Washington County - Urban Planning Area Agreement (1986) WASHINGTON
COUNTY, qtr i J 19
OREGON
September 15, 1986
William Monahan, Director
Community Development
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: ADOPTION OF THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
On September 9, 1986 the Washington County Board of Commissioners
adopted Ordinance Nos. 307, 308 and 309, amending the Washington
County Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 307 officially adopted
the Urban Planning Area Agreement with your city. A final signed
copy "of the Agreement is enclosed for your records.
Thank you for-your assistance and cooperation in the process to
update the Urban Planning Area Agreements. If you have any further
questions, please give me a call .
t Curtis
anning Manager
BC:mb
Enclosure
Department of Land Use And Transportation, Planning Division
150 North First Avenue Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Phone:503/648-8761
5/86
WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this a 4""- day of 199�0
by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political su division of the Sta a of regon,
hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," and the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated
municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY."
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents , have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City,
County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional
plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each
jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement
setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the
Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY , to ensure coordinated and consistent compre-
hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish:
1 . A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth
Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest
in comprehensive planning;
2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in
the Urban Planning Area;
3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban
Planning Area; and
4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE , THE. 000NTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I . Location of the Urban Planning Area
The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY
includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement.
II . Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing
Regulation
Page 2
1 . Definitions
Comprehensive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) means a
generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of
the governing body of a local government that interrelates all
functional and natural systems and activities relating to the
use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water
systems, transportation systems , educational facilities, recrea-
tional facilities , and natural resources and air and water
quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan" amendments do
not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes.
Implementing means any local government zoning ordi-
nance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046
or similar general ordinance establishing standards for imple-
menting a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation" does -not
include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional use per-
mits , individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit devel-
opment approval or denials, annexations, variances, building
permits and similar administrative-type decisions.
2 . The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate oppor-
tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments
to*or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the
appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on
proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan
or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be:
followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one
another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or
implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify
the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the
proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini-
tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final
hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Under-
standing" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of
the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding"
shall clearly outline the process by which the responding
agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at
the time of being notified of a proposed action, the
responding agency determines it does not need to participate
in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to
negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding."
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations
on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its
review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise
agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding
Page 3
agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response
shall be considered "no objection" to the draft.
C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by
the responding agency either by a) revising the final recom-
mendations ,
ecom-
mendations , or b) by letter to the responding agency
explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final
draft.
d . Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If after such consideration, the originating agency
acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the
responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the
appropriate appeals body and procedures.
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi-
nating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to
the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if
not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen-
tation is available to properly inform the responding agency
of the final actions taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners
1. Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local
government which requires notifying by mail the owners of pro-
perty which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a
distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which
directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels.
Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small
tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or
special use permits, individual subdivisions , partitionings or
planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions
requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature.
2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review
and comment on proposed development =actions requiring notice
within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY_ will provide
the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed
development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that
may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated
Urban Planning Area.
3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the
CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY , whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by
Page 4
first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which
identifies the proposed development action to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre-
tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral
response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written
or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the
proposal .
C. if received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall
include or attach the comments to the written staff report
and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding
agency in such report or orally at the hearing.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. `
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1 . The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one
another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but
are not subject to the notification and participation require-
ments contained in subsections A and B above.
a. The -CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposed actions , hereinafter the originating agency, shall
send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing -agen-
das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency,
hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest oppor-
tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of
the .scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding
agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action
if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency
to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond
at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written
form or an oral response may be'made at the public hearing.
Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no
objection" to the proposal .
Page 5
C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures.
III . Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies
A. Active Planning Area
1 . Definition
Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unin-
corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the
CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate
development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY
Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A".
-2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within
the Active Planning Area.
3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend-
ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within
the Active Planning Area.
4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active
Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size,
.unless public sewer and water service are available..to. the -
property.
