's recommendation to step Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,2005 Page 9 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) 10. Waive back to take a look at a City-initiated Code CWS fees amendment. continued Councilor Sherwood asked if CWS did not do this, would the City eventually be required to do this restoration anyway? Kendra Smith, CWS Water Resources Program Manager said, "yes." She said "we have obligations to meet temperature standards and, along Fanno Creek, as many of you probably know, there are no trees for along stretches of that. This project is geared toward improving the conditions along Fanno Creek. The District, over the next five to seven years,plans on spending approximately $1 million in Tigard to do stream enhancement. We found this hurdle and we would like to remove this hurdle so we can use the regional...funds to improve the resources in your jurisdiction." Councilor Sherwood noted the assistance that will be needed from CWS in the downtown area. Councilor Woodruff agreed with Councilor Wilson with regard to consistency. He noted the City is not usually considering something that would need to be done anyway. Councilor Woodruff said he was in favor of receiving more information from staff to determine if a recommendation can be made to accomplish the stream enhancement project in a way that is satisfactory to everyone. Mayor Dirksen said he did not know if a waiver is possible if CWS is the applicant. But, if the City initiates the amendment to the Code, then there would be no reason for CWS to pay a fee. The City Council needs to look at this option with regard to costs and Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,2005 Page 10 Agenda Item Discussion U Comments Action Items (follow up) 10. Waive procedure. Rather than make a decision CWS fees tonight, he would like to have staff to review continued and come back to the City Council with a recommendation. Associate Planner Pagenstecher noted this has been "standing in the queue for along time" and the sooner this is resolved, the better. He noted short staffing, but staff is more than willing to step up. Mayor Dirksen noted appreciation for the constraints that staff has been working under. Direction to staff is to review this further and come back to the City Council with a recommendation. City Manager Prosser said he would ask Tom Coffee to take the lead on tills. Councilor Harding and City Engineer Duenas Washington presented information to the City Council County regarding the possibility of increasing the Coordinating countywide gas tax from one cent to three Committee cents per gallon. An October 20, 2005, Discussion memorandum from City Engineer Duenas to the Mayor and City Councilors and City Manager Prosser regarding Countywide Gas Tax Increase or Local City Gas Tax is on file in the City Recorder's office. Council members expressed for support for a local city gas tax instead of a countywide gas tax. The following reasons for this preference included: o Traffic Impact Fees are the funds available to the County. o Local control over project selection preferred by the City Council. o Small projects could be constructed with gas tax funds. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 11 Agenda Item Discussion 8t Comments Action Items (follow up) 11.1 o Cities could use gas tax revenues to match Washington grant dollars. County o When the City has control over a small Coordinating project, it can make adjustments if Committee circumstances change. Discussion continued Councilor Wilson suggested that the County review the proposed widening of SchoIls Ferry Road. He noted dollars spent would be more effective at Roy Rogers Load and SW 170"' Avenue. City Council members supported Councilor Harding's endeavors to determine how projects are selected for County funding(l.e., what is the criteria). 14. Adjournment 10:34 p.m. Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood to adjourn the meeting. I The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes i at enne peat ey, tty ecor e� Attest: e- M—ayor, ty ot I[gar Date: I:fadmlcalhylccm20051051 D25.doc Tigard City Council Meeting Mfimtes October 25, 2005 Page 12 Exhibit A— Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes of October 25,2005 for Agenda Item No. 8 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TO CONSIDER ANNEXATION OF SUNRISE LANE(ZCA 2005-00004) REVISED REQUEST: The applicant is requesting annexation of nine (9) parcels containing 19.95 acres into the City of Tigard. An additional 5.66 acres has been included by means of consents by Patricia Marshall, Richard and Michelle Crombie, and Jennifer and Leighton Walsh. Therefore, this atmexation-is for twelve (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road at 150"' and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for arulexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. City Attorney Ramis reviewed Rules of Procedure. Copies of the Rules of Procedure were placed at the entrance to the meeting room. A copy of the statement read by City Attorney Ramis is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. City Attorney Ramis asked the following questions: Do any nnembers of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? None reported. Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? All members indicated they were familiar with the application. Are there any challenges fiom the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 1 S participation of any member of the Council? There were no challenges. C. Mayor Dirlcsen opened the public hearing. d. Staff Report: Associate Planner Pagenstecher presented the staff report. The oral staff report-included the following: o Reference to a map of the area under consideration. o Nine parcels proposed for annexation by DR Horton in the original application. As is practice,the City invited six adjacent property owners to participate in annexation at no cost. Three of these property owners agreed to participate. Tax Lot 1800 property owners advised the City before the deadline requesting annexation; two other property owners (Tax Lots 600, 700)requested annexation after the deadline. o The entire annexation proposal is 25.61 acres. c. Staff notified all affected agencies and interested parties in the proposed annexation. There were no objections to the proposal. o Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable policies, code and plan provisions and state statutes. o The proposal meets applicable standards. a The Comprehensive Plan designation and the City's zoning is automatically applied to the subject property upon approval of the annexation. That zone would be R-7. o Reference to attachments contained in the report to the City Council: Ordinance, legal description, assessor's map, vicinity map, and the staff report. o The legal description required a change for Tax Lot 700. The new legal description presented for the record is on file in the City Recorder's office (Page 3 of 4, Exhibit A). The change was at the request of the Oregon Depa-trnent of Revenue after their review. Council Questions: Councilor Woodruff requested clarification about the six property owners contacted and the three responses received. Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised that three property owners wanted to participate and a fourth property owner wanted to participate but was too late to be added. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 2 Councilor Wilson asked if the City received written consents from all of the properly owners and all of the electors? Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised that all provided written consent. DR Horton gathered consents from each of their proposed nine parcels and the other three parcels submitted written consents. Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised he did not conduct an analysis on the consent of the electors. e. Public Testimony -Applicants o Mimi Doukas, WRG Design, 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Portland, OR 97221, advised she was representing JT Smith Companies and DR Horton. The original application was proposed by the above-named companies. She said they were comfortable with the adjoining additional three properties if that is City policy. Ms. Doukas said they have consent of 100 percent of the property owners within the 19.95 acres and they have all but one resident of the voting members of properties who have also signed on. Therefore, there is one voting person,who is a resident,who has chosen not to participate. Ms. Doukas advised of concurrence with the staff report that all urban services are available and the land is readily accessible to join the City of Tigard if that is the City Council's will. Councilor Woodruff asked if all the residents of the parcels are agreeing to annexation voluntarily? Ms. Doukas said,"Yes sir." Mayor Dirksen noted one elector did not want to participate and asked if this was within the annexation boundary? Ms. Doukas advised that this was someone who resides in the area but is not a property owner. Councilor Harding asked about the adjacent properties to the proposed annexation area, which are not part of the DR Holton proposal, and if there was an agreement to sell to the developer or do they want to come in as residents of the City of Tigard? Ms. Doukas advised these property owners are independent of the DR Horton efforts. They are simply participating at the invitation of the City and they are not under any agreement with DR Horton. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson about zoning of an adjacent parcel (noted in yellow on the map before the City Council), Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised that it was the seine zoning (R.