ZCA1996-00001
~
March 10, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD
Oregon Department of Revenue OREGON
Cartography Department
955 Center Street
Salem, OR 97310
RE: Formal submittal of the Ordinance and related Exhibits officially
withdrawing properties annexed into the City of Tigard from the
Tigard Water District.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves as formal notice that certain properties annexed into the
City of Tigard have now been officially withdrawn from the Tigard Water
District. Enclosed is a copy of the signed.Ordinance passed by the Tigard
City Council on 2/23/99 withdrawing those properties from the Tigard
Water District. The Department of Revenue previously had the
opportunity to review the "draft" ordinance and the necessary changes
were made at that time to the exhibits prior to adoption by the City
Council.
Thank you for your time on this matter. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x407.
Sincerely,
Julia Powell Hajduk
Associate Planner
i:\curpln\julia\annex\wdlet2.doc
Enclosure: City of Tigard Ord. No. 99-05 & Supporting Exhibits #1-27
C: Tigard Water District Withdrawls from 3/23/98 to 12/31/98 Planning File
1999 Planning correspondence file
City Land use files: ZCA 92-7; 93-2 & 4; 95-1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8; 96-1,3,5 & 6;
97-1,2 & 3; and 98-1,2,3 & 4.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
r '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~
ORDINANCE NO. 99- M
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CTTY OF TIGARD DECLARING THAT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RECENTLY
BEEN ANNEXED TO THE CITY ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard withdrew from the Tigard Water District on March 23, 1993; and
WHEREAS, since that time, the City has annexed certain properties that were within the Tigard Water District; and
WHEREAS, property within the Tigard Water District annexed into the City after March 23, 1993, must be withdrawn from
that Water District to insure the proper entity receives the taxes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2), the City is liable to the District for certain debt obligations, however, in this
instance, the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumprion of debt needs to be
made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of withdrawal of
those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District on February 23, 1999; and
WI-MREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of
the annexed properties from the Tigard Water District is in the best interest of the City fTigard; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the District by
ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, TI-IE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECT'ION 1: The properties located in the Tigard Water District which have been annexed by the City of Tigard and
Final Order by the Metro Area Boundary commission after the City withdrew from the Tigard Water
District on March 23, 1993, are hereby withdrawn from the Tigard Water District.
SECTION 2: Legal descriptions and maps of the properties to be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District are attached
hereto as Exhibits 1 through 27 and incorporated herein.
SECTION 3: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 1999. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council.
PASSED: By ~~&rl('Mv- O-S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ~
day of , 1999.
- )l.e ~itJ
Catherine Wheatley, City Recor
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this2<~ day of r~~WJA!L , 99.
a s Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
i Attorney
Date . ORDINANCE No. 99-_ Tigard Water District Withdrawls from 3/23/93 to 12/31/98
Page 1 of l i:\citywide\ord\wdwithdr.ord.doc Julia H. 11-Feb.-99
. ' ~ •
CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission
Final Order No. 3596
EXHIBIT 16 ZCANo. -oooi
LEGALDaCPoPT10N OFTHEAREA
A tract of land located in the Northwest one'-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of
Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Wiilamette Meridian, Washington County, .
Oregon , more particulady described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Northwest one-quarter and said Northeast one-
quarter being marked with a%inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L
' P.L.S. 1989".
thence N 88 ° 13'49" W, 357.28 feet along the north boundary of said Northwest one-
quarter to the northwest corner of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz
and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Oxument 93-73654, Washington County •
Oeed Records;
thence S 01 °37'01" W, 382.43 feet along the west boundary of said Oeed Document 93-
73654 to the soutfiwest corner thereof and said southwest corner being a point on the
north boundary line of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and
Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73653;
thence N 88016'29" W, 93 feet along the north boundary of said Deed Document 93-
73653 to the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-73653;
thence S 01 °37'O1" W. 315 feet afong the west boundary of said Deed Oocument 93-
73653 to the southwest corner of said.Deed Document 93-73653;
thence S 88 ° 16'29" E, 446.70 feet along said south boundary to the east line of said
' Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, said Section 9;
thence N 01 °53'29" E, 697.15 feet along said east line to the Point of Beginning.
VICINITY MAP Of TNE AREA
< ~ - ~
~
• ~ ~
Parcel 1 ~ .
• t ~ ' 3
e.m M ;
• a ~ r ~
~ rawrnw aioce AREA TO BE
ANNEXEO ~
~
23 74
1 ~ ~ i . • <
23-78 ~
4 rtl~ _~f M< Y -.I.. ~a _ ~ •
A p I~ •
~ TIGARD Aff-
. i , . _ ~
• - i ~ ~ 23= 74
fi ~ _ - s . •
17
• 7 ,11
\0~2_0
• n
P
~ « RO'~ `
r • • . ~ ~
CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL .
. Boundary Cocnmission
Final Ocder No.
EXHIBIT 17 zcANo. 6_0 6
. LEGAL OESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, Section 9,
Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington C.ounty, Oregon, .
being a part, of that certain tract of land conveyed to Dale K. Varner, et ux, as described in
Deed Book 286, Page 750, Deed Records, Washington County, Oregon, described as
follows: '
Beginning on the west line of said tract described in Book 286, Page 750, -which bears -S
89050'30" W, 1318.30 feet along the Northerly line of said Section 9 and S 00004`30"
. E, 678.24 feet along the west line of that tract described in Book 286, Page 750, as monumented from the Northeast comer of Section 9;
thence continuing along said west line, S 00104'30" E, 140 feet;
thence leaving said west line, East 333.59 feet, more or less, to a 6/e-inch iron rod;
thence North parallel to the east line of said describe tract, 140 feet Lo a 6/a-inch iron rod;
thence West, 334.43 feet, more or less, to the Place of Seginning.
VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA
;
~ v ~
,i
~ Iu. 4.rM
\ -7~1r
' TIGARD ~
~
-
~ .
3 7 N
00,
Parcel 2
f.
. \':.`..:i.... . . . . .~e,'.1... . . . . ~
.~~mJ .oo mo -
a '
4 _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ L
i I
ewo roo.4 0 ` , . .
ssCk :r
23 7 I
i m .bo" ,w ~
+ ; I _ r _ .
74 ' I
I ,
, i
. ~ ~
Return completed questionnaire to:
Center for Population Research and Census
Portland State University
Portland, OR 97207-0751 I
No later than September 26, 1996 for certification on September 30,
1996.
' A N N E X A T I O N Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
City of e... A'vt-b County of Lk_~ " l-} 1 MCy't p N
Annexation Ordinance Number or Final Order Number 3~~1p
Effective Date of Annexation S- 3 O - cl &
NOTE: Enumeration of annexations which involve 200 or more housing
units must be conducted under the supervision of the Center for
Population Research and Census to be certified. Complete the
following section if there are less than 200 housing units in this
annexation.
Attach completed confidential census schedules for all housing units
both vacant and occupied. There must be one sheet for each
inhabitable housing unit.
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION AT TIME OF ANNEXATION
TOTAL OCCUPIED VACANT PERSONS
UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES ~ `7.ts.t•
UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURES
MOBZLE HOMES OR TRAILERS
TOTAL POPULATION OF ANNEXED AREA DATE OF ENUMERATION ~C:
ENUMERATED BY ~ _ , - ~ % ' ' • ,
~ ,L%.-•C.~~_,___. POSITION~~:i
. . ~ ✓ , /
TELEPHONE NUMBER
This questionnaire and the completed census schedules are the only
data used to certify annexed population. Please DO NOT send maps,
copies of the final ordinance, lists of addresses, etc. to our office
unless you.are.requested to do so.
If there are any questions, or to schedule a census, contact Howard
wineberg at the Center ror Population Research and Census (503) 725-
3922.
THANK YOU.
. ~ ~ONFIDENTIALO ~
rCity of ~(q"2d d
-Q
address l~`l 75 ~S ~ Uy Tni
IiOUSING TYPE TENURE
Sin le Unit Structure /
g Owner Occupied (,if
Multiple Unit Structure ( ) Renter Occupied ( )
Trailer or Mobile Home ( ) Vacant ( )
RESIDENTS
Last Name First Name Sex age
Res ondent J 2 Ns
p / ~i,oMAS Q - ~
~
G • ~
3 . " A-12A I' / 7
4. 'r LAu!'/E
5.
6.
7.
3. a
10.
?ort?and Stat` Gniversitv Schcol or L'rban and Public Affairs
Center For POAL1l3tian Research and Census 725-3922
r • I
~
CONFIDENTIAL
City of L-
1
Address
HOUSING TYPE TENURE
single Unit structure owner occupied
Multiple Unit Structure Renter Occupied
Trailer or Mobile Home Vacant
Seasonal ( )
RESIDENT5
Last Name First Name Sex Age
Respondent
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. i i
~
8.
9.
10,
Portland State University School of Urban and Public Affairs
Center For Population Research and Census (503) 725-3922
~
' ' J •
~
• ~ ~
.~~CONFIDENTIAL
J '
C i ty o f rt ~ C -t
~ - ~
Address ~"~CC'
i~~
.
HOUSING TYPE TENURE
Single Unit Structure Owner Occupied
Multiple Unit Structure Renter Occupied
Trailer or Mobile Home Vacant ( j
Seasonal ( )
RESIDENTS
Last Name First Name Sex Age
Respondent ' L •-,n~ ~ 1
2. l'Z
~ y~ . .---~3 • c L~-
4.
~ 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Portland State University School of Urban and Public Affairs
Center For Population Research and Census (503) 725-3922
NOTICE TO TAXING DISTRICT
ORS 308.225 ~
~
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE This is to noYrfy you that your boundary
:
Cart.o~r;.rhi.c Urii t. change in Washir~!414•on County, for
955 Cpnter ,f,reef. HE AidNEX TA TFIC CZ1'`( OF
Saleinr OR 97310 TIfARA. MiTI4DRAlJ frQM
(501) 945 ...8297 WASt•I I tJG TON CO .;,ERUICE
FAX (503) 945•••8737 DIST.t1
TAJ1 (543) 945 •..8617 FIiJAI. QRf1Ef2 4 3596
has been:
CITY f1F TIGARD ~ Received 6`10"'96
FINANC[: AIR[:t:TOR
13125 SW HAI.I_ RI_VD
TIGAkL OF 97223 ~ Approved 6- 1]•• 96
Notes: ❑ Disapproved (see notes)
FOR MAPPING UNIT AND ASSESSOR USE ONLY
Department of Revenue file number. DOR 34°1137°•75 Mxr e hlu:4hes
Boundary: [3 Change ❑ Proposed change ❑ Planned change
I The change is for:
❑ Formation of a new district [l Description
LX1 Annexation of aterritory to a district Cy Map A nti">CRIRTICIN ANI1 MAP APPROU170 u~
El Wfthdrawal of a territory from a district ~ b-• 1 t•••46 #
❑ Dissolution of a district ~k caS P(:R (1RS 348.225 ~
❑ Transfer
❑ Merge Received from: P ~ ~ -1q, C •
150-3034039 (Rev. 12-93)
Dlatrbutlon: WhRe - taxing dlat. Canary -county assessor Pfnk- Dept. of Revenue Goldenrod - county commleslonere or Caunty Court/Boundary Commlssbn (N epproprlate)
. •~"3S1~
. . . . . . .
. . . . . , . . .
CITY OF TIGARD
. . OREGON ~ .
June 18, 1996 •
Mayoc
J'Im Nicou
James and Madeline Sc6ultz City Conna7
13268 SW Bull Mountain Rd. PIW Hmnt
'15gard, OR 97224 Brian Moore
Bob Rohlf
Dear W. and Mrs. Schuitz: Kea Scheckla
We received offcial notit3catlon that the annexation prnpasal you requested for the sout6west edge of the City,
norih of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW 133rd Avenue became final. The effective dete of the
annexation was May 30, 1996. . . , . _ . . . . . . : . > - . . . . ' .
On behalf of the City Council, I welcome you to t6e City of 1Sgard. The County Elections Departinent has been notified; they ~vill update your voter registration so you can vote on 'I%ard issues and candidates. .
Emergency public safety services can be reached by dialing 9-1-1. The FTre Dishict continues to serve you as •
before. The Ilgard Police Depardnent will now respond instead of the SheriWs Deparhnent. Please call the
Police Deparhnent tor any public safety concerns you may 6ave. _1~igard 'u prnud of its well-run facilities. Street meintenance and sewer tine services are provided by the City.
Unified Sewerage Agency is respoasible for sewage treahnent through a conLmct with the City.- Your sewer •
. bffling will be handled through a City bffling process instead of through the County tax bill. Water service will
continue through the '15gard Water Department as before.
The City of 'ISgard's I.i'brary and its association with the Washington County Library Service ofters you first-
rate hbrary service and access to just about any subject. Our Finance and Administration Departments are
oriented to good citizen service and we ask that you not hesitate to call 639-4171 if you have any questioas or
conceras.
Once again, I wish you a sincere welcome.
S e ely,
James Nicoti
Mayor
enclasure -
i:ladmVo\welcome.doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
-
C. ITY OF TIG~ ARD.
. . . . . . . . - . . .
OREGON .
June 18, 1996
11layor
Xm N~aoli
Thomas and L. Till Jurhs City Counc7
• 12968 SW Bul Mountain Rd. Paul Hunt : 'IYgard, OR 97224 Briaa Moore
. Bob Rodlf
IDear Mr. and Mrs. Jurhs: Hm Scbeckla
We received oftycial notitYcation that the annexation propos:il you requested tor the southwest edge of t6e City,
north of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW 133rd Avenue became Mel. The ef[ectlve date oi the
annexatfon was May 30, 1996. _ . . . . . - : . . _ .
On behalf of the City Councl, I welcome you to the City of 15gard. cThe County ElectionsDepartment has
been notified; they. will update your voter regishmtion so you can vote on Igard issues and carididates. •
Emergency public safety services can be reached by dialing 9-1-1. The Ffre District continues to serve you as .
before. The 15gard Police Departrnent will now respond instead of the S6erifi's Department. Please call t6e
Police Deparhnent for any pubtic safety rnnceras you may have. _
'Iigard iS proud of its well-run facilities. Street mainteaance and sewer tine services are provided by the City.
Unified Sewerage A,gency is responsble for sewage treatment through a rnntract with the City. Your sewer
billing will be handled through a City billing process iastead of through the County tax bill. Water service will
~ coutinue thrnugh the 'I%ard Water Department as before. The City of 'llgard's Ia'brary and its association wlth the Washington County I.ibrary Service offers you first-
rate library service and access to just about any subject. Our Fnance and Adninistration Deparhnents are
i
oriented to good citizen service and we ask that you not hcsitate to call 6394171 if you 6ave any questioas or I
concerns.
Once again, I wish you a sincere welcome.
S' ely, . li
I
ames NcoG
Mayor
enclosure
1:1aftUo\wekome.ace
• I
13125 SVU Hall BNd., Tlgard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
• ~
June 12, 1996
FINAL ORDER ON ANNEXATION 3596 ZCA96-0001 (SCHULTZ)
We have received the final order on Annexation 3596 ZCA96-0001 (Schultz), effective
May 30, 1996. A map of the annexed property is attached. Census information is as
follows:
Final Order 3596:
Owners:
James & Madeline Schultz 2S109AB-00200, 1 SF dwelling
, 13268 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Est. Population - 3
Tigard, OR 97224
James & Madeline Schultz 2S109AB-00100
13268 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Vacant lot
Tigard, OR 97224
Thomas & L. Jill Jurhs 2S1 09AA-01 100, 1 SF dwelling
12975 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Est. Population - 2
Tigard, OR 97224
Please call if you have any questions.
Ray Valone
Community Development Department
i:\cdad m~erree\a nnex\an nexmer
• •
t
t ~
, v ScE«N„~. Rwm 1 "a z ror aaaiu«,d serAcm I also wtsh to recetve the
a■ Compete itemm 3. 4a. and ab. s' following seMces (tor an i
Print your name and addrese on the reveroe ot Ws tam so that ws carr retum thie 8Xh8 f68): ~
y•ntt~roa torm to tM trau ot ttw mdlWem or on the Dadc H npece dow not 1. ❑ Address66's Address ~
~ pnnit.
Z
m• write'Retum Reoeipt Aequested' an tl~s mappiece below tt►~ artida nwnber. 2, C~. ResMcted Dellvery
The Retum Receipt wi0 show ro wAan the ertids was deliverod end the date
~ delhrered. CiOm%pOSUT18St9f fOf (99.
0
-a 3. ArdGe Addrassed to: 4a, AAfcls Number
m MILLER' S SANITARY SERVICE, INC ~ 1 c~ S i
o PO BOX 217 ab. Senrice Type m
0 BEAVERTON, OR 97075-0217 ❑ Registered 8'Ce~fled
❑ Express Mail p Insured S
❑ Retum R
eoeipt for Merdendise p COD
7. Date of ellve
_
i5. Received By: (Print Neme) H. Addr e's A d ss ( n y i1 requested
~m u( j'~- (/~.S 8nd (ee rs p8fd)
~ 6. Slgn : =(Addse orA ent '
. 0 ~
- Ps Form 3811, oecember 1994 •Domestic Retum Receipt ~
~
I j .
~
t- E DER:
•Compteta nems t enNor 2 fa aamu«ial serv~ees. I also wlsh to recefve the
To •Complete itertu 3, 4a, and 4b. foliowing senAces (for an
~•pdM your nema and addreu an Uie revene of Ihis fonm w Nat we can retum Wo extrg 188):
~ card toyau.
■Attach Ws fortn W tha horU of the mallpleca, a an the bedc if apace doeo nol 1. ❑ Addf83388'S Addf988 ~
W te Retum Aeaelpf Requettad' on tne meupiece beiow the anide number. 2. O Restricted Delivery
•The petum Recelpt wfY chow to whom Ure aAkie was delrvered and lhe daie • ~
0 aelhrered. Consult postrnaster for fee. ~
le your BETURN ADDRESS completed-on the reverae side4 3. ArUcle Addressed to: 4 Mlde
r'1
~ r-5 er
0 q ~ ~ E
c~i, •O7 c;,•: ~ a TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
n ~ yx N ~ ~ ■ ~8 4 m I 4b. Service Type
~ >C u, ~ ~ Z ATTN: GARY PIPPIN ac
m 1:-4 O r+ 2 $ p 0 R e g i s t e r e d eRiBed
a~o 3 ~ ~ x►~-+ D~~~ 901 PO BOX 745 p Express Mail p Insured .15
n y 3 a' ~
a ~ ~ B ~ OR 970 ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandse ❑ COD 2
C7
a cn 7. Date of D4Ijvery
40
S. Addressee's Address (Onlyllrequested ~
3 ° 5. Iy .(Pd t N ffle)
~ i
~o i . e,►d,ee !s Paid)
~ o %D 1-3 a ~
~
`N ~ ~ tj 8. Signature: (Addressee orAgent)
~ X
-2 'PS Form 3811, Decembet 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
" o 0 0~ s~ ~ ! ~2 S ~omNDERem, I a,mor s ror addiuonW .eMce.. i also wish to receive me y v~ ~•Comaete uems S. aa. and ab. tollowtng services (for an Y
~ M m~ 3~D ~•Pdm your narne and addresr on the reverse of this form eo that we can retum Ws extfd fee):
1 ~ 9 ~ fG m ~ m • ~ .
m C8ld l0 ~/OU. ,
~ ~ m ; ~ Attech Ws fortn to the horU ot ll~e mailpeoe. u on the badc H epace does not
g 1. ❑ Addressee'a Address ,
m 1 L vem~n.