5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning
Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to
provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban
densities consistent with CITY' s Comprehensive Plan in the future
upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive
Plan.
6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area
shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services
including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and
fire protection.
- 7 . The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the
CITY' s Active Planning Area.
Page 6
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorporated
lan s contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY
does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does
maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development
actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY
Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban
Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A" .
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and
development actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend-
ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the
Area of Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of
Interest subject to the following:
a. • The CITY shall not require annexation of 1 ands -in the Area of
Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for
development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not
create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete
the island annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre-
sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress
Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,
within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the fore-
going, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the .rights of individual property owners to_ annex
to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the
CITY, the CITY* agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to
CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the
density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations.
Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for
one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of
annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an
ammendment may be initiated before the one year period is
over.
Page 7
5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an
agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing
future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with
the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A".
Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of
interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual
agreement of both cities.
C. Special Policies
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to their respective recognized
Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce-
dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement.
2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1)
amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3)
amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to
the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall
be mailed to the CITY within five- (5) days after its introduction.
4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County.havel`
agreed to the following stipulations regarding the connection of
Murray Boulevard from 01d _ScholIs Ferry Road to the intersection ...: _
of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street:
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County,
agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect
the following functional classification and design
considerations:
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major
intersections)
3. Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements where
necessary)
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
Page 8
6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street
10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec-
tion may be planned to eventually accommodate additional
lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and Murray/New
Scholls Ferry intersections.
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray
Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue
terminating at the Murray connection with a "T"
intersection.
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection
is illustrated in Exhibit B.
b. •Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard
connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to
assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed.
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County
shall support improvements to the regional transportation
system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) .
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and
Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection
of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by
affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment
for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th
:Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st. Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec-
tions in 1986.
5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative
procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and
review notices required by Sections II A, B and C of this
Agreement.
A
Page 9
IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY
to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area
Boundary:
1 . The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the
proposal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the
responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating_ why the proposed amendment
is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map
which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding
area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating
agency, the responding agency shall ,schedule a review of the
request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review
to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received.
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review,
the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or .
make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that additional review is
necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY
and COUNTY:
a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved
in the review process as outlined in Section III (3) , the
CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study.
Such a study shall commence within 90 days of the date
it is determined that a. proposed amendment creates an
inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said
date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct
of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the
recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the
record of the review. The agency considering the proposed
amendment_ shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
Page 10
B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following
topics:
Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility
of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the
Metzger-Progress Planning Are
Xa as shown as an area of interest on
Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III
B.4.d., which now requires the City to maintain County plan
designations for one year after the effective date of annexation.
Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the
parties as data is available as soon as possible after
September 1, 1986.
C. The parties will jointly review this .Agreement every two (2) years, or
more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of
the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments.
The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of
execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall
make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have
developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60
day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may
terminate this Agreement.
V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces. the Urban Planning
Area Agreement dated September 26; 1983, Washington 'County: Resolution and
Order No. 84-73, and City of Tigard Resolution 84-19B.- -
This Agreement commences on SPaQ �DX 9 , 19 '
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement
on the d ate set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
- l ,
By �� Date —� -
-Mayor
W HINGTON COUNTY
B y � ' nk_P_� Date
airman; Board ot County Comnissioners
Date
Recording secretary
CITY OF ,r
IBJ ��;!� � �:., \ � � �': < ►� _ ,
TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA
EXHIBIT A I• F�''41'j�=�` _ f _
WASHINGTON COUNTY-TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT _
i � � i..�.. � Y I I h• I " �1 - .1 L
� � _ -: � ' � •• � •IBJ I t� ar -i 'I; !j ,r Ili
J11 11
..\ •, i � .jrl__�J � i •it`��11 O. ; / V_.'YJ1� "V , j�t—J -�e_
LE
�,J ( �.•-/✓/\ L� y�r( E V ! SII.