- 7). -Opponents Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 3 o Ken Henschel, 14530 SW 140'Avenue, Unincorporated Bull Mountain, OR 97224, advised lie was before the City Council as the Chairman of Citizen Participation Organization 4B (CPO 4B). He advised CPO 4B is a recognized citizen participation organization of Washington County and includes thousands of residents in the Bull Mountain and Tigard areas. He advised that he has a resolution from the members for the City Council and lie submitted the resolution into the record. A copy of this resolution, Resolution No. 05-10 of CP0413, is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Henschel a read portion of the resolution and which advised the City of Tigard that CPO 4B strongly objects to any City of Tigard requirement that a subdivider or developer of land in unincorporated Washington County be required, directly or indirectly, to annex said land to City as a condition of any City acceptance or approval in the development process concerning said development including, without limit, any permit process. This resolution includes the proposed Sunrise Lane Annexation(ZCA 2005-0004) and all others. Mr. Henschel said the CPO has been before Council previously objecting to these types of annexations where a permit cannot be delivered until property owners agree to annex. The citizens of the CPO have taken a positions that they oppose that practice. They have not seen any change in the City of Tigard with that practice and they feel strongly enough that they drafted a resolution on the issue. Mr. Henschel summarized additional segments of the resolution. Until the issue of governance is decided for the Bull Mountain area, Mr. Henschel said "we highly discourage the practice of continued piecemeal annexations on Bull Mountain..." Mr. Henschel said that even though the property owners, in a development situation agree to give their consent to annex, they believe that the consent is implicitly coerced as the property owners could not develop their property without providing such consent. To suggest that the property owners are extremely in favor joining the City of Tigard or any other City, they take the position that if they were so "keen" ora joining, why haven't they joined in the past? He said the reason is because they have the opportunity to develop their land and they have no choice in the matter. If they want to get permits from Tigard, they have to agree to annex and.CPO members feel that is inherently wrong. Though a 100 percent of the annexations that Tigard has done in the recent past have occurred with the consent of the owners, about 90 percent of the electors in the area were against j oining Tigard in November 2004's election. Mr. Henschel noted this was a very unusual dichotomy and goes to support the point of CPO members that those people mostly join the City of Tigard only because they could not develop their land and realize the value of that land without the annexation. Our members find the practice of the City forcing governance on the area as precondition to the issuance of permits to be inherently unfair. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 4 Mr. Henschel said that at the annexation Bearings. of September 13 regarding ZCA 2005-0001. to 0003 and ZCA 2004-0004, the City Attorney made a comment that was echoed III the supplemental fnidings, which stated, "for consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval, the time to challenge the city's authority to nnpose the consents was during the land sue process. In each case the land use process has been completed the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation can no longer be challenged." Mr. Henschel said this was the Attorney's reason to discount the challenge for that particular annexation. However, in the Sunrise Lane Annexation,the annexation process is taking place prior to the land use process, creating a different standard for different. annexations, thus depriving interested parties their legal rights of due process. He said, "We find that particularly onerous." Mr. Henschel said that developers who annex are required to pay Parks System Development Charges and Traffic Bnpact Fees to accommodate growth, but to date none of those funds have been used to directly serve the areas being developed, violating the hitergoverranental Agreement and creating an unfair situation both for developers and future residents of those developments. Mr. Henschel said the requirements to annex have caused developers lengthy delays in the permit approval process — see the staff report for Arlington Heights III for documentation. Mr. Henschel noted if developers consent to annex, the City of Tigard offers waivers from provisions of the Bull Mountain Community Plan, which is the only comprehensive plan covering Bull Mountain. This practice causes irrevocable harm and stress to the Bull Mountain community_ Mr. Henschel said "we think it is plain wrong" especially since the City of Tigard is not directly a provider of urban services to the unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Mr. Henschel said that for these reasons CPO 4B strongly objects to the City of Tigard's practice of forcing annexation as a condition of permit approval,including this annexation,and urges the City of Tigard to cease and desist the practice of forcing annexation as a condition of permit approval. Mr. Henschel noted he would take questions. Councilor Woodruff asked if it was Mr. Henschel's position that anyone who would choose to join the City would have an ulterior motive of development and there would be no one who would choose to join Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25, 