~ ~ " I m• WAte'Retum Rece10 Requeated' on lhe maiipece below the artide number. p, p Restricted Oelivery
OD $i• 3 ~ m a- ' ~ ~■The Retum Receipt wiU ehow to whom the aAide wao delivared and the date •
~ a a~ a, m f~"Ig danrered. Consult postrnaster for fee. ~
~
~ ❑ ❑ I 3. ANde Addressed to: 4 ANG ~er ~ •
~ p g m a.. ~ g ~ a N L V N A T U R A L G A S 0 0 ~
CUSTOMER ACCOUNPING DEPT 4b. SenAce Type
c
222 NW SFAOND AVE O Registered ~ C ert(fled
~P ❑ Insuted ~
~ ~ 8 a m PORTLANDi OR 97209 ❑ ress Mail
m~ a ~ m ~ ❑ Retum R e o e~ t tor Mer c h a rds e p C O D
~ ~ ~ 7. Date Z-M,
T h a n k y o u f o r u s i n g R e t u r n R e c e l p t S e rvi ce. ~ 5. Rece ived By: (Pdnt Name) B. Addressee's Adir (ONy N~ ~
_._.__.t
. 4
• 1 ~o8 s ~d) ~
~ 6. Slgnature: (Addressee orAgent)
~
- ~ ° ) -
PS Form 3811,.Decembqr 1994 Domesti eceipt
+
m SE D R: I also wish to receive the ~
~•Compete Heme 1 anNa 2 fa addwonel seMces.
~■Compete nems 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
Prinl your name and eddress an th9 revene of lhfe fortn so that we can retum tHs AXUa fe6):
card toyou. $
~■anach this rorm to tne aorr ot ua maiIplece. «on u,e cadc a spece does na 1. ❑ Address66's Address ~
WAte'Retum Recelpt Requeated' on the maYpiece bebw tlw eAkie number. 2, 0 Restrfcted DeHvery
' • ~•The Retum Receipt witl show to whom the aAide waa delivered end the dale ' ~
Is your RETURN ADDRES3 completed on the reverse elds?
v c p~ivarea. Consult posbnaster for fee. ~
~ °f °i w N - 3. ArUde Addressed to: 4a. de N er
" ~C H w ~~C mZ EELL mFr~t: p~'AI~K 502
E
~ ~ z' t ~ r~ 3~ m ~ PACIFIC IQAEEE~ CR PPM pWXEE . . 4b. Service Type
1SLIE ao O ReQI3l6red
1 ~JV 11V6t~ l~l:,/ ~ 'i✓'J `~~~fl9d ~
m~ ~i33
~ p Express MaJI ❑ Insured c .
~ 9eoo4
o ~ cn ~ Retum Reoeipt for Merchandse o coo J ~ ~ 7. oata or en~ry
H
W S. Received By: (Pdnt Name) , 8. Addressee's Abdress (O y fl r eated ~
~ (0
(D U ►roC ~ 9 • ~ + ' , ~ , an`d fee Is peld)
, .z.
6. Signatur • e orAge )
~ R ~ X
PS Fortn .1 Decem er 1 ssa- _ Domestic Return Receipt
c-
SEcompDi nem. I end1« 2 tor am~qonal .erdceo. ( also wish to reoeive Ihe
co v❑❑ O~ escomqete fteme 3, se. ane ab. following services (for en
o■Prinl yar name and eddre" on tlw revene ot thb fam so thal we can relum Ws 8xtf8 fe6)'
L 8
card to you. ~
•naecn fts toffn a ft tr«a of tne meuv+eae. «on the badc a epace aoea na t. 0 Addressee's Address
pemitt.
rz• v Z ~ Write'Retum Reoelyt Aepueste0• m the maapeoe eeiow me antae rruneer. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
~
0 y ~ ~ ~ ■ me aetum Recetpt wtr .taw w wtwm the anide was aeliverea end the aa►e
o ~
aNnrxea. Consult P~tmaster for fee.
5 R
3 ~ ~ 3. Artlde Addressed to: 4a. Artlde Number i
m
a 1 PRIDE DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC a~ E
~ CL
FO BOX 820 4b. Service Type ~
Reglstered .t~c:ertlfled
~ SHERWOOD, OR 97140 O ❑ ~ ~ O Insured ~
a mce ag . o ~
o ❑ ror Mer&w,ase o coD ~
o
~ a a ~ ~ $ 7. Da of eyvery -
• ' ~ o
Ived By: (Pitnt Name) e's Addresa (ONy H ed C
6j;k
Thank you for using Return Recelpt Servlce. 'y 4
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ - - - ~ 2 C•i n'~- E 8 ~ °e'd~ ~
_jkature: (Addressee or A enl) ~
0
. ~
~ P rm 3811, nber 1ssa Domestic Retum Receipt
. . t t
+ ~
SE DER: I also uvisn to recelve ihe
9•Canqete items t and/a 2 tor addtlonal "
a•c«npeta ueme a, 4a, ena 4o. foilowing services (for an
~ card PdM to your you. name and addreae an Ihe revene of Ihfs fam w that we can (etum Ws
extra fee): $
~
•Attech thlr torm ro Uw horrt ol tlw ma(ipece, a on the badc H tpace does not 1. ❑ Address99'8 Address ~
~•WMe'Retum Recelpt Requested• on the mailqeoe bebw ihe anide numbec 2. ❑ Restrlcted Delivery
' Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse slde4 'The Ret""' Receia "W sr'o'" lo wrtam the anida was dewered end me date ~
ceWe►ea• Consult postrnaster for fee.
~ ~ ~ W . . . . . . U)
cn ~ jfg 4j; jjZ I ~ 3. Ardde Addressed to: 4a. Art1Ge Number ~
/1( I~l S6 q 9-OVI
~ x~ ~ ~ I--, 7d ~ m~~ m•~,~~ m o m E
3 2 c ~ /~r•~, • 4b. Servic Type
°r° ^ y a 99R ~ a ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ "'T • O Regiifsd Certlfied ~
~ ~ ~ a I" - I 0 Express MaU p Insured ~
L $ F~~ p Hetum Reoeipt for Merchandise ❑ COD ~
~ N 7. Date of Delive ~ •
m o ~ l0 Z f~ g m g~' i . _ ~
~c
5. Rec lved By: (PAnt N e) rand dressee.s Address (ONy 1l requested ~
~ lee Is pald) ~
6• Sig t . Addres e r ent) •~X •
0 i~ X
7
5X 75b/ 5-
H
Ps Fom, 38 1, December 1994 ~ • ~ ~ ~ Domestic Return Receipt, . ;
~
ag g • - - -
~
w❑❑❑7 D ~ $ S cEompDiece~nems t enaw 2 ror ada~uonal wrv~ces. I also wlsh to recelve ihe
a a m0~~ m a a m •Compete iume 3, 4a, ana 4n. following services (for an
'PArn yow neme and address on the reverse ot Uiie torm so that we cen retum Ws extra t66): ~
m ~ card to you.
m W"4 c fA •Anad► thto torm to the horq of the mellpiece, a m the badc N space doea na 1. ❑ Addresse6's Address
g m~~• m c O N., ~ a~' ; m ■ te Retum Reoelpt Requested•on ihe mailpece De1ow the anide number. 2. 13 RestriCted Deilvery
~
A ~~Z o ~ • p~ o~+ ~■The Retum Recelpl wfY thow to vdwm the aNde was delivered end the dale ~
tee.
A ~ c~ 0 p O m~• c ~N~~• Consult postrnaster tor,
~ ~ ~o ~ o O •
a "ms3. ANcle Addressed to: 4a. ANcle Numbe ~ o-
m ~
~
Z a I t
m ,c~ ~ C~i
4 b. S e r v i c e T y p e
3 0 CttcS~ O Registered D~CertlRed p
y as o ~ mL ~ m ~0~-41/1 O Express Mall p Insured A
1 gt Sl~W l Rowiptr a Merdw, ass ❑ c o o
~ ?L 7. Date of elw ~
Thank you for using Return Receipt Servlce. 0
- ^ - - - - - - - . . . . - - - 9 i.
5. Received By: (Print Name) B. A dressee s Address (Only fl requested ~
and lee is pald) ~
; g 8. SignatZ(Addressee ~ X orAgent)
.(WYLP- 92~4h
~
- Ps Form 3811, oecernber 1694 Domestic Retum Receipt
• •
P 474 569 823 ~ p 474 569 822
US Posta! Service US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Maii ~ Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided. ~ No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do nat use for fntemabonal Mail See reverse! Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse
t co S ~ n to ~ •
. .
~
6 Number ~ Streei S Number
P ttice, State.) ZIP C ~ ~L st Otfice, State, & ZIP ~ale ~
T Z
Pastege $ ~ ~ ~M PO~ge $
~
Certified Fee ' ~ ~ Certified Fee ~
Spedal Delivery Fee Speaal 0e~ivery Fee • .
Reshiaed Delivery Fee Aestriaed Delivary Fee
~
~ fietum Receipt Showing ro ~ Retum Receipt Showing to
Whorn 1~ Date DeGvered << b ~ Whom 3 Oate De4vered
Ream Recepl Slnwng ro q, Renm Hecept Slnwig ro wtnm.
$ Date, 8 Ad~ssee's Ad~aes. ~ a Date, 6 Ad~ssea's
~ TOTAI Postage g(Pees~ • a~ O TOTAL P a~ Vbegbs '~a.
,~<< ~ . .
~ Pastrnarlc w Dat ~ ~ 1 ' ~ • ~ PoStmaAt of 08t~ ~ , , '
€ ~;:t l~ - ; € o, 13
ti d~►i _ • o a- , J~, f •
~ \ ~Wr' , . ' ~ ~ ~1v~0 f~~
~ ' - ' ' a r'~.
_ ' V . ' ~ .
~wr~
r ~
P 474 569 824 ; ~ ~ ~
! P 474 569 826 - ~
US Postal Service ~ US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mait ~ Receipt for Certified Mail f
No Insurance Coverage Provided. • No I~surance Coverage Provided. f
Do nat use for Intemational Mail See reverse) Do not use fo~ Intematlonal Mail See reverse)
ttp ~ tto ~ .
b ~ .
~ P t Otfice, State, 8 ZIP e st Ottice. State. 8 ZIP Code
Pasta9e ~ ~ 5 Pastage ~ •~j
Certified Fee ' ~ ~ Certified Fee ~
Spedal Delivery Fee ' Spedal Defivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee Resuicted Oelivery Fee
~ AeNm Receipt Showing to t ~ Retum Receipt Showing to ` j1
~ Whom & Date DeGvered ~ ~ VYhom $ Date DeGvered v
a RetumRecei~ ~a FewmReceQtShoroaStQ . ,
Q Date. 6 Address a Q Date, S Addressce'sAOd~ess' r.:
O V' ~1 O / ~ - ••~,j
~O TOTAL P ~ e Fees . I • O~ TOTAL P~St89' ~ FeeB Co~ •
~ Postrnerk or Date~;- /j ` 1 Postrnadl te ~ (
G., f. /j ~ F-' v i
~ v'\ 11' ~V{\ ~~J~
ti l ~y .l~uv
a V\~f~ a J, S~~~' /
, • • •
P 474 569 825
P 474 569 827
US Postal Service US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for Intemadonal Mail See reverse) Do not use for Intemationai Mail See reverse
to ~ . S ser,c ro
~ Straet; N r 1 1
~ ce, 5ta , e tate, 8 Z
~
ppstege Postage $ 1 ss
Cet68ed Fee Cartified Fee t• C O
Speaa~ ~eiivery Ftid w,add Oalivary• Faa
qesnicted Delivery Fee Ln Resaiaed Degvery Fee
~ Retum iieceipt Sho`^''r'g to Retum Receipt Showing ro
Whom 3 Oate Detivered Whom d Date Delivered ~
a Rewm HecW SAowig ro Whom. ReNm Aeceipt S~~
Q Daae. S AdtresseeS Adctess ~ Date. 8 AddrasseabAdd►es[.d
~ TOTAL Pos~ge 3 Fees 0 TOTA / ~p`oc,tage 3 F~ee~s .u
cq PostmacR oFDate"• Postrn Date 1 "
E ; ;
~ i ~ U. 1=j~ `yµ . ~ v
a N~-a US r S
' P 474 569 829
P 474 569 828 •
US Postal Service US Postal Service .
Receipt for Certified Mail Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse Do not use for Intemational Mail See reverse
Sen to V
_ ~
^ `va
Street g N~mbe~ Street &
aL V'
Otti tat S Z S , 3 ZI C MLQ
Postage $ C~ Postage $ . S .
Certified Fee i-. Certified Fee
Spetial Delivery Fee Speaal Delivery Fee ~
Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
u~ U')
~ Retum Receipt Showing co ' a, Retum Receipt Showing to +
4Vham 3 Oate De6vered
~ VYhom S Date Deli -
- a
ReCUn Receipt Slawirg obIGGm. Reaun fleceipt Showing to
_ a
~ . Dare, 3 Ad~essee's ~ ' •
Oate. 3 Ad~ssee's+tdbess W~om
~ TOTAL PasraQe 8 Fees S ~ TOTAL Pasta~e &lfees $ a•~ S
Postmark or Oate .
E Posanark or Date A,~ .
- o .
o u-
LL . U)
N a
a
.
. • • ~ •
P 474 569 820 P 474 569 821
US Postal Service
us PostW seNice Receipt for Certified Mail
~ Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided.
~ No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for intemational Mail See reverse)
Do not use (or Int matlonal Mail See reverse) Sem io ~
o q
S e8 Nu ber
~Pst QHice. te, 8 ZIP ode '
~ P Office.Utate, ZIP Cade ~10 ~ O
' V Postage ~ • ~S
Postage a . '5S ~
r~..,F~ cao
Certfied Fee
Spedal Delivery Fee
$petial Delivery Fee
Resuicted Delivery Fee
Resficted Oeivery Fee
Retum Receipt Showing to
~ Retum Receipt Showing w YVhom 8 Date DeGverad ~
_ NRwm 3 Oaro Oefivered t a Reaim Receipt
ReWm Recept Slpwig !o Wliom. a Date. S Addressee'
$ Data.3Addressee ` . ~ O TOTALPost4Fee~~~~ $
O TOTAL Po#' P3 F`, Pastrnark or / '
CD
\
n~
L g `J
o "
b cn
`l a
cn
a
I
• •
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ,
~
TO: Ron Goodpaster, Amanda Bewersdorff, Nels Mickaelson, Cathy Wheatley,
Greg Berry, Randy Volk, Jill Aldrich, Kathy Davis
FROM: Ray Valone
DATE: June 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Final Order on Annexation 3596 ZCA96-0001 (Schultz)
We have received the final order on Annexation 3596 ZCA96-0001 (Schultz), effective May 30, 1996. A map of the annexed property is attached. Census information is as •
follows:
Final Order 3596:
Owners:
James & Madeline Schultz 2S109AB-00200, 1 SF dwelling
13268 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Est. Population - 3
Tigard, OR 97224
James & Madeline Schultz 2S109AB-00100
13268 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Vacant lot
Tigard, OR 97224
, Thomas & L. Jill Jurhs 2S1 09AA-01 100, 1 SF dwelling
12975 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Est. Population - 2
Tigard, OR 97224
i:\cdad m\jerree\annex\annexmem
. .
I'ORTLAND METROPOLi i AN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT B~iVDARY COMMISSION. i
800 NE OREGON ST #16 (STE 540), PORTLAND OR 97232-TEL: 731-4093
FINAL ORDER
RE: BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL NO: 3596 - Annexation of territory to the
City of Tigard.
Proceedings on Proposal No. 3596 commenced upon receipt by the Boundary Commission of a
resolution and property owner/registered voter consents from the City on April 26, 1996,
requesting that certain property be annexed to the City. The resolution and consents meet the
requirements for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490, particularly Section (2)(a)(B).
Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Commission published and posted notice of the public
hearing in accordance with ORS 199.463 and conducted a public hearing on the proposal on May
30, 1996. The Commission also caused a study to be made on this proposal which considered
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections and physicat development of the
land.
, The Commission reviewed this proposal in light of the following statutory guidance:
"199.410 Policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
"(a) A fragmented approach has developed to pubfic services provided by local
government. Fragmentation results in duplications in services, unequal tax bases and
resistance to cooperation and is a barrier to planning implementation. Such an
approach has limited the orderly development and growth of Oregon's urban areas to
the detriment of the citizens of this state.
~ „
(b) The programs and growth of each unit of local government affect not only
that particular unit but also activities and programs of a variety of other units within
each urban area.
"(c) As local programs become increasingly intergovernmental, the state has a
responsibility to insure orderly determination and adjustment of local government
boundaries to best meet the needs of the people.
"(d) Local comprehensive plans define local land uses but may not specify which
units of local government are to provide public services when those services are
required.
"(e) Urban population densities and intensive development require a broad
spectrum and high level of community services and controls. When areas become
urbanized and require the full range of community services, priorities are required
regarding the type and levels of services that the residents need and desire.
Community service priorities need to be established by weighing the total service needs
against the total financial resources available for securing services. Those service
priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial
resources. A single governmental agency, rather than several governmental agencies is
Final Order - Page 1
. in most cases better ab o assess the financial resources an10herefore is the best
mechanism for establishing community service priorities.
I
"(2) It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that each boundary commission
establish policies and exercise its powers under this chapter in order to create a
governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the widest
range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-
ordered and efficient development patterns.
"(3) The purposes of ORS 199.410 to 199.534 are to:
"(a) Provide a method for guiding the creation and growth of cities and special
~ service districts in Oregon in order to prevent illogical extensions of local government
' boundaries and to encourage the reorganization of overlapping governmental agencies;
"(b) Assure adequate quality and quantity of public services and the financial
integrity of each unit of local government;
"(c) Provide an impartial forum for the resolution of local government jurisdictional
questions;
"(d) Provide that boundary determinations are consistent with acknowledged
local comprehensive plans and are in conformance with state-wide planning goals. In
making boundary determinations the commission shall first consider the acknowledged
comprehensive plan for consistency of its action. Only when the acknowledged local
comprehensive plan provides inadequate policy direction shall the commission consider
the statewide planning goals. The commission shall consider the timing, phasing and
availability of services in making a boundary determination; and
"(e) Reduce the fragmented approach to service delivery by encouraging single
agency service delivery over service delivery by several agencies.