/ ; `-*� 1
198
6 II `dc„ inn{ ` �� -- L •y -
N II �• '�^^� Cs — I--- � i _1 � ���J'.4�I 1 �e� l;i- •/f
'URBAN PLANNING AREA
�� � �• ` 4 , 1 , •.
BOUNDARY
r..t� RC1• � �i � � '�``'l! i`` i.
nF,
I
ACTIVE PLANNING AREA
® AREA OFINTEREST
MURRAY BLNH-). CONNECTION
m
GENERAL ALIGNMENT
}
EXHIBIT B
600 1986
602 URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
601
604 501 107
301
800 106
500
108
101
1100 100
200
�Q
1101
1301
1200
1302 ..
1300
100
201 ,
101
200
MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, DATE June 26, 1986
ELLIOTT & CREW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Brian Hartung anC. Bob Jean, City of Tigard
7727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 FROM Tim Ramis, Tigard City Attorney
(503) 222-4402
RE Relationship of APAA and Washington County -
Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement
After reviewing the March 25 , 1986, Annexation Planning Areas of
Agreement (APAA) (Resolution No. 2685) and the May 16 , 1986,
Washington County-Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement, it is
clear that they are inconsistent.
After agreeing in March to a line governing the extent of Beaverton' s
and Tigard' s annexation, the City of Beaverton in May signed the
UPAA with Washington County indicating an Urban Planning Area
Boundary extending far south of the agreed annexation line. In
fact, the Urban Planning Area Boundary includes the Washington
Square area previously agreed to be subject to annexation to
Tigard.
The language at page 6 of the UPAA puts the subsequent document
in direct conflict with the APAA. Section III (E) provides that
Beaverton will conduct an urban services study within its entire
planning area. The study is to identify "the area for long-range
provision of urban level services and annexation to the CITY. "
This language appears to authorize a study re-evaluating whether
the Washington Square area should be annexed to the City.
IMPLICATIONS
1 . It might be possible to read the documents consistently
by having Beaverton take the position that the study called for in
the UPAA has already been conducted and the final outcome deter-
mined in the APAA.
2 . Alternatively, the UPAA could be treated as a repudiation
of the APAA. Under this theory, Beaverton has violated the APAA
and, therefore, Tigard should not feel bound by it. From a
political and strategic point of view, this argument is best
advanced by Washington Square or other property owners rather than
by the City of Tigard. This argument also has within it the risk
that Portland will seize upon it to claim that the APAA is
invalid and that additional study must be done which would include
a review of Portland' s interests.
3 . It is my suggestion that we remain aware of these w
conflicts, but that we avoid public discussion of the issue until
rwe know more about the position of the various players in the
oundary Commission proceeding.
cc: Bill Monahan
TVR:mch
6/26/86
•...••• ••�,. . .• ,• •• . __ .:. .,..._,n na.,., l i u....,n..,,::..u: w.,.>...,•>d :+4•.,... aN,1N.iNNNNiTfilZf�/hhltilNNNih]N C1:JU.1J.1NU1i4Nf1
A `t.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM H:
DATE SUBMITTED: July 7. 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _UPAA and
Tntergovernmentai Agreement PREPARED BY: William A. MOnahan
REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City- revise the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington
County.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
i
The staff suggests that the City council modify the language of the UPAA to
prevent a potential conflict with the Metzger Annexation. In addition, the
Durham Rd. jurisdiction transfer is conditional on acceptance of the City and
County of some development terms. The staff will present the detailed conditions
to the Council on July 14.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Revise the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement.
2. Modify the staff modifications.
3. Take no action.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Revise the UPAA as suggested and Intergovernmental Agreement.
To: Members of the City Council
From: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development
Date: July 7 , 1986
RE: Washington County and Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreemnent and
Intergovernmental Agreement
At the last City Council meeting the Council modified the
proposed Intergovernmental Agreement suggested by Washington
County for the transfer of jurisdiction of Durham Road. The
County could not agree with the modified language, as a result,
the transfer has been delayed until the July 22 , 1986 meeting to
allow staff to arrive at some alternative language. I expect to
bring you some revised language which will outline the specific
development standards to be applied to Durham Road. This
approach will allow us to accomplish the same arrangement that we
reached for 135th. I will meet with county staff during the week
of July 7.