2005 Page 5 without planning to develop their property. Mr. Henschel said no, that was not their position. He referred to previous testimony fiorn individual who indicated they wanted to annex who were not part of a development. He noted that in the November election, 10 percent did express interest in annexing. He said it was the other 90 percent that concerned them. > Announcen2ent ivas made at this point by M•. Henschel, not related to the public hearing. On November 3,Metro representatives will be attending CPO 4B to talk about park planning options. The meeting will be held at CF Tigard Elementary School Library,7 p.m. o Lisa Hamilton-Treick, 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, unincorporated Bull Mountain, Oregon advised she was speaking on behalf of Friends of Bull Mountain. She advised they were working with their attorney. She requested the record be kept open for additional seven days to allow the legal questions to be fully addressed and to allow anyone else interested to make comments. Ms. Hamilton-Treick thanked DR Horton for taking the initiative to contact residents of Bull Mountain and advise them they have the stated desire to comply with the Bull Mountain Community Plan. She commended them for this initiative. She said it was their hope that this would set an example for the future development by building in such a way that it minimizes conflict and complies with land use laws that have been in place, but unfortunately ignored for a number of years. She said she also hoped this development would garner support for developments that are well planned, sensitive to the neighborhood's needs and are respectful of the only comprehensive plan on Bull Mountain. Ms. Hamilton-Treick referred to the staff report wherein the staff reconunends annexation for various reasons including the reason that it will benefit the City of Tigard. She agreed that annexation would benefit the City of Tigard if the City of Tigard has no intention of malting capital improvements on Bull Mountain. She listed examples of capital irnprovennents, including expensive road improvements, parks, recreation, and open space. To date, the City has collected revenue in excess of millions of dollars and that revenue has gone to provide for the needs of the City of Tigard. Those large investments have not been made on Bull Mountain. She raised the issue of public relations, which would need to be addressed. Ms. Hamilton-Treick said she did not see any mention in the staff report of how this would benefit the Bull Mountain community. Ms. Hamilton-Treick noted the size of the lots would be roughly half the size of lots to the east. She said that if one looks at the zoning in the City Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 6 of Tigard, for the most part, all of the highest density was placed in the unincorporated area and the lower density has remained in the flat area of Tigard where homes can still be built on 10,000 square-foot lots. Bull Mountain has absorbed the density from the City of Tigard. She said if the lots are not developed as called for in the Bull Mountain Cominiraity Plan, then it would defulitely be a radical contrast to the development to the east. Mayor Dirksen responded that parks system development charges {SDCs} collected in the Bull Mountaiii area are only collected from those areas that are inside the city limits of Tigard, so it would be appropriate for those fiends to be spent in the City of Tigard. He also referred to the Bull Mountain Conununity Plan and said that Metro approached the County looking for greater capacities in 1997, the Bull Mountain area was considered for additional capacity and density. The higher density plans for Bull Mountain were averted only because the City of Tigard advised the County to leave the zoning as it was at that time. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked how much of Bull Mountain is in the City of Tigard limits at this time. She said it was her understanding that approximately one-third of Bull Mountain— the northeast area of Bull Mountain—is currently m the city limits of Tigard. She said there were some large pieces annexed recently in the southeast area. Ms. Harnilton- Treick said that in a lot of those areas parks system development charges were collected to accommodate growth in the area. She said she did not think any inoney has been spent on Bull Mountain from the SDCs. Ms. Hamilton-Treick said she may be wrong, it's a very complicated issue. She said it was her understanding that Metro assigns the density to various counties and then the county assigns densities to the cities and the cities determine where that density would be allocated. h1 the case of Tigard and unincorporated Bull Mountain, the density was allocated to unincorporated Bull Mountain, which is her understanding. City Manager Prosser advised Ms. Hamilton-Treick that her understanding was incorrect. .City Manager Prosser said the City has no authority to assign any sort of density outside of its boundaries; whatever was done on the Mo-antain was done at the County's request. He further the Bull Mountain White Papers