"199.462 Standards for review of changes; territory which may not be included in
certain changes. (1) In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410
when reviewing a petition for a boundary change or application under ORS 199.464, a
, boundary commission shall consider local comprehensive planning for the area,
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the
proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or
indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change or application under ORS
199.464 and the goals adopted under ORS 197.225."
"(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected
district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory:
"(a) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to a district
without the consent of the city council;'
"(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to another city;
and Final Order - Page 2
' „ • ~
. (c) Territory within a district may not be included withi~6r annexed to another
' district subject to the same principa! Act."
; The Commission also considered its policies adopted under Administrative Procedures Act
(specifically 193-05-000 to 193-05-015), historical trends of boundary commission operations and
decisions and past direct and indirect instructions of the State Legislature in arriving at its decision.
FINDINGS
(See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
!
REASONS FOR DECISfON
(See Reasons for Decision in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.)
ORDER
On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed in Exhibit "A", the Boundary
Commission approved Boundary Change Proposal No. 3596 as modified on May 30, 1996.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT the territory described in Exhibit "B" and depicted on the
attached map, be annexed to the City of Tigard as of the date of approval.
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY COMMISSION
...5
DATE: BY:
cting Chair
ATTEST:
Final Order - Page 3
. . ~ • .
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
FINDINGS
Based on the study and the public hearing the Commission found:
1. The territory to be annexed is located generally on the southwest edge of the City, north of
S.W. Bull Mt. Road and east of S.W. 133rd Avenue. The territory contains 6.15 acres, 1
single family dwelling, a population of 3 and is evaluated at $160,910.
2. The owners wish to develop their property within the City. No application for specific
development has been submitted as yet.
3. If approved the proposed annexation would create an island consisting of TL 1 100 NE 1/4 NE
1/4 Sec. 9, T2S, R1 W, W.M., Wash. Co., Oregon. The owner of that lot has submitted a
signed petition to annex and wishes to have his property included in the current proposal.
4. The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies states that
the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban services. Recognizing
that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the districts, the Commission states in
the second policy that the Commission will help find solutions to the problems. The third
policy states that the Commission may approve illogical boundaries in the short term if these
lead to logical service arrangements in the long term.
5. The northern parcel (TL 100) is vacant, grass-covered land that slopes downward from
southeast to northwest at approximately a 15% grade. The southerly parcel (TL 200)
contains a single family dwelling and some accessory buildings and slopes west to east at a
10-15% grade.
To the north is a single family residence and beyond that is a subdivision within the City. To
' the east in the City is the Wilmington Heights subdivision under construction. To the south is
vacant land zoned R-7 in the City. On the west side of the proposed annexation are two lots
with single family residences.
6. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of Metro.
7. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the following eight elements:
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document
3. Rural Natural Resource Element
4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Plan
7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
Final Order - Page 4
. . • •
Exhibit A
. Proposal No. 3596
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and segments pertinent to this
proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's "Roles And
Responsibilities" relative to Urbanization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and
special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to insure that
facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or
agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes identifi-
cation of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of special concern.
The County community plan for this area is the Bull Mountain Community Plan. This
Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-6, Residential 6 Units Per Acre.
This designation permits lower density (detached & attached) residential development with
densities up to 6 units per acre. The General Design Elements of the Bull Mountain Community Plan include such items as
encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open space, preservation
of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc..
The subject property falls into a subarea on the Community Plan labeled "Summit And
Slopes." The design elements for this subarea relate mostly to development and building
constraints. The Plan map does indicate that the NE corner of TL 100 and the SE corner of
TL 200 are in an "Area Of Special Concern No. 3" but no specific restrictions relating to this
I designation are included in the Plan text. The label appears to relate to the fact these two
corners are also designated Significant Natural Areas by virtue of their proximity to two
drainage courses.
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail concerning
the R-6 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community Development Code).
8. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning Area
Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and Tigard's adopted Compre-
hensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" within which the City
assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in which the County
agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential impacts on Tigard. This proposal
falls within the "Area Of Interest" as designated in the UPAA. The following pertinent
provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest" portion of the UPAA:
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Final Order - Page 5 .
. . ~ •
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
Area of Interest or Primarv Area of Interest means unincorporated lands contiguous
to the Aciive Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive
planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning
and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY
Active Planning Area.. . .
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development
actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the .
public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to
the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a
condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands
unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for
annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes
Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the
foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the
rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY
agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which
most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of
COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this '
designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the
~ CITY and the COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that
the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated
before the one year period is over.
9. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv 2000 program. This
program essentially lays out a long range strategic and fiscal plan for the County. In this
document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service delivery system which
distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to achieve tax fairness and
expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The County policy states that
municipal services should be provided either by cities or special districts.
10. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource Document (Volume I) and the
Findings Policies & Implementation Strategies (Volume II). The Tigard Community
Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Final Order - Page 6
~ •
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances remain
applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to be
relevant to this proposal:
Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction
with Washington County and the applicable service districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for
providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to the
extent of the City's financial resources; d. Use the Capital Improvements Program as a means for providing for
orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to the
level and capacity of the existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about the
property location for public facilities.
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CtTY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity
including:
1. Public water;
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the City
unless the property involved is over 300 feet from a sewer line and
Washington County Health Department approval for a private
disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the
proposed development; and
Final Order - Page 7
. . • •
, Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
2. Designed to City standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to adequate
capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if
developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly
reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land
within the City of Tigard. The services are:
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
~ 4. streets;
' 5. police; and
6. fire protection.
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the
aPplicant shall si9n and record with Washington County a non-
remonstrance agreement regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the
, following services that could be provided through such a district.
The extension or improvement of the following:
a) water;
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d1 streets.
2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or
the inclusion of the property into a special district for any of the
above services.
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban
planning area or within the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED
ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincor-
porated territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it
difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the
parcel is within or outside the city;
Final Order - Page 8
. • • ~
. Exhibit A
' Proposal No. 3596
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a).
Policy 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON
COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF
TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO
THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION.
,
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE
(USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted to
the City; or
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been signed
and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that there is a
potential or imminent health hazard.
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR ALL
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE
TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA
AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT
DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities and
standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and e. Drainage.
Final Order - Page 9
. , 0 •
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters 18.136,
Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These standards are:
A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property
to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to
provide service for the proposed annexation area, • and
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provision have
been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's
zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map
designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing area will be
based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as either
Established Area (unbuildable or essentially built-out) or Developing Area (buildable). The
code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all land at the time of
annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was consistent
with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied because the
West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and public
notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels, is
satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water Department and Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue District have reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate
services are available and may be extended to accommodate the affected properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the proposal will
not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police Department has been notified
of this request and has no objection; the atfected land is located within the city's
urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are
available to accommodate the property.
a • s
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation proposals, is
satisfied because:
Final Order - Page 10
i
• • •
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3596
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are
available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been reviewed
and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-7 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-6.
d. The determination that the affected properties are a developing area is based on
the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land is
satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a developing area and
shall be so designated on the development standard areas map of the comprehensive
plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the annexation and
approved a zoning designation of R-7 to be effective upon annexation.
In 1988 the City of Tigard did a special study of this general area - The Bull
Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study. This studY concluded that The CitY could
ultimately supply this area with a full range of urban services in a cost effective manner and
committed the City to doing the infrastructure planning necessary to accomplish this in the
long term.
The City's Community Development Code does contain an extensive section dealing with
the protection of sensitive lands. Sensitive lands are defined as lands within the 100-
year floodplain, within natural drainageway, within a wetland area, on steep slopes, or on
unstable ground." This chapter kicks in at the time of development. All proposed
developments are reviewed to see if they contain sensitive lands and then the appropriate
sections of this ordinance are applied.
11. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Wilmington Ct. on the east edge of the
property. this line will provide gravity service to the area to be annexed.
The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the City.
. The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency and the large
cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin and
Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to: 1) comply with the Agency's
construction and maintenance standards for sanitary and storm water sewer facilities, 2)
follow and accomplish the Agency's work program for storm and surface water, 3) obtain
~ the Agency's consent before issuing construction permits within wetlands, floodways and
floodplains. The agreement provides that the city owns and is responsible for sanitary
sewer lines under 24 inches in diameter within the City limits and for storm water facilities
within the City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities). The Unified Sewerage
Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and out of cities. The
Final Order - Page 11
. . • ~
, Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to areas outside the
City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-County UPAA) unless
the City approves. .
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for collecting
sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same connection fees
and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to U.S.A. to pay for the costs
of treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm water. The City may impose higher
costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the difference to offset City costs.
Monthly sanitary sewer user charges are $14.55 per month plus a consumption charge of
$ 1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City charges are the same
as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for increase on July 1, 1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to construct
district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants. Subsequent to annexation
this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per thousand assessed value, would
remain the same since the City is in the District.
12. This property can get water service from the 8 inch line in Wilmington Court adjacent on the
' east.
The parcel currently lies within the Tigard Water District which contracts with the City for
service.
The territor n an elevation of 600 and 300 feet which is in the Bull Mountain
Y lies betwee
water service level.
The CitY of Ti9ard/Ti9ard Water District water rates be9in at a flat rate of 818.62 for 800
cubic feet, charged bi-monthty. Properties outside of the City and District pay an additional
$5.50 bi-monthly charge. Additional water use over 800 cf. is charged $1.32/100 cf. for
territories both within and outside of the City/District boundaries.
The system development charge for property within Bull Mountain area is $1,325, and for
all other areas, it is $1,170.
The City of Tigard purchases the majority of its water supply - approximately 93% - from
the City of Lake Oswego. The remaining water is purchased from the City of Portland, or
comes from the Tigard Water District's back-up wells. The wells are within the Cooper
Mountain/Bull Mountain Critical Ground Water Area designated by the State Water
Resources Department; thus, future utilization of this source will not significantly increase.
Tigard buys surplus water from Lake Oswego. During hot weather (on peak day usage)
Lake Oswego is not capable of fully supplying Tigard. Growth within Lake Oswego now has
reduced the amount of surplus water available to Tigard to about 4 mgd, and the forecast is
for no surplus peak supply by 1997. Negotiations are currently under way between Tigard
Final Order - Page 12
. , • •
, Exhibit A
' Proposal No. 3596
and Lake Oswego to remedy this problem. Tigard hopes to obtain a long-term water supply
through a financial and managerial partnership with Lake Oswego. Regardless of the
financial arrangement.between Lake Oswego and Tigard, the current Lake Oswego
treatment plant needs to be expanded. There is currently strong opposition to this
expansion within the West Linn neighborhood where the plant is located.
Lake Oswego obtains untreated water from the Clackamas River near Gladstone. Its water
rights permits at that location are for 32.3 mgd, and 5.8 mgd. The State of Oregon's
minimum streamflow requirements could restrict Lake Oswego form using the 5.8 mgd, but
not the 32.3 mgd. The existing intake pumps pump 18.1 mgd, but friction within the raw
water transmission line reduces the amount delivered to the treatment plant to 14.8 mgd.
The water is piped across the Willamette River to the City's treatment plant in the City of
West Linn, which has the capacity to treat 16.1 mgd.
There the water is treated by coagulation, settling, filtration and chlorination. From the
treatment plant, the water is sent to the 4.0 MG Waluga Reservoir via a distribution system
fed by high service pumps and transmission lines. From the Waluga Reservoir, the water
flows west via Tigard owned 24-inch and 16-inch transmission lines. The Waluga reservoir
is lower than Tigard's receiving reservoirs, so the water must be pumped through the
transmission lines with pumps that have a capacity of 7.9 mgd. The District purchases
1,511 mg of water a year from Lake Oswego at a rate of $.57 per 100 cubic feet.
The Portland water supply source is the Bull Run Watershed. An estimate of the
watershed's municipal capacity is 200 mgd. The water is treated by screening and
disinfected by chlorination. Tigard receives the Portland water at Bradley Corner (at the
intersection of Hall Blvd. and SW Greenburg Road) through a 24-inch main connected to
Portland's Burlingame Standpipes. The Portland Water Bureau can provide from 6 to 8 mgd
through a pressure-controlled system of pipelines at Bradley Corner. Portland sells 1 mgd to
~ the District at a rate of $.85/100 cf.
Tigard owns four deep wells in the Bull Mountain area. However only two are operated.
The wells are typically only used during the peak water use months of July - August.
The Tigard water system has a total storage capacity of 20.95 MG which utilizes reservoirs
ranging in size from .28 mg to 10 mg. The system is divided into two service levels. The
"410" service level is served by gravity, and the Bull Mountain service level is served via
pumps.
The "410" zone generally lies below the elevation of 310 feet. It serves the majority of the
District's customers, and is fed by reservoirs at elevations between 410 feet and 470 feet.
The combined storage for these reservoirs is approximately 8.65 MG.
The residential development on Bull Mountain is above an elevation of 310 feet, which is
the approximate upper limit of service for the "410" service level. In order to serve the Bull
Mountain area, water is pumped by the High Tor pumping station to elevated reservoirs at
approximately 710 feet. These reservoirs have a combined storage capacity of 2.3 MG.
Final Order - Page 13
.
' • ~
Exhibit A
' Proposal No. 3596
In addition, the Tigard Water District owns a 10 MG terminal reservoir, at an elevation of
470 feet. Through both pumps and pressure-lines, this reservoir serves both the Bull
Mountain, and "410" service areas.
13. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County Service
District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population which in addition to
the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population means that the current level is
.94 officers per 1000 population.
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police protection to the
terntory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers Per thousand population.
Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
14. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will not
affect this service because the City is in the District.
15. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road Maintenance
District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District and
the District's levY of $.2886 Per $1000 assessed value will no longer apply to the property.
16. The territorY is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector Control District.
i II
, Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be automat ca
Y
withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control District.
17. The territorY is within the Washin9ton County Service District #1 for street lights. The
District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street lighting services.
The District uses local improvement districts to finance the service. Upon annexation the
territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State shared
gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
18. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which finances the general fund.
Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided by cities,
• including Tigard.
The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of $0.3788
(fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The revenues from this levy
are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on circulation. City residents pay, through
their City taxes, an additional amount to support their libraries.
Final Order - Page 14
. . • •
. Exhibit A
' Proposal No. 3596
19. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm drainage services of
$36 per dwelling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the Findings the Commission determined:
1. The proposal should be modified to include TL 1 100 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec. 9 T2S, R 1 W,
W.M., Wash. Co. Oregon as requested by the property owner.
2. The proposal is consistent with Iocal comprehensive planning when that planning is taken as
a whole. The Urban Planning Area Agreement prohibits the City from requiring annexations
to get urban services but City Plan Policy 10.2.1 says the City will not extend sewer service
without a commitment to annexation. None-the-less other sections of the UPAA specifically
provide for the City's right to pursue annexations and the rights of property owners to seek
annexation (UPAA (A) (4) (c)). The City's Plan further anticipates annexations and sets
criteria by which the City is to judge the appropriateness of the timing of such proposals
(City Plan Policy 10.1.2). City Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1 and 10.2.3
clearly anticipate that property owners desiring additional levels of services will annex to the
City to receive those services.
The Boundary Commission believes that these policies when read together provide for
annexation and are not discouraging of annexation to the City. The Commission arrives at
' this conclusion based on the above and as allowed under OAR 193-01-005 (14)(b)(B).
3. An adequate quality and quantity of services will be available to the area following
annexation to the City.
4. The proposal is consistent with the Boundary Commission Policy On Incorporated Status
(OAR 193-05-005) and its Policy On Long Term/Long /Range Governmental Structure (OAR
193-05-015).
Final Order - Page 15
. . • •
. Exhibit B
' Proposal No. 3596
LEGAL DESCRIPTION '
ANNEXATION TO
City of Tigard Two parcels in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West
of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows:
Parcel 1:
A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of
Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County,
Oregon , more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest one-quarter and said Northeast one-
quarter being marked with a 6/e-inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L
P.L.S. 1989".
thence N 88113'49" W, 357.28 feet along the north boundary of said Northwest one-
quarter to the northwest corner of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz
and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73654, Washington County
Deed Records;
thence S 01 037'01" W, 382.43 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-
73654 to the southwest corner thereof and said southwest corner being a point on the
north boundary line of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and
Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73653;
thence N 88 ° 16' 29" W, 93 feet along the north boundary of said Deed Document 93-
73653 to the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-73653;
thence S 01 037'01" W, 315 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-
73653 to the southwest corner of said Deed Document 93-73653;
thence S 88 ° 16'29" E, 446.70 feet along said south boundary to the east line of said
Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, said Section 9;
thence N 01 053'29" E, 697.15 feet along said east line to the Point of Beginning.
Modified 5/30/96
Final Order - Page 16
. . • •
• Exhibit B
' Proposal No. 3596
Parcel 2:
A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, Section 9,
Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon,
being a part of that certain tract of land conveyed to Dale K. Varner, et ux, as described in
Deed Book 286, Page 750, Deed Records, Washington County, Oregon, described as
follows:
Beginning on the west line of said tract described in Book 286, Page 750, which bears S
890 50'30" W, 1318.30 feet along the Northerly line of said Section 9 and S 00004'30"
E, 678.24 feet along the west line of that tract described in Book 286, Page 750, as
monumented from the Northeast corner of Section 9;
thence continuing along said west line, S 00004'30" E, 140 feet;
thence leaving said west line, East 333.59 feet, more or less, to a 6/e-inch iron rod;
thence North parallel to the east line of said describe tract, 140 feet to a 6/a-inch iron rod;
thence West, 334.43 feet, more or less, to the Place of Beginning.
Modified 5/30/96
Final Order - Page 17
-PROP6SAL ■ 3596
NW 1!4 NE1 /4 SECTION 9 T2S R1 W W.M. 2S 1 9AB
Washington County .
Scale: 1 " = 250'
3tt ra A
is i o m•
900 400 ~iGC;i:?
+!eC LO1C I WOC ii t?OIC
nutr 5' I
' b (CS 437.1
~0/fn f-Cl,
7
Parcei 1 .
~M '•00 ~
w ]WO b N p D200
28GC 2100 00
b 1 %
lGi q.n01 :ii:+;
a 19 a 20 21 22 600 ~ y JJC ~ b ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ •{iM
~ u . _ ]300
D.~~.c
MOUNTAIN RIDGE 'c29 - I I 200 AREA TO BE
:
d 'ba ~ I 8' f •S00, • ~
y ~ 340C~ ro° I
.z ANNEXED
3 ~ 'Q o :wo
V seooV1 5100
23_74
~ :
N.o „?z' ra ' ~ I
va• ` zeoc
aZoo
~ . . :..t•t:i?:~:::::.~.~::::::»?:•>i?:7:Y:,~:::..•: .