We also are proposing a revision to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement which the Council earlier adopted. It is still
pending before the County and will be considered at the July 22
meeting. The City is proposing to eliminate the General Policy
which states "Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning
Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY. " This
change is needed in order to avoid any conflicts which our UPAA
or APAA with Beaverton could cause if the boundary for
the Metzger Annexation proposed by the Metzger community is
certified. The County Planning Director has verbally agreed with
this language revision.
Copies of the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement are
attached for your review. The UPAA contains a highlight of the
area to be deleted. The Intergovernmental Agreement has the
language which the Council earlier agreed to. This will be
further modified with language which I will present to you at
your meeting on July 14 .
June 30, 1986 (7YF T167A Rp
GON
s of SeMce
1.1986
Mr. Rick Daniels, Director,
Land Use and Transportation
Washington County,
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Subject: Urban Planning Area Agre(4ntent. (UPAA)• `
Dear Rick: - .
The City'=of Tigard requests deletion on Page 7 of Ser-tion C.
General Policies, and redesignation of Section D,. as laew '..•
Section C. , Special Policies. We will then redraft'as -
revised following Commission approval on the July 2-a6 1986
hearing.
Sin ely, _
Robert W. Jean,
City Administrator
M -
/br
Encl.
13125 SW Hall Blvd,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171
5/86
WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19
by WASHINGTON COUNTY , a political s ivision of the State o regon,
hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," and the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated
municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY."
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents , have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City,
County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional
plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each
jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement
setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the
Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre-
hensive
ompre-
hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish:
1 . A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth
Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest
in comprehensive planning;
2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in
the Urban Planning Area;
3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban
Planning Area; and
4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE , THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I . Location of the Urban Planning Area
The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY
includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement.
II . Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehens ;vN Plan or Implementing
Regulation
Page 2
1 . Definitions
Comprehensive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-010( 5) means a
generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of
the governing body of a local government that interrelates all
functional and natural systems and activities relating to the
use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water
systems, transportation systems, educational facilities , recrea-
tional facilities , and natural resources and air and water
quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan" amendments do
not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes.
Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning ordi-
nance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046
or similar general ordinance establishing standards for imple-
menting a comprehensive plan. " Implementing regulation" does not
include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional use per-
mits , individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit devel-
opment approval or denials, annexations, variances, building
permits and similar administrative-type decisions.
2. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate oppor-
tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments
to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the
appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on
proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan
or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be
followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one
another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or
implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify
the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the
proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini-
tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final
hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Under-
standing" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of
the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding"
shall clearly outline the process by which the responding
agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at
the time of being notified of a proposed action, the
responding agency determines it does not need to participate
in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to
negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding."
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations
on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its
review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise
agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding
Page 3
agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing . Lack of response
shall be considered "no objection" to the draft.
C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by
the responding agency either by a) revising the final recom-
mendations , or b) by letter to the responding agency
explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final
draft.
d . Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If after such consideration, the originating agency
acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the
responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the
appropriate appeals body and procedures .
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi-
nating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to
the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if
not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen-
tation is available to properly inform the responding agency
of the final actions taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners
1 . Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local
government which requires notifying by mail the owners of pro-
perty which could potentially be affected ( usually specified as a
distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which
directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels.
Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small
tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments , conditional or
special use permits, individual subdivisions , partitionings or
planned unit developments, variances , and other similar actions
requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature.
2 . The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review
and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice
within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide
the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed
development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that
may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated
Urban Planning Area.
3. The following procedures shall be-fol-1 owed-bv--th-e--CO1JN-TY._and the
CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY , whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by
Page 4
first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which
identifies the proposed development action to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten ( 10) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre-
tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral
response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written
or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the
proposal .