state that in 1997 when Metro was searching for additional density, there was discussion about placing more density on the Mountain and that was averted because Tigard objected. Ms. Hamilton-Treick thanked Mr. Prosser and said that she "stands corrected." Councilor Sherwood commented on parks. She advised Ms. Hamilton- Treick that up until this year, the previous Councils have said repeatedly that they would not authorize purchase of park land outside of the city limits. The current City Council has asked the Parks and Recreation Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 7 Advisory Board to look at land outside the city boundary. She said there were not"millions and millions of dollars"collected through SDCs. Mayor Dirksezn added that one of the problems the City has with the current process of annexations is that areas only become annexed as they are being developed. Two years ago the City attempted a full annexation of the entire area that would have allowed the City to annex areas that were not under development, including parcels suitable for park land. Because that effort failed, that opportunity was lost. Now, as property comes into the City, it is only brought in as it is developed, so no open space has come in to be made available for parks in the area. Ms. Hainilton-Treick said she agreed there are flaws in these processes. She said these are very serious, complex, challenging, and emotional questions. Ms. Hamilton-Treick said she looked forward in the near future to seeing some kind of resolution that the people on Bull Mountain can live with that would have benefit. She said she feels for the Tigard residents to have to share park dollars when they are very park deficient themselves,which creates an unfortunate"tug of war." o Julie Russell, 12662 SW Terraview Drive, unincorporated Bull Mountain, referred to letters received from CPO 4B and from attorney Lawrence Derr regarding the Consents to Annex. She said Mr. Derr's opinion is that the Consents to Annex are illegal. The process is flawed and not enforcing the Bull Mountain Community Plan because the Plan is in effect regardless whether the properties are annexed. She said that she received the letter inviting neighbors to participate in the annexation when development is occurring. She said that she and her neighbors felt that this was a veiled threat fiom the City of Tigard inviting them to participate, stating that they would save $2,500 or $2,700 of the cost if eventually—when they would be forced to annex. She said that she did not feel that this was an invitation at all and, again, said that she felt that this was a veiled threat. She said the School Board has said that absolutely they did not willingly consent to the annexation. In the beginning the Board voted to oppose the annexation. Then, only when they were told that the City of Tigard would refuse to do the final inspection and prevent Alberta Rider from opening on time, did they decide to change their mind and vote for the annexation. Ms.Russell said she was concerned the City of Tigard is doing all of the annexations without being prepared to purchase park land or to pay for the infiastructtue that will be required to serve this area. She described the properly to be annexed at 5,000 square foot lots where some of the homes will be 3,000 square feet. She asked where the children would play and was the City prepared to purchase two acres of park land to Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 8 sei vice that conunw-iity? She said the goal for Tigard is to provide 11 acres of parks per 1;000 citizens. Ms. Russell said that Alberta:Rider School is not even open yet and they have 424 students. The capacity for that school is 600. She questioned whether work has been done to address school capacity issues noting the Rider school will be full next year. Ms. Russell noted her concerns with traffic impact from 160 cars per day on Bull Mountain. She said the proposal did not show the access planned to an arterial. She commented that.people wait through three cycles of lights at Bull Mountain Road/99W at all times of day. She said she did not see flus addressed by the City of Tigard. Ms.Russell referred to park land purchases noting the City of Tigard was already park deficient and this annexation would add to that deficiency. She said that if she were a citizen of Tigard, she would want the money spent in the City right now. Ms. Russell noted issues with SDC and TIF collected to accommodate growth. She said this money is not being spent on Bull Mountain and questioned where it was being spent. Ms. Russell refereed to the staff report statement that the City of Tigard will be benefited and said money would be funneled off the Mountain into the City of Tigard. She said it does not benefit the residents of that area. Ms. Russell asked what is the City's proposal to catch up with the park deficiency. She questioned what would happen when the Mountain is built out and there is no park land left anywhere. She said she did not think this was good planning or a way to treat citizens and it is not fair to the residents of Tigard. Mayor Dirksen addressed Ms. Russell and noted the issues she brought up pertained to additional development taking place in this area. He said that he would ask, at least rhetorically, how any of those issues with regard to transportation system plannung, park deficiency, or school capacity -- how would those would be unproved if this annexation did not take place. Whether or not the annexation occurs, the development will take place. Mayor Dirksen. said it was moot with regard to capacity of schools,roads or anything else. Mayor Dirksen noted the Tigard Transportation System for the City of Tigard considers and addresses the requirements assuming full build out so eventually it is lalown where the capacity will come from. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25, 2005 Page 9 Mayor DiTksen referred to salvation of open space for park land and said that he was aware that Ms. Russell was one of the individuals who aggressively opposed Tigard's armexation of the entire Bull Mountain area earlier. This issue could have been addressed with annexation of open space. Again, that opportunity has been lost because of the failure of that annexation. Mayor Dirksen said the concerns Ms. Russell noted are all of worth,but none of those are addressed by whether or not this area is annexed. Ms. Russell said the zoning was techiucally R-6 until it is amiexed to the City of Tigard, which is six units per acre as opposed to seven units per acre. City Manager Prosser said this was incorrect. Mayor Dixksen said that as Ms. Russell knew, because she had been informed previously,the actual number of the units per acre, under City of Tigard R-7 designation, is lower than under the County's R-6. The City deducts from the acreage all public facilities and rights of way before the capacity is determined and the County does not. The totals result in a higher number of units of capacity under the County plan than under the City plan. Ms. Russell said that in the case of Summit Ridge, it would have been lower in the County. She said that for some of the others, it was true that the City of Tigard's calculation is lower, but there were other cases it would have been lower if developed in the County. Mayor Duksen said lie would need to see individual figures. Ms. Russell referred iinfornnation in a staff report. o Gretchen Buehrner, 13249 SW 136°' Place, Tigard, Oregon, said she thought it was essential to provide a correction to some information previously brought the City Council's attention. She said Mr. Henschel testified that the CPO had voted for the resolution,which was discussed. At the last CPO meeting on October 6, she said she specifically asked if the CPO was going to take a position on this proposed annexation. She said she was told something would be done later in the meeting. No vote was taken at that meeting. Ms. Buehner said she did not receive any notice of another general meeting of the CPO since the October 6 meeting to address this issue. She said she did not know when the CPO took the position on this annexation since there was no notice of a meeting and said it must have been at their Steering Coimnittee. There was no general meeting with an opportunity to vote on this issue. Ms. Buelnner referred to the Arlington Heights application brought up in earlier testimony. She said the delay in that application had nothing to do with the City of Tigard, but due to a land use decision from another jurisdiction, which affected how the treatment of trees being taken off a Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25, 2005 Page 10 piece property would affect the application process. This caused a one- year delay in that application being filed. Ms. Buehner conunented on the park issue raised and said she noticed in the proposed DR Horton plan approximately five acres of the 19.95 acres are dedicated to open space. She said she recommended that the City initiate discussions with the Horton Company to acquire this property as park land as it is very close to the City-owned Cache Creek property, which would provide access fiom the Fern Street area to Bull Mountain Road. > City Attorney Rannis counseled the City Council on process. He said clarifying testimony could be accepted; however, the proponents must be allowed to have the last say if they wish. o Ken Henschel addressed the City Council again representing CPO 4B. He apologized that he forgot to mention and that Ms. Buehner was correct regarding the last CPO meeting. He forgot to verbally mention that their bylaws allows them, in certain instances, where there is a timeliness issue, to make a decision in a Steering Committee meeting, and that will be ratified at the next general meeting. He said that is what they are doing. He apologized for not mentioning this earlier. o Janice Ward, 15140 SW Sunrise Lane, asked about a proposed water facility that will be constructed by the City of Tigard. She heard that if her property was surrounded by three sides,then Tigard could annex her property and asked if this is correct? City Manager Prosser said the City is exploring the possibility of acquiring land in the area for an additional water reservoir, but that has not