23-78
_ . ; :i
.
,
0 3
sS ~
W.
(
E >
P~P~~EW .o~% : ~ ~ ~ ; ' ~ . ..:......:::::::::.::f::.~.:.''::•:~:;?•>'::~~
5. ' ii7iCac::
::r.:~ .......::<~i>::~>:•;:•;:•::•;t:•>::•>:•>:•.:: ~
N
~;}•.i
. p ~ ~ ; •
8 d 900 a.r I I100
, •BOO~'~ K`~ . 5 IPIN e4 I v~ I;II~G .L ~C
' 19 I • ~p . a !00
rn L,:3900 .r..~ ~ d
, ? ,.00 32 ~
M~w 300 4t 1~ ~r~ ff3 i0.i011 ~I
, Z~ 3e • 4 I •Is ~ ~
, s 1 •
:oo R D i
~ TiGA
a » ao
iIoo : 4200
' + ~R/V •
zooo r' 23_-74
. Es n ~
` 3 • _ ,..a~ _ - - n.. y. ~
isoo~ o noo
~re, • IBOO~•J~ .YK . 1600 iaOU e~ ~000 5700
~ .I(~C Ol~G 2¢ 9~ tMK
.wW
~ ~ • I I IOQ 'ti /
I.71K I~y ilfptl
W /
3 :1- ~rawsai 0.
• • ~
, ~ _ a'1 ~ ; Is ~l t
, M1
3 y ~
~ ry 7800 yi
0i
b NT • /
_ '-Aa~"%
I ~O
> roR 1ts69. wavog.3
L 3Y c
pp Iqr R ON fOR AN♦
rr,Wtl ~ ~ y' 01 USC
M sce NIP
•~rv~ ~ ?S 1 9A
N
.
PROPOSAL NOo 3596
CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
~-/31X FIGURE 2A
.
'PROPP6SAL ■ 3596
NE1 /4 NE1 /4 SECTION 9 T2S R1 W W.M. 2S 1 9AA
Washington County .
Scale: 1 200'
23_ <
I,o
• aaiw~ .ur .o~.~ /200
100 7F0/A9 10
1200 V I 10,9161 (C3.17.970) ~
400
.eS/e.
W
O X':'~`~;:;
W:::::::: 23-
Q Z:::;.;; ~ cc.s.::,.1.,
¢
soo ~
~ _ i 4 .JJIC. I o'
~.oo~~ . ~
' TIGARD ' S
} - ~
I 9a ~ ~•o ~.o of:
7 I
600
3 7
.Q...
(C S. ix .Sll
I
i: I I OO:~ii:~::~:~::;~::~:~: ~~::~:~:~~~:;:;:;~>;::;:~::a::~::~;',•2{:•'j
l.o7sr. I
Parcel 2
O eoo I '
,
. I
1:00 400 ~ 1500 0 _
IYQ Q 2 s~ S 4 17 0•- i'
Y t~ .
I'~" ,'s
.,o.
►2600 6 ~ ••0 t
I~ .c'S.W: \ t IB00 0
a.i. ' l.ISI<.
2500 2000-, 6
8 ~ Q •''b• iif.~t I
320 ~ 1900 `l
8 '
' 23 7 I
w.~. g ~ C. • .
2500 i.ua~ ` • 200Le I
e
L~ y o
I~ z L.1 m xioo ' iooc
no b Z 9 ces.C. tc.s. x z~i
yo' C• ~m' u~rtn uNC\ ~.~r I'
I m b '
b b I ~ I
; 2" 74
• PROPOSAL N0, 3596
CITY OF TIGARD
3 6 ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2b
.
.
. ~ ~
May 30, 1996 Hearing
PROPOSAL NO. 3596 - CITY OF TIGARD - Annexation
Petitioner: City of Tigard, James & Madeline & Amy Shultz
90th Day: July 25, 1996
Proposal No. 3596 was initiated by a petition of property owners/registered voters and
resolution from the Tigard City Council. The resolution and petitions meet the require-
ments for initiation set forth in ORS 199.490(2)(a) (B), double-majority annexation law. If
the Commission approves the proposal, the boundary change will become effective on the
date of approval subject to the provisions of ORS 199.519.
The territory to be annexed is located generally on the southwest edge of the City, north
of S.W. Bull Mt. Road and east of S.W. 133rd Avenue. The territbry contains 6.15 acres,
1 single family dwelling, a population of 3 and is evaluated at $160,910.
REASON FOR ANNEXATION
The owners wish to develop their property within the City. No application for specific
development has been submitted as yet.
BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICIES
The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies states
that the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban services.
Recognizing that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the districts, the
Commission states in the second policy that the Commission will help find solutions to the
problems. The third policy states that the Commission may approve illogical boundaries in
the short term if these lead to logical service arrangements in the long term.
LAND USE PLANNING
Site Characteristics. The northern parcel (TL 100) is vacant, grass-covered land that
slopes downward from southeast to northwest at approximately a 15% grade. The
southerly parcel (TL 200) contains a single family dwelling and some accessory buildings
and slopes west to east at a 10-15% grade.
To the north is a single family residence and beyond that is a subdivision within the City.
To the east in the City is the Wilmington Heights subdivision under construction. To the
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 1
i
south is vacant land zoned R-7 in the City. On the west side of the proposed annexation
are two lots with single family residences.
Regional PlanninQ. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the
boundary of Metro.
Washington Countv Plannina. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the
following eight elements:
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document
3. Rural Natural Resource Element
4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Plan .
7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and segments pertinent to this
proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's "Roles And
Responsibilities" relative to Urbanization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and
special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to insure that
facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or
agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes identifi-
cation of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of special concern.
The County community plan for this area is the Bull Mountain Community Plan. This
Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-6, Residential 6 Units Per Acre.
This designation permits lower density (detached & attached) residential development with
densities up to 6 units per acre.
The General Design Elements of the Bull Mountain Community Plan include such items as
encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open space, preservation
of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc..
The subject property falls into a subarea on the Community Plan labeled "Summit And
Slopes." The design elements for this subarea relate mostly to development and building
constraints. The Plan map does indicate that the NE corner of TL 100 and the SE corner
of TL 200 are in an "Area Of Special Concern No. 3" but no specific restrictions relating to
this designation are included in the Plan text. The label appears to relate to the fact these
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 2
. ~
• • '
two corners are also designated Significant Natural Areas by virtue of their proximity to ~
two drainage courses.
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail concerning
the R-6 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community Development Code).
Urban Planning Area Aareement. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered
into an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and
Tigard's adopted Comprehensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area"
within which the City assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of
Interest" in which the County agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential
impacts on Tigard. This proposal falts within the "Area Of Interest" as designated in the
UPAA. The following pertinent provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest" portion of
the UPAA:
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition - Area of Interest or Primarv Area of Interest means unincorporated lands
conti9uous to the Active Plannin9 Area in which the CITY does not conduct
comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in
comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of
potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area....
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development
actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the
public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject
to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a
condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create
islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island
annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means
for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which
includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not
contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the
CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 3
- i
• • .
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY
agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations
which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards
of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this
designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and the COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annex-
ation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be
initiated before the one year period is over.
Countv 2000. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv
2000 program. This program essentially lays out a long range Strategic and fiscal plan for
the County. In this document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service
delivery system which distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to
achieve tax fairness and expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The County
policy states that municipal services should be provided either by cities or special districts.
Citv of Tigard Planning. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource
' Document (Volume I) and the Findings, Policies & Implementation StrateQies (Volume 11).
The Tigard Community Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban
Planning Area Agreement should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances remain
applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to be
relevant to this proposal:
Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction
with Washington County and the applicable service districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for
providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to
the extent of the City's financial resources;
d. Use the Capital Improvements Program as a means for providing for
orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to the
level and capacity of the existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about the
property location for public facilities.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 4
• •
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service
capacity including:
1. Public water;
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the
City unless the property involved is over 300 feet from a sewer
line and Washington County Health Department approval for a
private disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the
proposed development; and
2. Designed to City standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to adequate
capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if
developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly
reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped
land within the City of Tigard. The services are:
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
4. streets;
5. police; and
6. fire protection.
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the
applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a non-
remonstrance agreement regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of
the following services that could be provided through such a dis-
trict. The extension or improvement of the following:
a) water;
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 5
~
r
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d) streets.
2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services
or the inclusion of the property into a special district for any of
the above services.
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban
planning area or within the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE '
BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincor-
porated territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it
difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether
the parcel is within or outside the city;
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is '
contiguous to the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in
10.1.11a1.
Policy 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON
COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY
OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS
TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION.
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted
to the City; or
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been
signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that there is
a potential or imminent health hazard.
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 6
• ~
THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING
AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE
' THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities and
standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and
~
e. Drainage.
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters
18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These standards
are: A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex
property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity
to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provi-
sion have been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the
City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's compre-
hensive plan map designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing
area will be based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as either
Established Area (unbuildable or essentially built-out) or Developing Area (buildable). The
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 7
~ •
code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all land at the time of
annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was consistent
with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied because
the West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and
public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels, is
satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water Department and
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District have reviewed the proposal and indicate that
adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate the affected
properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the proposal
will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police Department has been
notified of this request and has no objection; the affected land is located within the
city's urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate
services are available to accommodate the property.
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation proposals, is
satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are
available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been
reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-7 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-6.
d. The determination that the affected properties are a developing area is based
on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land is
satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a developing area and
shall be so designated on the development standard areas map of the comprehensive
plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the annexation
and approved a zoning designation of R-7 to be effective upon annexation.
In 1988 the City of Tigard did a special study of this general area - The Bull
Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study. This study concluded that The City could
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 8
• ~
ultimately supply this area with a full range of urban services in a cost effective manner
and committed the City to doing the infrastructure planning necessary to accomplish this in
the long term.
The City's Community Development Code does contain an extensive section dealing with
' the protection of sensitive lands. Sensitive lands are defined as lands within the 100-
year floodplain, within natural drainageway, within a wetland area, on steep slopes, or on
unstable ground." This chapter kicks in at the time of development. All proposed
developments are reviewed to see if they contain sensitive lands and then the appropriate
sections of this ordinance are applied.
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Sewer. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Wilmington Ct. on the east edge of
the property. this line will provide gravity service to the area to be annexed.
The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the City.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency and the
large cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard,
Tualatin and Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to: 1) comply with the
Agency's construction and maintenance standards for sanitary and storm water sewer
facilities, 2) follow and accomplish the Agency's work program for storm and surface
water, 3) obtain the Agency's consent before issuing construction permits within wet-
lands, floodways and floodplains. The agreement provides that the city owns and is
responsible for sanitary sewer lines under 24 inches in diameter within the City limits and
for storm water facilities within the City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities).
The Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and
out of cities. The Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to
areas outside the City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-
County UPAA) unless the City approves.
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for collecting
sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same connection fees
' and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to U.S.A. to pay for the
costs of treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm water. The City may impose
higher costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the difference to offset City costs.
Monthly sanitary sewer user charges are $14.55 per month plus a consumption charge of
$ 1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City charges are the
same as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for increase on July 1,
1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to construct
district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants. Subsequent to annexation
this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per thousand assessed value, would
remain the same since the City is in the District.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 9
• •
Water. This property can get water service from the 8 inch line in Wilmington Court
adjacent on the east.
The parcel currently lies within the Tigard Water District which contracts with the City for
service.
The territory lies between an elevation of 600 and 300 feet which is in the Bull Mountain
water service level.
The City of Tigard/Tigard Water District water rates begin at a flat rate of $18.62 for 800
cubic feet, charged bi-monthly. Properties outside of the City and District pay an
additional $5.50 bi-monthly charge. Additional water use over 800 cf. is charged
$1.32/100 cf. for territories both within and outside of the City/District boundaries.
The system development charge for property within Bull Mountain area is $1,325, and for
all other areas, it is $1,170.
The City of Tigard purchases the majority of its water supply - approximately 93% - from
the City of Lake Oswego. The remaining water is purchased from the City of Portland, or
comes from the Tigard Water District's back-up wells. The wells are within the Cooper
Mountain/Bull Mountain Critical Ground Water Area designated by the State Water
Resources Department; thus, future utilization of this source will not significantly increase.
Tigard buys surplus water from Lake Oswego. During hot weather (on peak day usage)
Lake Oswego is not capable of fully supplying Tigard. Growth within Lake Oswego now
has reduced the amount of surplus water available to Tigard to about 4 mgd, and the
forecast is for no surplus peak supply by 1997. Negotiations are currently under way
between Tigard and Lake Oswego to remedy this problem. Tigard hopes to obtain a long-
term water supply through a financial and managerial partnership with Lake Oswego.
Regardless of the financial arrangement between Lake Oswego and Tigard, the current
Lake Oswego treatment plant needs to be expanded. There is currently strong opposition
to this expansion within the West Linn neighborhood where the plant is located.
Lake Oswego obtains untreated water from the Clackamas River near Gladstone. Its water
rights permits at that location are for 32.3 mgd, and 5.8 mgd. The State of Oregon's
minimum streamflow requirements could restrict Lake Oswego form using the 5.8 mgd,
but not the 32.3 mgd. The existing intake pumps pump 18.1 mgd, but friction within the
raw water transmission line reduces the amount delivered to the treatment plant to 14.8
mgd. The water is piped across the Willamette River to the City's treatment plant in the
City of West Linn, which has the capacity to treat 16.1 mgd.
There the water is treated by coagulation, settling, filtration and chlorination.
From the treatment plant, the water is sent to the 4.0 MG Waluga Reservoir via a
distribution system fed by high service pumps and transmission lines. From the Waluga
Reservoir, the water flows west via Tigard owned 24-inch and 16-inch transmission lines.
The Waluga reservoir is lower than Tigard's receiving reservoirs, so the water must be
pumped through the transmission lines with pumps that have a capacity of 7.9 mgd. The
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 10
• ~
District purchases 1,511 mg of water a year from Lake Oswego at a rate of $.57 per 100
cubic feet.
The Portland water supply source is the Bull Run Watershed. An estimate of the
watershed's municipal capacity is 200 mgd. The water is treated by screening and
disinfected by chlorination. Tigard receives the Portland water at Bradley Corner (at the
i intersection of Hall Blvd. and SW Greenburg Road) through a 24-inch main connected to
Portland's Burlingame Standpipes. The Portland Water Bureau can provide from 6 to 8 mgd
through a pressure-controlled system of pipelines at Bradley Corner. Portland sells 1 mgd
to the District at a rate of $.85/100 cf.
Tigard owns four deep wells in the Bull Mountain area. However only two are operated.
The wells are typically only used during the peak water use months of July - August.
The Tigard water system has a total storage capacity of 20.95 MG which utilizes
reservoirs ranging in size from .28 mg to 10 mg. The system is divided into two service
"
levels. The ~~410 service level is served by gravity, and the Bull Mountain service Ievel is
served via pumps. . .
The "410" zone generally lies below the elevation of 310 feet. It serves the majority of
the District's customers, and is fed by reservoirs at elevations between 410 feet and 470
feet. The combined storage for these reservoirs is approximately 8.65 MG.
The residential development on Bull Mountain is above an elevation of 310 feet, which is
the approximate upper limit of service for the "410" service level. In order to serve the
Bull Mountain area, water is pumped by the High Tor pumping station to elevated
reservoirs at approximately 710 feet. These reservoirs have a combined storage capacity
of 2.3 MG.
In addition, the Tigard Water District owns a 10 MG terminal reservoir, at an elevation of
470 feet. Through both pumps and pressure-lines, this reservoir serves both the Bull
Mountain, and "410" service areas.
Police. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's 5.7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County Service
District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population which in addition to
the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population means that the current level is
.94 officers per 1000 population.
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police protection to
the territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per thousand population.
Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
Fire. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will
not affect this service because the City is in the District.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 11
~ •
Transportation. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road
Maintenance District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from
the District and the District's levy of $.2886 per $1000 assessed value will no longer
apply to the property.
Vector Control. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector
Control District. Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be
automatically withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control District.
Street Lights. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street
lights. The District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street
lighting services. The District uses local improvement districts to finance the service.
Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State shared
gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
Parks and Librarv. Tigard operates a park system funded through its. tax base which
finances the general fund. Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided by
cities, including Tigard.
' The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of $0.3788
(fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The revenues from this levy
are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on circulation. City residents pay,
through their City taxes, an additional amount to support their libraries.
Storm Drainaqe. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm
drainage services of $36 per dwelling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the study and the proposed Findings and Reasons for Decisions found in Exhibit
A, the staff recommends that Proposal No. 3596 be approved.
Proposal No. 3595 - Page 12
3596
■
SAL
~
~ ~ ♦
e
y 5~ ~ s e
r~f201 + = • ~tA~t
~R~~'t ~ .
v p..
y tw t+•ac t'd it, ti .
y'/' ^
•w 1 - ~quy~' u " J e~~.t~~ : b~ ~ _ e,.~ i _ ~b'« ' ~
O A11
~ti~Ct ~~h~ L't~"l• MIr{t 11 ~u.~5 . ~ ~'v_,~- ~~'S ~ L ' -
t `J y ' ~ ~ p~ti
Ct,
,r'+- ! ~ ~ n..nt• r 1`? ' ~
~.nn
. =.u`' ' ~ _ ~ c.w.w.• n `•'~f `~qa
. Y ~ _ w~ . U• p
% ~ a~.' _ 4
st.
n '
•IOw S1. ~ ~ i + ~ I` ' q
,-TIGARp,
. •
U~ •.Iw%~ ^i.
'I r lf ~v t r i.~ • t.
~ Y
, ` ~ ~ • ~i~IAVIL~ l~. _ • $ i
`P /3 r ~ ~ - ' : r~u • i 4.•0[~~~•!!~{{{ ~ yt. 4 :
. PO:L 1` ~CL \SY r, ~ ~f l~l lM. ♦~A
f_I, `1 N 1~• ~ ~ f
J
=,~aa.. ~ 1 ,t ~ ~
,u,. 1 ~ ~ ~
'a~.~ ao cr, r
~a' °a' ~ ~w~~~,
11 S ~YY• f] ~ n
I.y"'"Oac'
1 t t
gUI.L: , ~ • *
eUi ~ _ ' t!/ 4 4
h~ 5
2~.» 4
V'~ P.O.
aE
pFIEA`TO ~ cING C1TY ~.~,'L~ , p_ f~
j • :.>r~ ~
~ N~ ED Poo.2015
' • ~ )r ` _ .