C . If received in a timely manner , the originating agency shall
include or attach the comments to the written staff report
and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding
agency in such report or orally at the hearing.
d . Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures .
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1 . The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one
another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but
are not subject to the notification and participation require-
ments contained in subsections A and B above.
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposed actions , hereinafter the originating agency, shall
send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen-
das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency,
hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest oppor-
tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of
the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding
agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action
i.f a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency
to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond
at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written
form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing.
Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no
objection" to the proposal .
Page 5
C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures .
III . Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies
A. Active Planning Area
1 . Definition
Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unin-
corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the
CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate
development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY
Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A" .
2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within
the Active Planning Area.
3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend-
ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within
the Active Planning Area.
4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active
Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size,
unless public sewer and water service are available to the
property.
5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning
Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to
provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban
densities consistent with CITY' s Comprehensive Plan in the future
upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive
Plan.
6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area
shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services -
including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets , and police and
fire protection.
7 . The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within-the
CITY' s Active Planning Area.
Page 6
B. Area of Interest
1 . Definition
Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorporated
lands contiguous to the Active Planning rea in which the CITY
does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does
maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development
actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY
Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban
Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A" .
2 . The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and
development actions within the Area of Interest.
3 . The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend-
ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the
Area of Interest.
4 . The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of
Interest subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of
Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for
devel opment.
b . Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not
create isl ands unless the CITY decl ares its intent to complete
the island annexation.
c . The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre-
sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress
Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,
within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the fore-
going, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex
to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d . Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the
CITY , the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to
CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the
density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations .
Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for
one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of
annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated ant, ar
ammendment may be i ni ti ated before -the vear-oe=
over .
Page 7
5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an
agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing
future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with
the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A" .
Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of
interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual
agreement of both cities .
C. General Policies
{ 1 . Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not
/1 be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY .
D . Special Pol icier -
1 . The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to their respective recognized
Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce-
dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement.
2 . At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to ( 1 )
amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3)
amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to
the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall
be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
4 . The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have
agreed to the following stipulations -regarding -the connection of
Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection
of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street:
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County
agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect
the following functional classification and design
considerations:
1 . Designation: Collector
2. . Number of Travel Lanes: 2 ( plus turn lanes at major-
intersections)
3 . Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet ( plus slope easements where
necessary)
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
C
Page 8
6. Access: Limited
1 . Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
8. Minimum Turning Radius : 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street
10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis , the connec-
tion may be planned to eventually accommodate additional
lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and Murray/New
Scholls Ferry intersections .
11 . The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray
Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue
terminating at the Murray connection with a "T"
intersection.
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection
is illustrated in Exhibit B .
b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard
connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to
assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed.
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County
shall support improvements to the regional transportation
system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) .
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and
Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection
of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by
affected property owners , shall jointly develop an alignment
for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th
Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec-
tions in 1986.
5 . The CITY. and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative
procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and
review notices required by Sections 11 A, 8 and C of this
Agreement.
Page 9
IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY
to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area
Boundary:
1 . The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the
proposal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the
responding agency.
2 . The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment
is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map
which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding
area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating
agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the
request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review
to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received.
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review,
the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or
make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that additional review is
necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY
and COUNTY:
a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved
in the review process as outlined in Section III (3) , the
CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study.
Such a study shall commence within 90 days of the date
it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an
inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said
date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct
of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
b . Upon completion of the joint study, the study and tine
recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the
record of the review. The agency considering the proposed
amendment shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
Page 10
B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following
topics:
Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility
of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the
Metzger-Progress Planning Areqa as shown as an area of interest on
Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III
B.4.d . , which now requires the City to maintain County plan
designations for one year after the effective date of annexation .
Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the
parties as data is available as soon as possible after
September 1 , 1986 .
C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years , or
more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of
the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments .
The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of
execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall
make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have
developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60
day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may
terminate this Agreement.