come to a conclusion. City Manager Prosser clarified that if her property is surrounded by three sides, but there is a fourth side that is not contiguous to the City, there the City caiunot unilaterally annex the property. She asked whether the road would constitute a"side." City Manager Prosser said this would depend on whether or not the road eventually is annexed. Ms. Ward indicated on a map the location of her property. City Manager Prosser said that for a property to be annexed, it must be contiguous to the City and if the road is not annexed, then her property is not contiguous. There is the possibility that the City nnight consider annexing the road at some point. If Ms. Ward's property become completely surrounded by the City, her property would then constitute what is called an "island." At that point, the City could 'initiate. Mayor Dirksen added that the City "could" annex, but not would necessarily would. Ms. Ward asked if that would not be a"nice deal for you?" City Manager Prosser said there are several islands in the City that have not been annexed. Mayor Dirksen added that those islands have been there for a long time. During discussion on this point, City Attorney Ramis noted that the conversation was "a little Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25, 2005 Page 11 far afield" from the application. Mayor Dirksen suggested Ms. Ward meet with staff to discuss her particular issue for clarification. o Lisa Hamilton-Treick commented on DR Holton's plans to not build on five acres; however, she wanted it to be made clear that the majority of that land is not buildable. She noted that DR Horton does not plan to build as many homes on the site as it could. She also commented that there were no plans for walking path. She said she wanted to respond to a question that was posed to Ms. Russell about how would this area develop differently if it was not annexed into Tigard. She said she understands that the City of Tigard is about 12,000 acres and the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain is close to 1,200 acres with the expansion area of 500 acres. In addition there is some area in the UGB, wlich will probably make that area about 2,200 acies. Ms. Hamilton-Treick referred to an option to incorporate the City of Bull Mountain and if this were to be done, they could set up their own tax rate if the citizens voted for it. The codes, ordinances and comprehensive plan would be redone and they could look at the formation of a park and recreation district, which she said she believed the people on Bull Mountain would strongly support. She referred to limited dollars for the area to be serviced and noted that Tigard consisting of 12,000 acres and 45,000 people and a tax rate that was set a long time ago. She said that in a recent Cityscape article the Mayor noted there was a serious deficiency that increases. She said they would be given a unique opportunity to try to collect dollars in an area that has a need and to invest those dollars in the area that has needs rather than to have those funds collected and disbursed over a very large area to meet park deficiency needs and infrastructure needs. Ms. Hainilton-Treick said this would be the difference —to define a boundary in an area that can be incorporated and named something such as Bull Mountain, Oregon and collect the dollars, set the tax rate, and address park and recreation needs through additional funding supported by the residents. -Rebuttal o Michael, Robinson, Attorney at Law representing the Applicant, 1120 NW Couch Street, 10'x'Floor,Portland, Oregon 97209-4128 advised: I. As the City Attorney said at the initiation of this hearing the task is to look at the applicable approval criteria. None of the testimony the City Council heard tonight goes to that approval criteria. The only substantial evidence before the City Council is from the applicant and the staff report. Both of those documents demonstrate that the approval criteria are satisfied if annexation were to be granted. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 12 2. The Council received a request that the record be left open for seven days. If the City Council grants the request, the applicant requests under ORS 147 that the Council allow an additional seven days for the applicant to respond after the close of the first seven-day period. f Council discussed the request to leave the record open. A summary of the discussion about how to proceed with the hearing is as follows: Written testimony will be accepted by the City.of Tigard until November 1, 4 p.m. Applicant rebuttal is due to the City by November S,4 p.m. The hearing will be continued to November 22, 2005.No additional testimony will be received. After discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Woodruff,to keep the record open for seven days for written testimony; that we allow another seven days thereafter for rebuttal, and move this decision to November 22. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard Dates:!f/ --a, 2W5 J.Wm1ceihftCM 20051051025-exhibit a.doe Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes—Exhibit A October 25,2005 Page 13