~ ~rr~
~ \ ' ..~.c~ca•~ J~
; ~6ti ~~ec■1 ~ ,,n„
3
qRE.A SHOwN
•.j~'" 3~ ~ ~ ~ i ABOVE
i \ • ' .
~ • ~ ~~r' ~ I'
' PROPOSAL 3596
NO° I
CITY OF TIGARD
gION
FIGUR
1
;
PROPO§AL NO. 3596
NW 1/4 NE1 /4 SECTION 9 T2S R1 W W.M. 2S 1 9AB
Washington County ~
Scale: 1 250' '
;
~
SfE MA A
z: i o r"~•• m~
:;:~i 1 [•;:r;::
SOO AOp i:'•ib0..:?:;:% . .
+~IK I~fK I fLOK +ti JLV~C
I
lA/Cl ' ~
. ~ i (fy nyyl l ~
ny ~~Qa l
I
.a SO00 Z~ y 7200 :`i,`c '
2600 2700 ~a Z~
19 20 2f 22 + y sm
u JJC I e- `~atl -7 :::Z}`:
cou
MOUNTAIN RIDGE A R E A
~•Jw 5, i /.IiK l./JC
Rt7 `TO BE
~ :~a ' i ,
'3~
x NEXED
A
N
.
n
23 ~4 ; .euo sioo ~ Q = 36C9- ~ ~ . . ,
rti. G~ z9
a 41 rti • ~ = .
N►V ' L~ q ` ~
,
9B~ ` L~3_ i 8
5200 ~ ]700
.
a
i
0
u- ~
J0. E' ' c~i
. 4 ~ E! ~ j
S PLPq EW
2700 ~ b • % e ~ ~ 900 I 1200
,e,1 S LPINE4
~ 39 ~'1 ~a~ .
!oO I
•O3900 rPf IG ~ .
.2 iGSio.iofl I I ~ .
2300K 79 a• ~000 R Iq ~ y~l .
.°ao Qo~~ TI G A R D Yi 130
7T ~ sl I I
s ~o -.aoo' s I - ~1
• F 34 ~ 9 ~ tnna~i ~
- Z,~-. w
zcao 23_-74 ,
i
y \ ~ e ~ 1900 ~ 1T009t
. xo. ` loco I800~P~ 1B00 1t00 1 aan /.y~C. sm~C qqq
• 1 .IfIG AO)~[ I y~
~ • ~100 ~
~ ;
x ~
.z ry Sl00 y~
~ ~r y~ fo 2 y~
1Lw !
IsOfi" r~~ jQ~jV y~[ / •..r •
~e W ?66 ~ F011 ASSFSSw WAPOSES
~ . p0 fqf R ON IOR ANT y
lfstt.w~1 f~ tii US! ±
5
M :ae MAv Rp4~ , ~ ~ r
?S 1 94 .
PROPOSAL NOo 3596
CITY OF TIGARO
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2 •
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
FINDINGS
Based on the study and the public hearing the Commission found:
1. The territory to be annexed is located generally on the southwest edge of the City,
north of S.W. Bull Mt. Road and east of S.W. 133rd Avenue. The territory con-
tains 6.15 acres, 1 single family dwelling, a population of 3 and is evaluated at
$160,910.
2. The owners wish to develop their property within the City. No application for
specific development has been submitted as yet.
3. The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The •first of these policies
states that the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban
services. Recognizing that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the
districts, the Commission states in the second policy that the Commission will help
find solutions to the problems. The third policy states that the Commission may
approve illogical boundaries in the short term if these lead to logical service
arrangements in the long term.
4. The northern parcel (TL 100) is vacant, grass-covered land that slopes downward
from southeast to northwest at approximately a 15% grade. The southerly parcel
(TL 200) contains a single family dwelling and some accessory buildings and slopes
west to east at a 10-15% grade.
To the north is a single family residence and beyond that is a subdivision within the
City. To the east in the City is the Wilmington Heights subdivision under
construction. To the south is vacant land zoned R-7 in the City. On the west side
of the proposed annexation are two lots with single family residences.
5. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of
Metro.
6. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan consists of the following eight
elements:
1. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
2. County Resource Document
3. Rural Natural Resource Element
, 4. Community Plans and Background Documents
5. Community Development Code
6. Transportation Plan
Findings - Page 1 of 14
• • .
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
7. Unified Capital Improvements
8. Urban Planning Area Agreements
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and segments pertinent
to this proposal are covered below.
Policy 15 of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan states the County's
"Roles And Responsibilities" relative to Urbanization:
It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities
' and special districts, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, to
insure that facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by
the agency or agencies best able to,do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
The County Community Plan consists of a plan map and plan text which includes
identification of general design elements, specific design elements and areas of
special concern.
The County community plan for this area is the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
This Community Plan identifies the territory to be annexed as R-6, Residential 6
Units Per Acre. This designation permits lower density (detached & attached)
residential development with densities up to 6 units per acre.
The General Design Elements of the Bull Mountain Community Plan include such
items as encouragement of the protection of significant trees, retention of open
space, preservation of older sound housing stock where feasible, etc..
The subject property falls into a subarea on the Community Plan labeled "Summit
And Slopes." The design elements for this subarea relate mostly to development
and building constraints. The Plan map does indicate that the NE corner of TL 100
and the SE corner of TL 200 are in an "Area Of Special Concern No. 3" but no
specific restrictions relating to this designation are included in the Plan text. The
label appears to relate to the fact these two corners are also designated Significant
Natural Areas by virtue of their proximity to two drainage courses.
The Washington County Community Development Code includes specific detail
concerning the R-6 designation (Sec. 304, Washington County Community
Development Code).
7. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning
Area Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and Tigard's adopted
Comprehensive Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" within which
the City assumes responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in
Findings - Page 2 of 14
. • ~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
~
which the County agrees to coordinate its planning because of the potential impacts
on Tigard. This proposal falls within the "Area Of Interest" as designated in the
UPAA. The following pertinent provisions are from Section B, "Area of Interest"
portion of the UPAA:
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Area of Interest or Primarv Area of Interest means unincorporated lands
contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not
conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an
interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the
COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. .
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and develop-
ment actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment
of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Inter-
est.
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest
subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest
as a condition to the provision of urban services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create
islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island
annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative
means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning
Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of
Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its
rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property
owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the
CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan
designations which most closely approximate the density, use provi-
sions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the
CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the
effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY
Findings - Page 3 of 14
~ ~ .
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY
designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated before
the one year period is over.
8. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its Countv 2000
program. This program essentially lays out a long range strategic and fiscal plan for
the County. In this document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service
delivery system which distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to
achieve tax fairness and expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The
County policy states that municipal services should be provided either by cities or
special districts.
9. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan consists of the Resource Document (Volume I) and
the Findinqs, Policies & Implementation Strategies (Volume.ll). The Tigard
Community Development Code and the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning
Area Agreement should also be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Tigard has a"city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances
remain applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is
effective.
The following policies from Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan appear to
be relevant to this proposal:
Policy 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in
conjunction with Washington County and the applicable service
districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system
for providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan to the extent of the City's financial resources;
d. Use the Capital Improvements Program as a means for providing
for orderly growth and the efficient use of land;
e. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to
the level and capacity of the existing services; and
Findings - Page 4 of 14
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about
the property location for public facilities.
POLICY 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT:
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service
capacity including:
1. Public water;
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within
the City unless the property involved is over 300 feet from
a sewer line and Washington County Health Department
approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The Facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties
and the proposed development; and
2. Designed to City standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. The city shall review each of the following services as to
adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to
serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed,
and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to
developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The
services are:
1. water;
2. sewer;
3. drainage;
4. streets;
5. police; and
6. fire protection.
Findings - Page 5 of 14
• • .
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements program
ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with Washington
County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following:
1. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for
any of the following services that could be provided
through such a district. The extension or improvement of
the following:
a) water;
b) sewer;
c) drainage; and
d) streets.
2. The formation of a special district.for any of the above
services or the inclusion of the property into a special
district for any of the above services.
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard
urban planning area or within the urban growih boundary upon
annexation.
Policy 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE
BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of
unincorporated territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes
it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine
whether the parcel is within or outside the city;
c. The police department has commented upon the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in
10.1.1(a).
Policy.10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A
WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD
SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION
WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING
DESIGNATION.
Findings - Page 6 of 14
• •
Exhibit A
Proposai No. 3596
Policy 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. Where applications for annexation for those properties have been
submitted to the City; or
b. Where a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has
been signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to
the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health agency has declared that
there is a potential or imminent health hazard.
Policy 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW
FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS
BUT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S
UR3AN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY).
THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties to urban densities
and standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surrounding properties.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH
IN THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCES:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site;
d. Street alignment; and
e. Drainage.
The pertinent Tigard Community Development Code sections appear to be Chapters
18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
Chapter 18.136 contains approval standards for the City Council when reviewing a
proposed annexation prior to submission to the Boundary Commission. These
standards are:
Findings - Page 7 of 14
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex
property to the City shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity
to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provi-
sion have been satisfied.
B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the
City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's compre-
hensive plan map designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a developing
area will be based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138.
Chapter 138 provides standards for classifying all lands annexed to the City as
either Established Area (unbuildable or essentially built-out) or Developing Area
(buildable). The code requires that one of these two designations be applied to all
land at the time of annexation.
The City staff reviewed it's policies and codes and concluded the proposal was
consistent with them. Their conclusions are included below:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program is satisfied
because the West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of
the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water
Department and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District have reviewed the
proposal and indicate that adequate services are available and may be
extended to accommodate the affected properties.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the
affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
x ► •
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
Findings - Page 8 of 14
• ~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been
reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium Density
Residential/R-7 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-
6.
d. The determination that the affected properties are a developing area is
based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a
developing area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
The City conducted a zone change proceeding concurrent with reviewing the
annexation and approved a zoning designation of R-7 to be effective upon
annexation.
In 1988 the City of Tigard did a special study of this general area - The Bull
Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study. This study concluded that The City
, could ultimately supply this area with a full range of urban services in a cost
effective manner and committed the City to doing the infrastructure planning
necessary to accomplish this in the long term.
The City's Community Development Code does contain an extensive section dealing
with the protection of sensitive lands. Sensitive lands are defined as lands
within the 100-year floodplain, within natural drainageway, within a wetland area,
on steep slopes, or on unstable ground." This chapter kicks in at the time of
development. All proposed developments are reviewed to see if they contain
sensitive lands and then the appropriate sections of this ordinance are applied.
10. There is an 8-inch City sewer located in SW Wilmington Ct. on the east edge of the
property. this line will provide gravity service to the area to be annexed.
The territory is within the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County as is the
City. The Unified Sewerage Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency
and the large cities within the Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove,
Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood). In that agreement the Cities agree to:
1) comply with the Agency's construction and maintenance standards for sanitary
and storm water sewer facilities, 2) follow and accomplish the Agency's work
Findings - Page 9 of 14
• •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
program for storm and surface water, 3) obtain the Agency's consent before issuing
construction permits within wetlands, floodways and floodplains. The agreement
provides that the city owns and is responsible for sanitary sewer lines under 24
inches in diameter within the City limits and for storm water facilities within the
City limits as identified on a map (virtually all facilities). The Unified Sewerage
Agency is responsible for all industrial waste discharges, both in and out of cities.
The Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to extend sanitary sewer service to areas
outside the City within the City's Urban Planning Area (as identified in the City-
County UPAA) unless the City approves. ,
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for '
collecting sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same
connection fees and user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to
U.S.A. to pay for the costs of treatment and transmission o# the sewage or storm
water. The City may impose higher costs than U.S.A. charges and keep the
difference to offset City costs. '
Monthly sanitary sewer user charges are $14.55 per month plus a consumption
charge of $1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water used by the customer. These City
charges are the same as those charged by U.S.A. (these charges are proposed for
increase on July 1, 1996).
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to
construct district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants.
Subsequent to annexation this tax, which for the 1995-96 tax year is $.0927 per
thousand assessed value, would remain the same since the City is in the District.
11. This property can get water service from the 8 inch line in Wilmington Court
adjacent on the east.
The parcel currently lies within the Tigard Water District which contracts with the City for service.
The territory lies between an elevation of 600 and 300 feet which is in the Bull
Mountain water service level.
The City of Tigard/Tigard Water District water rates begin at a flat rate of $18.62
for 800 cubic feet, charged bi-monthly. Properties outside of the City and District
pay an additional $5.50 bi-monthly charge. Additional water use over 800 cf. is
charged $1.32/100 cf. for territories both within and outside of the City/District
boundaries. .
Findings - Page 10 of 14
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
The system development charge for property within Bull Mountain area is $1,325,
and for all other areas, it is 81,170.
The City of Tigard purchases the majority of its water supply - approximately 93% -
from the City of Lake Oswego. The remaining water is purchased from the City of
Portland, or comes from the Tigard Water District's back-up wells. The wells are
within the Cooper Mountain/Bull Mountain Critical Ground Water Area designated
by the State Water Resources Department; thus, future utilization of this source will
not significantly increase.
Tigard buys surplus water from Lake Oswego. During hot weather (on peak day
usage) Lake Oswego is not capable of fully supplying Tigard. Growth within Lake
Oswego now has reduced the amount of surplus water available to Tigard to about
4 mgd, and the forecast is for no surplus peak supply by 1997. Negotiations are
currently under way between Tigard and Lake Oswego to remedy this problem.
Tigard hopes to obtain a long-term water supply through a financial and managerial
partnership with Lake Oswego. Regardless of the financial arrangement between
Lake Oswego and Tigard, the current Lake Oswego treatment plant needs to be
expanded. There is currently strong opposition to this expansion within the West
Linn neighborhood where the plant is located.
Lake Oswego obtains untreated water from the Clackamas River near Gladstone.
Its water rights permits at that location are for 32.3 mgd, and 5.8 mgd. The State
of Oregon's minimum streamflow requirements could restrict Lake Oswego form
, using the 5.8 mgd, but not the 32.3 mgd. The existing intake pumps pump 18.1
mgd, but friction within the raw water transmission line reduces the amount
delivered to the treatment plant to 14.8 mgd. The water is piped across the
Willamette River to the City's treatment plant in the City of West Linn, which has
the capacity to treat 16.1 mgd.
There the water is treated by coagulation, settling, filtration and chlorination. From
the treatment plant, the water is sent to the 4.0 MG Waluga Reservoir via a
distribution system fed by high service pumps and transmission lines. From the
Waluga Reservoir, the water flows west via Tigard owned 24-inch and 16-inch
transmission lines. The Waluga reservoir is lower than Tigard's receiving reservoirs,
so the water must be pumped through the transmission lines with pumps that have
a capacity of 7.9 mgd. The District purchases 1,511 mg of water a year from Lake
Oswego at a rate of $.57 per 100 cubic feet.
The Portland water supply source is the Bull Run Watershed. An estimate of the
watershed's municipal capacity is 200 mgd. The water is treated by screening and
disinfected by chlorination. Tigard receives the Portland water at Bradley Corner (at
the intersection of Hall Blvd. and SW Greenburg Road) through a 24-inch main
Findings - Page 11 of 14
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
connected to Portland's Burlingame Standpipes. The Portland Water Bureau can
provide from 6 to 8 mgd through a pressure-controlled system of pipelines at
Bradley Corner. Portland sells 1 mgd to the District at a rate of $.85/100 cf.
Tigard owns four deep wells in the Bull Mountain area. However only two are
operated. The wells are typically only used during the peak water use months of
July - August.
The Tigard water system has a total storage capacity of 20.95 MG which utilizes
reservoirs ranging in size from .28 mg to 10 mg. The system is divided into two
service levels. The "410" service level is served by gravity, and the Bull Mountain
service level is served via pumps.
The "410" zone generally lies below the elevation of 310 feet: It serves the
majority of the District's customers, and is fed by reservoirs at elevations between
410 feet and 470 feet. The combined storage for these reservoirs is approximately
8.65 MG.
The residential development on Bull Mountain is above an elevation of 310 feet,
which is the approximate upper limit of service for the "410" service level. In
order to serve the Bull Mountain area, water is pumped by the High Tor pumping
station to elevated reservoirs at approximately 710 feet. These reservoirs have a
combined storage capacity of 2.3 MG.
In addition, the Tigard Water District owns a 10 MG terminal reservoir, at an
elevation of 470 feet. Through both pumps and pressure-lines, this reservoir serves
both the Bull Mountain, and "410" service areas.
12. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .7481 per
thousand property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County
Service District provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population
which in addition to the general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population
means that the current level is .94 officers per 1000 population.
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police
protection to the territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per
thousand population. Emergency response in Tigard is under five minutes.
13. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will
not affect this service because the City is in the District.
Findings - Page 12 of 14
~ •
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
14. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road
Maintenance District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically
withdrawn from the District and the District's levy of $.2886 per $1000 assessed
value will no longer apply to the property.
15. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector Control
District. Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be
automatically withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control
District.
16. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street lights.
The District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street
lighting services. The District uses local improvement districts to finance the
service. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the
District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State
~ shared gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source.
17. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which finances the
general fund. Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided
by cities, including Tigard.
, The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of
$0.3788 (fiscal year 1995-96) on all properties in Washington County. The
revenues from this levy are allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on
circulation. City residents pay, through their City taxes, an additional amount to
support their libraries.
18. The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm drainage
services of $36 per dwetling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
Findings - Page 13 of 14
•
~
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3596
REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the Findings the Commission determined:
1. The proposal is consistent with local comprehensive planning when that planning is
taken as a whole. The Urban Planning Area Agreement prohibits the City from
requiring annexations to get urban services but City Plan Policy 10.2.1 says the City
will not extend sewer service without a commitment to annexation. None-the-less
other sections of the UPAA specifically provide for the City's right to pursue
annexations and the rights of property owners to seek annexation (UPAA (A) (4)
(c)). The City's Plan further anticipates annexations and sets criteria by which the
City is to judge the appropriateness of the timing of such proposals (City Plan Policy
10.1.2). City Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1 and 10.2.3 clearly
anticipate that property owners desiring additional leveis of services will annex to
the City to receive those services.
The Boundary Commission believes that these policies when read together provide
for annexation and are not discouraging of annexation to the City. The Commission
, arrives at this conclusion based on the above and as allowed under OAR 193-01-
005 (14)(b)(6).
~
2. An ade uate ualit and uantit of services will be available to the area followin
q q Y q Y 9
annexation to the City.
3. The proposal is consistent with the Boundary Commission Policy On Incorporated
Status (OAR 193-05-005) and its Policy On Long Term/Long /Range Governmental
Structure (OAR 193-05-015).