V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning
Area Agreement dated September 26, 1983, Washington County Resolution and
Order No. 84-73 , and City of Tigard Resolution 84-19B.
This Agreement commences on . 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement
on the date set opposite their signatures .
CITY OF TIGARD
8Y Date
Mayor - - - - -
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By _ Date _
airman, oar o ounty Commissioners
__ Date
Recording Secretary — - -
CITY OF
TIGARD :77.7
URBAN PLANNING AREAUri 1AZ
EXHIBIT Ati
.. _
WASHINGTON COUNTY-TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
Tr
r A
4 r i • 'lj �` r_ 1 _
11
Lc
� I •1� � �.. �� ill 1 1 .,j
-: _ / -1-1 �_. �• I ,J� , J , � � ` ems
N �_•� , " � �-mn fes\ ' .-.
, 1 1
11�1 URBAN PLANNING AREA
BOUNDARY
Eli
A ACTIVE PLANNING AREA
� 1
A Rr A -,� Irl�f RF.13T .. • � t. �h
MURRAY 1- ' ,VD. CONNECTION
}
GENERAL ALIGNMENT
morn B
eoo tom
002 URBAN PLAN AR,A AGFIEEWW
601
804 601
107
800 301
600 108
108
101
1100
100
200
1101
1301
1200
1302
1300 I
f
201 100
101
200
t
MURRAY BLVD. CONNEC-nON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the day
of
1986, by and between the CITY OF TIGARD (hereinafter referred to as "CITY")
and WASHINGTON COUNTY, a home rule political subdivision of the State of
Oregon, (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY is desirous of obtaining jurisdiction of a portion of S.W.
Durham Road (County Road No. 429) lying between S.W. Hall Blvd. and Oregon
Highway 99W; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY is considering the surrender of jurisdiction of said
road, either in whole or part, based upon the execution of this agreement by
CITY;
WHEREAS, COUNTY has adopted policies to guide the surrender of
jurisdiction process in the interim period prior to updating COUNTY'S
Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY in the transportation plan update process is determining
roads which provide county-wide circulation of which the maintenance,
improvement or expansion should be funded from county-aide revenue sources; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY transportation plan update will be coordinated with
adopted CITY transportation plan, thus resolving differences and establishing
uniform classifications and standards;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to ORS 190.003 through ORS 190.030 and in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree. -as
follows:
1 . COUNTY shall :
A. Diligently pursue the completion of the process of
surrendering COUNTY jurisdiction for all of that portion of
S.W. Durham Road as previously described as well as endorsing
the City' s efforts to administratively annex those portions
of Durham Road outside of the City limits.
B. Diligently pursue the completion of the process to surrender
jurisdiction for all of the remaining portions of Durham Road
to the City upon administrative annexation of those segments
by the City.
2. If said road, in whole or in part, is surrendered by COUNTY TO
CITY, CITY agrees to the following:
PAGE 1
A. That the standards for construction, reconstruction or any
improvement whatsoever on said roads shall be in accordance
with those standards of the COUNTY, endorsed by the City on
February 24, 1986 in a Memorandum of Understanding. Said
standards are entitled Washington County Uniform Road
Improvement Design Standards (Exhibit A), (i .e. section, depth
and paving thickness but not access or other County
Development Code requirements) .
B. That the CITY will initiate Administrative Annexation of
those segments of Durham Road not within Tigard for the
purpose of requesting jurisdiction of the entire length of
Durham Road from Pacific Highway (Hwy . 99W) to Hall Blvd .
3 . This agreement shall be in effect for two (2) years from the date
executed by CITY below and shall automatically be extended for
additional two (2) year periods unless at least 90 days prior to
the end of a term, CITY delivers to COUNTY a termination notice.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF TIGARD
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Chairman yo
�vV
Recording Secretary City R c rder/r20 TFYn
DATE EXECUTED: DATE EXECUTED: p n
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel Office City Attorney' s Office
(br23)
PAGE 2