Findings - Page 14 of 14
CLACKAMAS
MIJLTNOMAH • • O ~ J^~ I' ` ~
WASHINGTON
'1' A 1 METROPOLITAN ' 1 A GOVERNMENT B1 1A' 1 1
800 NE OREGON STREET # 16 (SUITE 540) PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 PHONE: (503) 731-4093 FAX: (503) 731•8378
May 6, 1996
Ray Valone
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall
Tigard OR 97223
Ref.• 3594,
I Dear Ray:
I
The Boundary Commission Statute, ORS 199.410 to 199.534 authorizes posting
of Public Hearing Notices within the area(s) to be annexed .
~ In order to meet the requirements of ORS 199.463, they need to be posted by
May 16. 1996
Therefore, we would appreciate your cooperation in posting 3 copies of the
enclosed NOTICE OF HEARING and map. They should be posted in conspicuous
places within and/or immediately adjacent to the involved area(s) and they
should be placed in a manner reasonably calculated to be observed by the public.
(The additional copy of the hearing notice is for your records.)
Also would you please send us an "AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING."
Thank you.
Kenneth S. Martin
Executive Officer
KSM/Imr
Enclosures
STAFF COMMISSIONERS
KENNETH S. MARTIN, Executive OHicer FiAY BARTEL, Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAN
DENIECE WON, Executive Assistant TOM WHITTAKER, Vice-Chair SY KORNBRODT
LANA RULIEN, Administrative Assistant BOB BOUNEFF STEVE STOLZE
NATHALIE DAACY
, ~ ~ •
PROPCISAL ■ 3596
NW 1/4 NE1 /4 SECTION 9 T2S R1 W W.M. 2S 1 9A6
Washington County
Scale: 1 " = 250'
s!e wa A
tf i a
~n:~.. • .
":''ieo:``.::~'~:...... .
eoo 400
s
= nrAtr 'i I cx•;•';
° a cn n"u
"O~fw JIKf'
~Q ~ •
730o
2800 2700 00 Zsoo
' (Cil].A01 } i: •
d iy a 20 21 22 ~ ea0 1 S:;•r
.)]Y 1 b ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ •iii~~
: ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ :ii~!!~ ii:~ ~ .r• Y~'~ ~{1':.
7200 ~ Ta0 •:::i:: :n
tl~ MOUNTAIN RIOGE C
sw
~..,AREA TO BE
~Z
:aa
ANNEXED
~
.soo e100 ~4 a i=sao-.
23 74 Z,
~ Q
3e00
se~ ' 23-7C7
l200 : 3700 .•ri\:ta,•:i:.•;.,•;;;.?}`.i`;~;:;};y"
1
s
5 , . .
W. e > - .:::;:::ia~;:;:;:`•>:^;:.:`.y??;,?:;,::~:::s;a:::<::`;:>:?:;:i;~;:;:::;:'::;::.
3- I
.
ZSCO ~ ! ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ 900 a I 1200
, ~ s600t'~ ~g`n . f•' S IPINEIy I v~ xii.e .st.c
~ 79 1 • VI~VE
v . eoo I
3900 !L!K ~
2 ' 7 500 '~a1 1r1 ]2 IC3 io.iell I ~
zwo !s 3e a 4000
:aa S- ~ _ _ - :u= ~ TIGARD
~so,
"
36 ~ ~ ,~~.r„ ~
. 3, = $ ~ ~
Z
: :ooo 74
°R~~
l . t90G
~ 2 IOQO
I •y, ~ IB00~ I ' 18C0 1~00 0~ I.MK. mo
~ '1 3 .«.c ao,a. i yr
fn '100 F = .
D • i '
~ 3 .
M1
r
= Y
' ~0~Hj
- .pK '1' .1 ~ •
l~
f0R ASSfSSM vuNV05lS
> 3r
Q oo ror a aN raR .nY
tu n.wn ~ ' I ew us~
m ,Q i •
~ s6e u.n OQO i L
~ uisA I
PROPOSAL NOo 3596
I . CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2
CLACKAMAS •
MULINOMAH •
WASHINGI'ON
P,09.TLAND AREA: LOCAL. -GOVE''R'N'MtNT 4I IA' 1 1
' 800 NE OREGON STREET N 16 (SUITE 540) POfiTLAND, OREGON 97232 PHON[: 731•4093
PUBLIIC
J()TICE
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AT 7:00 PM ON THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1996, IN ROOM
602 MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 1021 SW 4TH AVE., PORTLAND, OREGON,
THERE SHALL BE A PUBLIC HEARING BY AND BEFORE THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN
' AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION ON PROPOSALS, INCLUDING
THE ONE LISTED BELOW. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND WILL BE GIVEN
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
PROPOSAL NO. 3596 - ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD of territory located
generally on W edge of City on W edge of SW Wilmington Ln., N of SW Buil Mt. Rd., more
particularly: TL's 100 & 200 in NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec. 9, T2S R1 W, W.M., Wash. Co. Co.,
OR.
GENERAL INFORMATION, MAPS AND AN AGENDA MAY BE OBTAINED BY CALLING
, 731-4093.
MAY 1, 1996 RAY BARTEL, CHAIRMAN •
STAFF COMMISSION[RS
ICENNETH S. MARTIN, Execulive OIIIcer RAY DARTEL, Chalr MAFIILYNN IIELZEFiMAN
DENIECE WON, Execulive Asslslanl TOM WHITTAKER, Vice-Chair SY KORNBf10DT
LANA RUUEN, AdminlstraUve Asslslanl BOB BOUNEFF S'TEVE Sl'OLZE i
NATHALIE DARCY
" . ~ 0JAgenda Item No. 3 ~
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of
.
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996
•STUDY SESSION
> tileeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Executive Session: The Tigard Ciry Council went into Executive Session at 6:30
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), &(h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Nfoore, Paul Hunc, Bob
. Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. .
> Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the Ciry Adminiscrator Liz
Newton; Ciry Recorder Catherine Wheadey; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services; Jim
Hendryx, Commutiry Development Director; Gary Alfson, Consultant; Wayne
Lowry, Finance Director; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Terry Niahr, Ciry Attorney,
Pro Tem; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, and
Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director.
> A;enda Review
Ciry Administrator Monahan reported that Legal Counsel Jim Coleman would step
down from the Albertson's remand hearing to preserve the record against the
possibiliry of a conflict of interest. Terry Mahr, the Ciry Attorney for the Ciry of
Newbera
would fill in for him. .
Mr. vionahan suggested that ihe Council either consider agenda items 13 and 14
prior to agenda item 12 (Albertson's hearing) or continue those items to another
meeting. This would allow the Council to dismiss Mr. Coleman for the evenin~
once item 12 was reached. `
ivIr. vlahr noted that one issue of concern on the remand hearing was the possibility
that the participants would submit a lot of new documents into the record. He said
that if that was the case, the Ciry might wanc to take the position tha[ chey would no[
accept new documencs into the record until staff had a chance to review those
documents and make sure that they only addressed the remand issues.
ivIr. INIahr stated that he has spoken with [he applicant about the statutory provisions
allowing him seven days to rebut.
NIayor Nicoli asked if the applicant's aaorney would write the findinas, should the
Council make a posicive decision. Mr. .'vfahr said that the applicant's attorney has
already written the findinas which were contained in E:chibit A. ti1r. ylonahan said
that if other findings ~vere needed because of new evidence, staff would send chem
out to the applicant's attorney.
CITY COUVCIL NIEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 1
. • • ,
•
Mayor Nicoli asked if he could assign time limits to che testimony. Mr. Monahan
said yes.
Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to "appeal" on the appeal. Mr. Mahr
said that passing an ordinance was an appealable decision to LUBA, the Court of
Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. He commented that the applicant has told
him that he espected the decision to be appealed.
Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Nlahr if he saw anything in the findings that looked
out of the ordinary. Mr. Mahr said that he thought everything looked ;ood.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the revised langua;e on Item 3.6 on the Consent Agenda,
(the resolution on the waiver of processing land use applicaaons).
Mr. Hendryx pointed out thac staff sent notices to every properry owner in the
Triangle informing them that this issue was on the agenda tonight. Nadine Smith
received about six calls from people interested in what was going on.
Planning Commission applications were distributed to Council. Mr. Monahan asked
chat Council comment to staff by May 2 to allow Niayor Nicoli and Councilor Rohlf
time to review them before the May 20 interviews.
Mr. Monahan reviewed additional agenda changes, The Mayor of Durham
requested that Item 6 be withdrawn from consideration. He explained (on the
Willamette River option) that the City of Tualatin wanted to be included on the next
level of that study at a cost of $15,000 to each of the now seven participancs; it
would cost Tigard approximately $2000 more with the funds coming out of the water
budget. He said that they needed to sign a memo of understanding to continue the
process.
~vlr. Hendrys reported that there was a letter for the Mayor to sign supporting the
recommendations of the Committee re;arding folding the Boundary Commission into
Metro's process and streamlining the process. He said that one concern staff had
was that a lot of the procedural detail and criceria for approving has not been worked
out yer Ti;ard wanted to remain involved in that process.
Councilor Hunt asked if this was QivinQ more power to Nfetro. Nfavor Nicoli
commented tha[ chis cut back the entire process. Mr. Hendryx said that he thouQht
this gave more control at the local level. ~
Mavor Nicoli asked if thev could still refine the RFP criteria for the studv at Cook
Park even if they passed that item this evenina. NIr. Monahan said yes. ivIr.
Hendryx asked the Council to ;ive staff direction to approve the request subject to
input from the other aQencies.
CITY COUNCIL 'v1EETING ti1INliTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 2
. •
•
1. BUSIlYESS iNIEETPIG
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
~
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Schecl:la. Paul
Hunt and Brian Nioore.
Staff present: Ciry Administrator Bill Monahan; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner;
Catherine Wheadey, Ciry Recorder; Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director; Liz
Newton, Asst to Ciry Administrator; and, Jim Hendryr, Communiry Development
Director.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Administrator Monahan noted the following adjustments to the agenda: pulling
item 3.9 from the consent agenda for further discussion and withdrawing item 6 ae
the request of the Ciry of Durham.
2. VISTTOR'S AGEYDA
> iNIichael iNIills, Construction Inspector, President of OPEU Local 199, strongly
recommended that the Council approve the new OPEU contract. He stated that the Union
members have already ratified the tentative agreement. He said that they understood that
che- Council has reviewed that a;reement and would approve everything except the return
.
of the 6% retirement contribution. He said that it was their understanding that the Council
believed that the 6% could only be set aside if Measure 8 were found to be invalid; however
Council needed to understand that the Union members believed that they had a contractual
riQht to the pension benefit.
'Mr. Mills staced that they felt that their contract wich the Ciry has been violated and that che
Council was crying to bypass the barQainin; process. He said thac the Union has tiled a
Qrievance over the City's taking of this benetit and was ready to go to arbitration co sectle
the issue. He said that if they could settle [his without arbitra[ion chey could save the Ciry
approximacely $8,000.(the average cost of arbicration).
Mr. i'vfills said chat this was seriously affecting the morale of the employees. Though the
Council needed to consider the will of the citizens of Ti;ard, they also needed to consider
the City employees. He contended that the cicizens didn't vote on Measure 8 knowing chat
ic would mean a reduction in City employee benefits. He stated that the citizens have
approved numerous bond measures based on the performance of Ciry employees. He said
that the Tigard city employees have complied with the provisions of IN'Ieasure 3 in
concributinQ at least 6`7 towards their own retiremen[.
CITY COUNCIL vIEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 3
I
. . • .
•
Mr. Mills said that the City Administrator presented alternative methods of implementation
to the Council last December. He said that both the attorney hired by che City to negotiate
this contract and the Ciry's bargaining team have recommended racification of this
agreement. He said that the agreement was a complete package achieved by both sides
working to find a balance between the needs of the City and the Union; this agreement was
meant to resolve all the remaining issues. He said that removing an important aspect would
have an opposite effect somewhere else in the agreement. He asked that the Council
support the Tigard public employees and approve the new contract tonight.
> Dick Skowden, 6105 SW 148th, Beaverton, spoke on the issue of growth and the area's
abiliry to accommodate the ;rowth comfortably within the UGB. He stated chat it was
important to hold the line on the UGB. He pointed out the dramatic population growth in
the area over the last year and stated that it was imponant to work as quickly as possible
to accommodate the growth and stay ahead of it. He said that it was important that
Washington County and Nietro provide staffing to help che local ;overnments take quick
action in a fair way in order to make proper land use decisions.
> Bonnie iNIulhearn addressed the issue of the OPEU contract. She asked if the Council
thought that their representaaves had done a poor job during the negotiations. She
. contended that the Council was violating the existing Union contract and keeping money that
rightfully belonged to the Union employees. She said that the Council should vote on
whether or not they agreed with the tentative agreement in open session.
3. CONSEiNT AGEiNDA
Mr. Nlonahan asked to pull Items 3.6, 3.3 and 3.9 from the consent a;enda.
ytotion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Conseaat
A;enda Items 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7. Modon was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Counciiors
Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
3.1 Approve Ciry Council Minutes: March 19, 1996
3.2 Receive and File:
April 12, 1996 Memorandum from Human Resources Director to Mayor & Council
reaarding the Employee Recoanition Program
3.3 TerminaEe Waterline Easement within the Proposed Hillshire Creek Estates
Subdivision
3.4 EstinQuish Sewer Easement for Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision - Resolution No.
96-??
3.5 Support Unified SeweraQe AQency's (USA) Request for ~fetro Greenspaces Funds
to Help Them Purchase the Thomas Dairy Property - Resolution No. 96-23
3.6 `Vaive ProcessinQ Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Properties Under Scudy as Parc of the Transportation update Wi[hin the Tigard
Trianale - Resolution No. 96-24
3.7 Enter into a Personal Services Concract with Spencer & Kupper to Compiete the
Scope of Work for the TiQard Transporcation lipdate
3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budaet for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a P;an
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park
CITY COUNCIL v1EETING MINL?TES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 4
- • ~
3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion
> 3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Propercies Under Study as Parc of the Transportation update Wiehin the Tbgard
Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24
Nir. Monahan explained the revised tanwage to the resolution as recommended by
the Ciry Attorney to clarify the City's position: the Ciry would noe accept
applications at all as opposed to accepcing applications and not process,Eng ¢kiean.
Mr. Hendryx reported that Nadine Smith received some phone calls in respoase to
the notification sent out to the property owners in the Triangle.
iNiotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to aQ~~ove Con.seun¢
Agenda Item 3.6 as modified. .
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (IiRayoe Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
> 3.3 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a Plan
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park
LIr. Nionahan stated that this RFP drafted by staff has been sent to their potendal
partners (tISA and various Tigard sports groups) for comment and review; staff
' wished to insure that the RFP included the necessary detail to meet all the partners'
needs.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to appa°~~~ ~omeng
Agenda Item 3.3 with future amendments.
Niocion was approved by unanimous voce of the Council present. (NYayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla vocing "yes.
> 3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEL) Conrract
?%4fr. tilonahan recommended that the Council pull this item from discussion toniQhc
because there wasn't a contract to sian, unless the Council decided to agree eo the
' added grovision sueeested by the Union on top of the issues that the City's
-
barQaininQ team recommended.
iviavor Nicoli asked if there was a motion to move forward on chis item. There was
none.
tilr. Mills protested. He stated that there was a tentative agreement (ratified by the
linion) before the Council toniaht. He said chat the baraaining team has
recommended that the Council ratify the tenEative aQreemenE because the ceam aareed
co the 2round rule that when a tentative asreemenc was reached they would brina it
to the Council for ratification. He contended tha[ the sioninQ of the contract was not
until much later in the process.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING TMIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - P.aGE 5
•
_ i
Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had no problem going back into negotiations
with the staff. He noted that there were other options under State law that the Union
could take if it so desired but that the Council would not move forward on this item
tonight.
4. TUALATIN VALLEY ECONONIIC DEVELOPNEN'T CORPURATION iJPDATE
Mary Tobias, TVEDC, referred to the packet mailed out earlier to the Council. She
reviewed the latest issue of Doing Business in Washington County, commenting that it has
been very well received. She pointed out the healthy ;rowth in Washington County over
the past six to eight months. She reported that they have seen a 10 % increase since last
year in the number of requests for the demographics and economics services provided by
TVEDC, the majoriry of which came from within the Portland Metro area - businesses looking at expansion or relocation. She noted chat the major employers list, while not
complete, was a good representation of employers in the counry.
Ms. Tobias reported that the Board of Directors was in the process of approving an
ambitious 1996/97 work plan that built on last year's work plan. She said that the Housing
3c Transportation committee was investigating the housing and land use issues in the 2040
study. She said that the Transportation committee was finding much in che regional
transportation policy with which they concurred but that they did have some concerns about
possible discrepancies between the Metro projected numbers and what was realistically
probable.
Ms. Tobias pointed out that though a certain number of jobs might be feasible on paper, the
characteristics of a particular communiry mi;ht preclude that number esisting in reality; for
e:cample, Sherwood might be able to accommodate 8000 new jobs but it was unlikely to
. actually do so. She su;gested chat everyone step back from the models and consider reality.
Mayor Nicoli asked if TVEDC would come out with position papers regarding the 2040
process, once the final draft came out from Metro. Ms. Tobias said that their Land Use
committee was working on three position papers (including growth management and
affordable housing) while the Transportation committee was working on the first of three
refinements of the fransportation policy segmen[ of 2040.
ivfavor Nicoli asked if the Council could ;et those comments before the City had to respond
co ~Ietro, noting that TVEDC had a different perspective. Nis. Tobias said that they would
share what they developed as they developed it. '
Councilor Scheckla asked how TVEDC defined affordable housinQ in Washinaton County.
.Ms. Tobias said that chey have not yet achieved a workable defnition, pointinQ out that the
reQion was stru2aling with this difficult and complex issue. She said that the subcommittee
was lookinQ at a mathemacical formula tha[ included all the myriad of factors involved in
the issue, and that hopefuIly in 30 days thev would have a workable definition.
5. CONSIDER PRO TEM JU'DGE APPOINTNEENI'S: -NLARC ABRAMS A1~1D PETER
A CKER~Lkv
a. Staff Report .
Nadine Robinson, Municipal Court Director, and Michael O'Brien, Senior
Jud;e, presenced the scaff report. Ms. Robinson reviewed the need for pro tem
CITY COUNCIL i'vfEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 6
~ -
•
judges to serve as backups for Judge O'Brien and the process they used to select the
appointees. She said that they recommended the appointments of N1arc Abrams and
Peter Ackerman as pro tem judges on the basis thac they had the necessary
qualifications to serve as pro tem judges and that their philosophies most closely
retlected Judge O'Brien's.
b. Nio6on by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to appirode
Resolution Yo. 96-25.
The Ciry Recorder read Resolution No. 96-25 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH 1yfARC A.BRAMS,
MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.
Mocion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
iNiotion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Codaricilor Rohlf, to approve Reso9aation
No. 96-26.
' The Ciry Recorder read Resolution No. 96-26 by number and tide.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-26, A RESOLUTI0N OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCII.
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONT1tACTS WITH PETER ACKERMAN,
MUIVICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.
Niotion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
d. Administer Oaths of Office
ivlayor Nicoli administered the Oath of Office to Niarc Abrams and Peter Ackerman
individually. .
6. COL'NCIL I3ISCtiSSION: REPRESELNTATI0N Oti INTERGOVERNMENTA%.
`VATER BOARD
' This i[em was pulled (see Study Session notes above).
I 7. COrSIDER LIBRARY EYCLUSION ORDLNArCE
' a. Staff Report
kathy Davis, Library Director, Qave the staff report. She stated that though the
vast majority of citizens served by the Library were wonderful, there were a few
whose behavior was less than appropriate for a library setting. She explained chat
the intenc of this ordinance was to aive library staff some recourse to deal with
i1leQal or inappropriate behaviors throuQh removal from the premises and revocation
_ of library privileQes for 90 davs.
CITY COL'NCIL ti1EETIVG MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 7
• • .
b. Council Questions
Mayor Nicoli asiced about the line item on page 13 stating that no food or beverages
were allowed in che library. He said thac he still hoped to see an azea in the library
where people could read while eatin; or drinking. vfs. Davis explained ![hat that
item was che "user friendly" version of the ordinance that would actually be posted
in the library. She said that the behavior ;uidelines ouclined in the ordinance were
basic common sense and common courtesy.
Nis. Davis noted a chan;e in the wording in the guidelines to state that a person
vioIadng che law would be removed &om the premises and have cheir library
privileges revoked for up to 90 days.
VIr. vionahan noted typographical errors in the ordinance on page 3- Chapcer 1.16
shauld be chan;ed to Chapcer 1.17.
c. Council Consideracion: Ordinance Yo. 96-I5 and 96-I5
NiIotion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by CouaciIor Rotilf, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-15.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-15 by number and tide.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-15, AN ORDINANCE AIYDING TITLE 7 OF THE
TIGA.RD MTJ1vICIPAL CODE BY A.DDING CHAPTER 7.100, EXCLUSIONS
FRONi TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY.
. The rnotion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt and Moore votin; "yes.")
iNIotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor iNIoore, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-16.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-16 by number and citle.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-16, A:Y ORDIN:UNCE ANIENDING TITLE 1 OF THE
TIGARD.N1UvZCIP aI. CODE BY" ADDING CHAPTER 1.17, r1PPEAL. TO CIVZL
' INFRACTIONS HE.aRINGS OFFICER.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call voce of che Councilors presenc. (viayor
Nicoli. Councilors Rohlf. Schec?cla, Hunc and 1\Ioore votino "yes.
8. DLSCUSS `V.-k,SHPiGTO~i COL1i'TY COOPERATIV-E LIBRARY SERVICE CAPTI'AL
LEN-Y
a. Scafr Updace
l~Is. Davis presented che stan uodace. She reviewed the speciiics of che lew, nocinQ
that Tieard's share of the S30 million dollar . lew for ics service ponulacion of
12. 79 0 ot che toEal eounry populacion amounEed to 53.8 million dollars.
CITY COUNCIL I'viEETING tiIINL7ES -APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 8
- • .
, •
Ms. Davis reported that several members raised a concern at the Library Budgeg
Board meeting that their share of the allocation (using the funding formula based on
. service population) would not be adequate to meet their individual building needs;
[hese members suggested raising the amount of the levy to a high enough level
where their needs could be met by their share of it. However this put in quesggon
the funding mechanism that would have aliowed an equitable distribtation of ¢he
funds.
Nis. Davis stated that the' issue of the total dollar amount of the levy and the
allocation formula would be discussed at the May Counry Library Advisory Board
.(CLAB) meedng. She presenced the Tigard Library Board's position staeemeaa¢ oaa
this issue. She said that the Board would not be supportive of the levy uriless ¢hey
were assured [hat some sort of funding mechanism would be in place ehae would
provide some equiry in funds distribution, regardless of the levy rate.
N1r. vlonahan stated that both he and Nfs. Davis agreed with the Board's position
that the funding formula already worked out was equitable and made sense both
county wide and for the individual cities. He asked the Council to consider wheetter
or not they supported the Board's position and to direct he and Ms. Davis to present
this posidon at the May CLAB meeting.
d. Council Discussion
Councilor Rohlf stated that he supported the Library Board's position. RRayoe Ni6oli
concurred.
, Councilor Hunt stated that he would not vote on this because he thoughe that ie was
not fair to the rest of the City's building programs. He said thae he was noe
objecting to the Board's position but to any part of the levy.
vi
i otion bv Councilor Rohif, seconded b Councilor ~
, y i Ioore, to suppon°t the
Tigard Library Board's position on the county wide capital construc4~on flevyy,
;iving the Library Director and the City Administrator authority to represent
that position at the iN1ay 1 CLAB meeting.
The mo[ion passed by a four to one vote of the Councilors present. (vfayor Nicoli,
Councilors Rohlf, i'vIoore and Scheckla voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no.
iMayor Nicoli recessed the meetin; ac 3:32 p.m. for a break.
i'vIavor Nicoli reconvened the meetina at 8:40 p.m.
9. CONTIr-UATIOti OF PL~BLIC HEARLNG: CONSIDERA'TION OF
PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES PROJECTS (Continued from the Apa°ifl 9,
1996 Council iNieeting.) Continuation of hearinQ to select greenspace projects. 'Tigard is
. entitle to receive $758,000 in local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure.
a. Continue Public HearinQ
b. Update of Council Discussion from the April 16, 1996 meecinQ
CITY COUNCIL TMEETING MINUTES - f1PRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 9
. . - i
i
. . . • -
•
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presenced the staff report, distributing materials
to the Council. He reviewed the matrix (on file with the Council packet material)
of the different properties under consideration. He recommended that the Council
apply any funds left over after purchasing the forest projects to trail corridor
acquisition; Metro has agreed to match trail corridor acquisition funds by a 1:2 or
more ratio per local dollar. He also recommended that the Council pass a resolution
expressing their intent to espend future year SDC funds towards the project as well.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the current park SDC funding schedule, noting the amounts
tentaavely identified for trail property acquisition and improvements. gie
commented that the amount of land to be protected was 27 acres of forest land and
approximately 50 to 75 acres of floodplain.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was an intent from the Counry to co-opt the purchase
of the Fern Street properry. Mr. Robens said that the County never identified that
piece on their list.
Niayor Nicoli opened the discussion up to public comment; there was none.
c. Council Comment
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council decided to commit some of the park funds
(i.e., SDC dollars) to try to obtain all of the land mentioned on the list in
combination with the Metro money.
N1r. Roberts recommended that the Council approve the list of projects, authorize
the Niayor to sign the IGA with Nietro to receive the local share funds, and authorize
the Mayor to prepaze a letter to be sent to Linda Peters making, an offer on the 129th
site.
Councilor Hunt asked if the list was prioritized in any way. Mr. Roberts said no
and stated that the only breakdown was between forest properties and trails
properties.
Councilor Rohlf asked about the letter to Washinaton County. Nir. Roberts said that
Ehe. Counry has advised them to proceed in this way and to include letters showing .
communiry support for the acquisicion. He said chat [he Counry was looking for
communiry support. He said that they also recommended thac the City pass a
resolution declarinQ the City's intent to commit fucure year park SDCs for trail land
acquisition. ~
d. Close Public HearinQ
tilayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. .
e. Council Considera[ion
Councilor Rohif said that he had no disagreements with any of the recommenda[ions -
presented bv staff. Councilor .'vIoore concurred.
CITY COUNCIL v1EETING VIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 10
. ~
•
Councilor Scheckla asked about the Nletro money for trails. Mr. Roberts explained
that the money for trails was a separate component of the bond measure with $3.5
million allocated for property acquisition along the Fanno Creek main stem but not
for the improvements themselves. He indicated on the map where two of the four
target areas identified by Metro were located within Tigard's area of interest.
Nlotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Nioore, to approve the
Greenspaces project list and send it to Nietro and to authorize the iNiayor to
send a letter to Washington County coopting the 129th property.
Niotion was approved by a three to one vote of the Councii present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
; iNtotion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor iNIoore, to authorize ghe
Mayor to sign the IGA with Metro and direct staff to draft a resolution that
indicates the Council's intent to commit future funding for parks.
Nlotion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHAiGE ANNEYATION - ZCA
96-0001 SHUg.TZ
Request: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Ti;ard Nledium Density Residential and change the
zone from Washin;ton County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull
Mountain Road, across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPL.ICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan
polices 2.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capaciry; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning desi;nation. Also, Community Development Code chapters
13.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presendy, Washington County R-6.
a. Open Public HearinQ
iviayor Nicoli read the hearin; title opened [he public hearin,.
b. Declarations or ChallenQes: None
ylayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures.
c. Staff Report
Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presen[ed the staff repon. He noted the location
of the site on the map. He stated that the application complied with all the
applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements for anne.cation and
had adequate facilities available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were
sent and that they have received no objections. Staff recommended approval.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 11
~ -
~
d. Public Testimony
John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services, 15256 iYW Greenbriar Parkway,
Beaverton, representing the applicant, asked for a favorable consideration of their
request. '
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
a. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-27 & Ordinance No. 96-18.
Motion by Councilor iNioore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve
Resolution No. 96-27.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-27 by number and tide.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-27, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TER.RITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rolilf, to approve
Ordinance No. 96-18.
The Ciry Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-18 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-18, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARIVG AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
QvIayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
11. ZOrE CH.-trGE ANYEYATIOY (ZCA) 96-0002 LUiNDV1ARK AiNi EXaTION
Request: The applicant and owners request annesation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a chanQe of the comprehensive plan and zonina from Washinaton County R-9 to
City of Tisard i'vfedium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at
92 7 5 Locust Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICt1BLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen
involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criceria; and 10.1.3,
CITY COUVCIL v1EETING MIVUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 12
•
. •
zoning desi;nation. Also, Communiry Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation
requirements; and 18.138, land classificaaon of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently,
Washington County R-9. a. Open Public Hearing
Niayor Nicoli read the'hearing tide and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None
Mayor Nicoli read the hearings procedures.
c. Staff Report
Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed the location and specifics of the
sites. He stated that the application'complied with all the applicable City policies
and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and had adequate facilities
available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were sent and that they have
received no objections. Staff recommended approval.
d. Public Testimony
Bert Lundmark a licant ta d w
, pp , s te that it as lus desue to develop the properry
with the consuvction five row homes.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
Close Public Hearin; ,
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-28 & Ordinance No. 96-19
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
No. 96-23.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-28 by number and title.
RESOLTi-I'ION NO. 96-28, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRLATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-02.
The mocion was approved by a unanimous vo[e of the Council presen[. ('1VIavor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, ilyfoore. Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 13
~ • - . .
Modon by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinaince
No. 96-19. °
The Ciry Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-19 by number and tide.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-19, AN ORDINANCE A.DOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-02.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, CounciIors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.
The Council considered Items 13 and 14 at this time.
12. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-NDICIAL) - ALBERTSON'S INC./DUNCONfBE Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand - Comprehensive Plan tlmendment (CPA) 93-
0009/Zone Change (ZONE 93-0003; Site Development Review (SDR) 93-0014/1%,linor
Land Partition (INII.P) 93-0013
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) remand for the
following development approvals:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight
acres of a 11.95 acre pazcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community
Commerciai on Tax Lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel
from neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on Tax Lot
100. The Zone Changes accompanying the above plan changes include a change
from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) and R-30 -
(PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planner . Development ) to C-C (Community
Commercial) and from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 .
units per acre); 2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot
stand-alone tenant pad and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 4,950
square feet adjoining the anchor pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 squaze
foot stand-alone tenant pads; and
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel into two parcels of
, approxirnately eiLyht acres and 3.95 acres each.
The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required City Council to receive and make additional
findinQs on the followin; issues:
1. ~ Transportation TiQard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 3.1.3 (f)-(h) and 8.4.1
Air/Water Qualiry: LCDC Goal 6
3. Air Quality Impact: TCP Policy 4.1.1
4. Water Qualiry Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1
5. Commercial Compacibility: TCP Policy 5.4
6. BufferinQ: TCP Policv 6.6.1
7. Storm Drainaae Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2
8. DesiQn Criteria: Communiry Developmenc Code 18.61.055
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINliTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 14
,
• .
0
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scfiolls Ferry
Road and SW Walnut Screet. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, Tax Lots 100 and 200); APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goal 6; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1,
1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.4, 6.6.1, 7.1.2 and 8.1.3 (fl-(h) and 8.4.1; Community Development
Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.61.055. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood
, Commercial zone permits a range of convenience ;oods and serviCes which are purchased
at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services,
children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
saIes, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and
services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential
nei hborhoods. Communi Commercial cente
g ry rs rypically rang,e in size from a minimum
of two acres to eight acres. In terms of building square footage, these cencers range from
30,000 to 100,000 square feet. .
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-famiIy attached, low and medium rise
multiple-family residential unirs, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone
permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning
district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms
of design, access, etc.
> &fayor Nicoli noced that Mr. Mahr from the City of Newberg would be serving as the Ciry's
legal counsel on this item because of a conflict of interest with Ticyard's City Attorney. Mr.
Nlonahan explained that the issue was raised that Mr. Coleman has represented Albenson's
in the past.
tilayor Nicoli briefly recessed the meeting.
Niayor Nicoli reconvened the meetin;.
a. Open Public Hearin;
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearin;,
b. Declarations or ChallenQes: None
c. Staff Report
ivIr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He stated chat the Council approved the
Albertson's comprehensive plan zone map amendments as well as their speciric
development plans (subject to numerous conditions) on December 27,1994; the .
decision was appealed to LUBA who remanded it to TiQard on October 20, 1995.
He listed the eiQht issues on which LUBA remanded the appeal to the Council. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the applicant has completed his work on the remand
issues. He advised the Council to limit its review to the main findings on the eight
remainina issues before LUBA. tilr. vlahr stated chat he spoke with bo[h the
applicant and the appellant, both of whom understood thac testimony was limited to
che eiQht issues.
. CITY COUNCIL MEETING NiINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 15
•
~
I
d. Public Testimony
,
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures and time limits.
PROPONENTS
John Shonkwiler, representang Albertson's, introduced Don Duncombe,
Albertson's; Norm Schoen, Project Architect; Steve Ward, West Tech Engineering;
and Phil Roarth, Kittleson & Associates (traffic analysis).
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed that this was a request to move the existing neighborhood
commercial designation of approximately seven acres on one corner of Walnut and
Scholls Ferry to a communiry commercial designation of eight acres on another
corner of Walnut and Scholls Ferry. He stated that the Council approved their site
development plan for a 40,000 square foot ;rocery store with 17,550 square feet of
other commercial area; this use was appealed by Marcotte & Thriftway but upheld
by LUBA.
tilr. Shonkwiler said that a lot of the consideration here was to clarify the Ciry's
position on the langua;e of the ordinance and how it worked with the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the total allowable square foota;e of
commercial in a communiry commercial zone was 100,100; this proposal was for
57,500 square feet.
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the first remand issue: Transponation, CP policy 8.1.3
(fl-(h). He said that all of the provisions of this policy were challenged before
LUBA but that LUBA upheld all of them except for subsections ( fl through (h)
which LUBA felt needed more specificity in the findings.
In regard to ( fl, the provision of transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters, N1r.
Shonkwiler pointed out that this properry was not served by transit, and that Tri-Nlet
has stated that it did not intend to provide service in the near future: He said that
the Council could find that the Albertson's site and its designated uses did not
aenerate transit ridership. He reviewed how the plan allowed for the possibiliry in
the future of bus pullout lanes near the proposed mini-park which could serve as a
bus stop area. He contended that the plan did meet the requirements. However they
were recommendin, an additional condition of approval on page 4 of the remand
sta[ement allowing the City, throuQh a pubiic process, to make that desiana[ion in
. the future. `
In response to subseccion (a), handicapped parking spaces, vlr. Shonkwiler explained
that the appeal on this arose from a contlict between the two sets of findings before
the Council. He said that the mistake was that the second set of fmdings did not
reflect the changes recommended in the set of fmdines based on the staff report. He
referred to the revised site and landscape plans that showed the relocation of some
of the handicapped parkinQ spaces as recommended by staff to service all entrances .
to the store.
i'vir. Shonkwiler noted chat chey could not locate the handicapped parkinQ spaces for
the other commercial pads until chey knew where the main entrance would be.
CITY COUtiCIL VIEETING vIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 16
~
•
Though they showed handicapped pazking in a specific location on the map, ie coufld
be moved anywhere along the front to the best location for the eventual entrances.
' He said that the determination of the exact location of those spaces could be made
at the time of the building permit application.
In regards to subsection (h), land dedication for bicyclelpedestrian corridor, MP.
Shonkwiler referred to the City's adopted pedestrian/bike pathway plan; noting that
the proposed pathway in the area did not abut this site; both Scholls Feny Itoad and
ocher land were between the Albertson's site and the proposed pathway, cnaking i¢ .
impossible for the applicant to dedicate any land for the pathway. He said that he thought that the Council could make the finding that the land dedication was not
required.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to LUBA record #390 (the site plan) and #391 (the
landscape plan) to demonstrate the extension of Murray Blvd and its conneceioea co
Walnut Street, already propased by the City. He reviewed how the sidewalks
depicted on the plan along Scholls Ferry, Walnut and Northview Drive conneceed
to the intersection which in turn would feed up to Murray Blvd and the proposed
pathway. He also reviewed the internal site circulation with accesses to those
sidewallcs. He said that their circulation system was in the best interests af [he Ciry
for a pedestrian/bike network from the site to the pathway and vice versa.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the second, third and fourth remand issues (Air anci
Wacer quality impacts) have been sufficiently addressed by the West Tech study ita
the record. West Tech has analyzed the state, federal and regional plans and stated
that this plan was in compliance with aIl regulations and could feasibly satisfy all the
conditions of approval.
ti1r. Shonkwiler spoke to the fifth issue: Commercial Compatibiliry, TCP Policy 5.4.
-"The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall noc
encroach on residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or
industrial uses. " He proposed that the City define tlie residential area being affected
as the area surrounding the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Walnut (the
neighborhood commercial, the residential on two sides, and the multi family
designations to the west, northwest and south). He said that he thought that che City
could adopt that as part of its interpretation.
Mr. Shonkwiler commented that, in considering how the area was affected by the
proposed development, chis area already had neighborhood commercial in the
residential area; there was noching in the Comprehensive Plan that forbade changing
the commercial use from one to another or from the residential area to a place that
would better provide more buffering to eliminate [he impaccs to the surrounding
areas. He cantended that the whole point was to not have an overt shock to the
residential uses in the area.
iMr. Shonkwiler said that there already was a substantial commercial use and that
they were replacing it with another commercial use. The next question was how
much impact would that have. He referred to the traffic studies in the record that
showed that there was an insianificant difference between the effect of neighborhood
commercial on 6.93 acres and the use Albertson's was progosina. He said that
CITY COUNCIL li'vIEETING 1vIINliTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 17
' • -
•
overall the evidence in the record would support that switching from the
neighborhood commercial to community commercial was a rational planning
position.
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the question of why move the designation across the
street. He stated that community commercial allowed more flexibility in how they
could develop the properry. He pointed out that the triangular shape of the
neighborhood commercial property made it difficult to provide both commercial uses
and adequate buffering to eliminate adverse impacts ro the abutting properry; also
the flat area abutted directly up a;ainst the multi family structures, allowing no latitude for separation.
Lir. Shonkwiler said that by moving the properry across the street chey could
excavate down so that the surrounding properties would overlooked two-thirds of the
site; it would also shape the property into a rectangle to allow for better buffering.
He noted that the City required 20 % open space area around the properry; they were
providing 30% which necessitated going from seven acres to eight acres. He said
chat he thought that was full justificadon for why they met the policy.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the Council was enaded to make an interpretation on the
two different comprehensive plan polices, 5.4 and the locational criteria, which
should be compatible. He contended that if they met the locauonal criteria, it should
be presumed that they also met the requirements of 5.4.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the sixth issue: Bufferin; TCP policy 6.6.1. He noted the
code section 13.100 which implemented the landscapin; screening requirements
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that if the applicant has met
the code provisions, then they have satisfied the Comprehensive Plan policy 6.6.1
as well. He stated that the previously adopted findings showed that they have
complied with 18.100; since those findings were not challenged, he said that they
could reasonably rely on them today.
ivIr. Shonkwiler reviewed the specifics of the landscaping plan in terms of how [hey
were providing an air pollution absorber, noise and dust filters and a visual barrier
throuah excavation and landscapin.g.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the West Tech report as settinQ out fully how the
applicanc met the seventh issue of storm drainage and making the conclusion that the
applicant has met the requirement and could feasibly satisfy the conditions of
approval.
vIr. Shonkwiler noted that, in response to the eiQhth issue of desia
gn criteria, it was
a similar mistake as with the handicapped parking. They submitted a chanQe
between the staff report and the tuial decision that was not corrected in the findings.
He referred to LUBA 390 (site plan) and LUBA 391 (landscapina plan) that showed
the specifics of the landscapin; plan. He said that they have met LUBA's
requirement that they revise their plans to clarify exactly what was happeninQ.
Mr. Shonkwiler requested approval of the application and adoption of the findinQs.
CITY COUNCIL 114EETING vIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 18
. ,
. . • .
. •
Barbara Collins, resident at Northview 8c Castle Hill, stated that the neighbors
felt strongly that Albertson's was doing its best to meet all the requirements and to
take the neighborhood into consideration; they were trying to make havinc., a
commercial entity in the neighborhood as livable as possible. She said that they
hoped this could be worked out as soon as possible and that they felt that Albertson's
had a good plan.
Scott Russell, property owner, addressed two issues: transportation and air quality.
He said that neighbors have expressed concern over the potential for a fueure access
to Northview; he stated that one of the conditions of approval stated that, shoufld the
Ciry decided to put in that access, it would have to go through a public process and
address the neighbors' concerns. He said that he thought air quality had been
compromised by the opposition.
OPPONEYTS
Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW SLxth Ave, Portland, representing Marcotte Hmfldiangg9
Inc. and Niurray Thriftway who were the appellants at LITBA, commented that
he thought that there was a general belief that if LUBA remanded something and the
applicant threw a"bunch of stuff" at it, then the applicant should automatically
,
revail. He said that the nstuff» had to be res onsive
P p and address the issues or ehe
applicant was not entitled to prevail. He said that the appellants felt strongly that
the applicant has not sufficiently addressed two of the eight issues.
blr. Kleinman said that they felt that the issue of commercial compatibiliry was a
fundamental Comprehensive Plan issue that needed to be looked at because the
applicant was asking the Council ro make an interpretation that set a dangeraus
precedent that did not suit the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan objectives. He noted that
this issue was raised by LUBA and in the proposed order of the Ciry Council
submitted by the applicant.
Nir. Kleinman concended that the neighborhood commercial site that the applican[
said was 6.93 acres was in actual fact a five acre neighborhood commercial site. He
submitted materials into the record obtained from the City which mentioned a five
acre parcel at chis site to support his contencion (the 1986 City anneration decision,
• a 1991 memo from Jerry Offer to Katie Dorsett, and a 1991 letter to Ti~ard
PlanninQ from the Ciry of Beaverton). ~
iNIr. Kleinman poinced out that LUBA looked at the appellants' objections to
substitutinQ communicy commercial for neiQhborhood commercial: LUBA found that
the arQument in the findinQs that a mistake was made in the oriainal designation
' durinQ the annexation process was sufficient to justify the zone change (the Ciry's
desianation of the parcel as neiQhborhood commercial when it had a commercial
designation in the County). He stated that the parcel so designated was five acres
onlv.
Mr. Kleinman cited LUBA's findinQs that the applicant had not adequately analyzed
the impacts on the ditferent residential natures of the surroundine neiQhborhoods
resultinQ from substitutin, a lar;er development for a smaller one on the opposite
corner of the same intersection. He contended that the applicant still has not done
CITY COUNCIL viEETING ti1INUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 19
•
•
this but rather relied on the proposition that it was all the same, as supported by its
experts. He smted tha[ the impact was there. He said that while Albertson's might
be able to address this issue sufficiendy to allow them to prevail, they have not done
so yet.
Mr. Kleinman smted that he read a different interpretation of the findings than the
applicant presented and summarized to the Council. He said that the applicant urged
the Council to interpret the policy to mean that (since a community commercial zone
had a crade area of a 1.5 mile radius) there was no impact from moving the
commercial from one place within that radius to another, if it already has some
residential in it. He smted that interpreting the code in that manner was doing a
grave disservice to the citizens. He contended that the applicant was avoiding che
analysis required by LUBA by asking for a code interpretation.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the applicant's proposal tha[ policy 5.4 was complied with
simply by meecing the locaaonal criteria was another way of not addressing the
encroachment issue; making that interpretation was also a bad idea for future
proposals. He said that he thought that the Council would be foreclosing the City
from exercising some of its review options down the road.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the differences between the existing neighborhood
commercial and a community commercial site demanded a fmding of greater impact
and a measurement of the impacts. He smted that a neighborhood commercial site
was limited in the code and the plan to a two acre development; they could find
nothing that exempted the existin; nei;hborhood commercial zone from that
requirement.
Mr. Kleinman noted the differences between the neighborhood commercial
designarion and che community commercial desiQnation. He cited plan policy
12.2.1, section l.a (2) that limited the trade area of a nei;hborhood commercial to
serving 5000 people; community commercial served a trade area within an 1.5 mile
radius. Neiahborhood commercial did not permit restaurants, bars, general retail
uses or general office uses; communiry commercial did. Individual buildings in
nei-hborhood commercial were limited to 4000 square feet; the Albertson's store
alone was 40,000 square feet.
ivIr. Kleinman stated that the Council should consider the total square footaae thac
could be developed under communiry commercial (100,000 square feet), concending
that they did not know what would happen on chat site in the future. He said that
a development of 57,000 square feet would have a substantially different and far
greater impact than a neiQhborhood commercial development limited to two acres,
citing the traffic impacts in particular.
i'vir. Kleinman reicerated chat there has been no analysis of how the impact on the
residential areas differed from movina the site across the intersection. He stated that
they thoughE that the site impacts should be analyzed in reasonable detail prior to
movinQ forward on this application. He said that they believed that the end result
was an encroachment under policy 5.4 and an application lackinc, even the -most
fundamental baseline analysis of the impacts pertaininQ to the encroachment.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING VIINUTES - APRIL 23,. 1996 - PAGE 20
. J: . ' ' . . . , . • . . , . .
' . . . , • - . _ " ' J ' . • . .
. . • ,
'T. , .
Mr: Kleinman ceviewed Albertson's objectives of securing more space for its store and rental space but held that that ob}ective in itself was not compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or code provisions. He contended that Albertson's conceans
that the triangular shaped property would not be a profitable site to develop were
: - personal economic consideracions not permitted in this analysis and could not justify
' under the plan a non-existence of impacts of encroachment.
~ Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not think that the air quality impacts criteria
_ discussed by LUBA have been successfully addressed. He referred to his memo. `He said that the Plan required the City to ascertain from DEQ the permissibility of '
these uses, particularly for the indirect source air pollution permit He contended that
`che applicant's statement that they have prepared an application for the permit did
not meet the necessary test of approval required to comply with the Plan.
REBUTTAI. .
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he wanted to review the document submitted by Mr.
- Kleinman into the record as he suspected that there might possibly be one issue he
raised that was outside the scope of the remand. He stated that he reserved his right
co submit a written rebuttal within seven days.
Mr. Shonkwiler pointed out that Mr. Kleinman was not involved with this process
from the beginning and might not be aware of all the evidence in th.e record.. He
cited a separate order from the City Council that stated that when Walnut Drive went
in, the shape and the size of the lot would be neighborhood commercial. He said
that this document resolved the five acre issue - the parcel was 6.93 acres, as
already decided by the Council.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that Mr. Kleinman admitted that LUBA found that a mistake
was made in the zone desi;nation at the time of the annexation of this property into
the Ciry and that that was a legitimate reason to uphold the zone change and plan
amendment.. He contended that the types of uses and size limitations of a
neighborhood commercial had no relevancy in this matter because the zoning should
have been community commercial instead of neighborhood commercial. Therefore
the impacts that Mr. Kleinman concended existed with a major change did not in fact
exist because the zonin; designation was wron, from the time of annexation. LUBA
found chat this zone chanoe correc[ed a mistak.e. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he would submit a written rebuttal addressing each of
these issues and submit i[ within seven days.
z. Staff Recommendation ~
f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked about underaroundina facilities. Nir. Shonkwiler said that
they intended to undereround all che facilities. He explained that the statement was
on paQe 18 because undergroundina was a condition of approval.
CITY COUNCIL vIEETING vIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 21
. • .
• ,
g. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mahr stated that it was appropriate to close the record at this point and allow
the applicant seven days to submit a written argument; the argument could not
consist of any new evidence.
lMayor Nicoli noted that che Council would take no furcher action on this item this
evening and closed the record. . .
Mr. Monahan said that staff would sec this for the date cenain of May 14, 1996 for
Council action.
13. PUB]LIC HEARING - LEGISLATIVE: PROPOSED LA~~iD USE APPLICATION
FEES/CITY OF TIGARD
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challen;es: None
c. Staff Report
Jim Hendry.x, Community Development Director, commented that staff has been
working for the last year on this update of fees to reflect today's costs. He stated
that the last update was 10 years ago; the report prepared four years ago was not
acted on at the time.
Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said chat the
original report prepared four years ago never ;ot to the Council for action. He
stated that the open house staff held for developers was attended only by the
Homebuilders Association; thou;h the Association would not endorse the fees, they
would not oppose them either.
vlr. Bewersdorff noted that these fees related solely to the cost of processin;
applications; they did not include any follow up or long range planning efforts. He
said that staff recommended recovering 100% of both direct and indirect costs.
d. Public Testimonv: None
e. Staff Recommendation
vlr. Bewersdorff recommended that Council direct staff to prepare a resolution to
recover 10090 of the direct and indirect costs of land use applications, including
addinQ fees for chose i[ems Iisted in E:chibit A that the City did not eharge fees for
at this time.
CITY COUNCIL ?vIEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 22
. , • . . .
. •
f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked about the new fees in Exhibit A. Mr. Bewersdorff
reviewed the list of those new fees. He said that they were trying to recoup some
-of the cost of the processing so that those costs wouldn't be borne by the general
ta.rpayer. Councilor Scheckla asked about the 40% additional fees mentioned. Mr.
Bewersdorff explained that when they received two applications at the same tame,
such as a site development review application accompanied by a variance request,
they did not charge the full fee for the second application; they proposed to char;e
onl 20% 0 of the fee bec
y ause so much of the work and notifications were done tor
the first application anyway.
a Close Public Hearing :
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration
Moved by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt to direct staff go cougae
back with a resolution. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Niayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voting "yes.
Mr. Hendryx reported that over the course of the next year staff would evaluate tvvo
ocher fee schedules: Community Development looking at building related fees and
Engineering looking at land development fees.
14. ZONE ORDI~i 1Ai1CE AvIE;vDrV1ENT (ZOA) 96-0001 - CITY OF TIGARD -
LNDERGROUNDLNG UTII.ITIES EYCEPTION (Set over from Apri19, 1996 Coeancil
meetin;.) A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section
18. 164.120 to add Sections C and D to provide for excepcions to the underaround ucility
requirement and a fee in lieu of under;roundin.g. ~
a. Open Public HearinQ
1'Iayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenaes
Councilor Moore stated thac he would abstain from participatinQ since he had a sli,ht
' conflict of interest.
c. Staff Rzport
Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He said that the intent of this ordinance was
to codiry in wricten form the provisions and standards settinQ the Ciry's ability to
recover the costs for under;rounding utilities. He e:cplained that sometimes it was
not practical to underaround facili[ies at the time of developmenc as required by City
CITY COtiNCIL NIEETING NIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 23
•
- • .
standards. This ordinance set up a method that allowed the City Engineer to
determine when undergrounding was applicable and when it was not, and to collect
a fee in lieu of undergrounding in order to have the money avaiIable for
undergrounding in the future when it became practical to do so. He said that it set
up a series of service districts throuahout the Ciry to hold the money assessed in
each district for that district's future undergrounding.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.
f. Council Questions
Councilor Hunt stated [hat he opposed setting up service districts because of the
amount of bookkeeping it would generate in tracking the differen[ funds by discricc
and because any given district might not have enough money by itself to
under~round utilities.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the fund wasn't currendy set up in service districts. Mr.
Bewersdorff said that the process was currently divided into six or seven districts in
order to provide a more accurate expenditure relative to the area, making sure that
the funds were spent in the area from which they were collected.
Councilor Hunt asked if chis was the only fund divided by district. Mr. Bewersdorff
said that he believed that it was the only one. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he
could not support the ordinance.
CounciIor Scheckla concurred wich Councilor Hunt's comments about one area not
havin; enou;h money to underground utilities and the unnecessary bookkeeping. He
suQgested pooling the money into one lar;e pot and allowing the City the discretion
to move the funds around as needed. He stated that he would not suppon the
ordinance either, thouQh item #4 was the only portion that he did not support.
, Councilor Rohlf scated that he thouaht that chey needed to have some way to aet che
monev back to the areas so that those who paid for underQrounding could Qec ic.
Liavor Nicoli concurred.
.
~
LY Close Public Hearina
Mavor Nicoli closed the public hearina.
Mayor Nicoli suQgested sending this to a workshop session for discussion on the sole
issue ot contenaon (item 44). He asked that it be scheduled for a session in June
afrer Councilor Hunt's return.
ivIr. Hendryx pointed out that without the ordinance, staff did not have a codified
policy for the procedures they currently used.
CITY COliNCIL MEETING iNIINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 24
. •
•
Mr. Monahan stated that staff would schedule chis for the June work session with
final Council action at the last meetin, in June.
15. NON-AGENDA ITEVIS
16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Ti;ard Ciry Council went into Executive Session at under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), &(h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
17. t1DJOURNTIEN'T: 10:33 p.m.
. e-E-herAinee ~lttest: Wheatley, Ciry Re order
~
Niav ' ity of Tigard v
D
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23. 1996 - PAGE 25
. ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 96-Z
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0001).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of two
parcels consisting of 6.15 acres located north of ')ull Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon
receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting
District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), hereby initiates proceedings
for annexation to the City of Tigard of the territory described in Exhibit A and
illustrated in Exhibit B.
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the
Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effect it as soon as possible.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the resolution with
the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once.
c~
PASSED: Thisa day o~1.'Zl 996.
May City of Tigard
ATF ST:
4~ .•L L- [ /L.~" L,~•
) y Recorder - City of Tigard
~3Cer$ified to be a True Copy of
Date
Origin n file -qT ITCo)PR (M ~~-t-
i:\IrplnUaylzca96-01.res ~ ~ 0 ~4/23/96, 4:00 PM Blf City Re order - City of Ti d
RESOLUTION NO. 96-2 7 ay ~
Page 1 ,
~ EXHIBIT A
~
STAFF REPORT
April 23, 1996
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0001
REQUEST: To annex two parcels of 6.2 acres of unincorporated
Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change
the comprehensive plan and zone maps from Washington
County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-7.
APPLICANT: John Godsey, Jr.
15256 NW Greenbrier Pkwy
Beaverton, OR 97006
OWNERS: James & Madeline Shultz
13268 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road across from SW 133rd Avenue -
WCTM 2S1 9AB, lots 100 & 200 (see Exhibit B, vi,cinity map).
2. Vicinity Information
Properties to the north and west are in Washington Gounty and zoned R-6, single
family residential. Properties to the south and east are in the city and zoned R-7.
Immediately to the east is the Mountain Highlands subdivision, currently under
construction.
3. Background Information
The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the two properties. No
previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to these properties.
1
. ~
4. Site Information and Proposal Descri t~on .
The southern boundary of the two parcels is located approximately 1000' north of
, Bull Mountain Road. The vacant northern parcel slopes down at approximately
15% from southeast to northwest. The southern parcel slopes from west to east at
10% to 15%. It has a single family residence and two accessory structures.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land
(100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, the owners have initiated this action through their written consent.
5. A4ency Comments
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police and Water departments, Unified
Sewerage Agency, Tualatin Valley Water District and PGE reviewed the proposal
and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this
report. .
B. FINDINGS AND GONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters
18.136 and 18.138.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the comprehensive plan based on the following findings:
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
because the West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water
Department and TVF&R have reviewed the proposal and indicate that
adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate the
affected property.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified of this request and has no. objection; the
2
. ~
affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the community development code based on the following findings:
, 1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium
Density Residential/R-7 most closely conform to the county
designation of R-6.
d. The determination that the affected properties are developing area is
based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a
developing area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution and forward it to the Boundary Commission
to initiate annexation of the subject properties; and that the City Councit adopt the
attached ordinance assigning comprehensive plan and zoning designations to the
properties upon approval of the annexation.
3
•
~
H
H .
~ ~ .
H
x ~ o
w . .
~
. ;
9
~
• • Y
L i
L
. g
. ~
. ~
. o
S a
. .
b Q
. ~
~J
5
. . 5
8
8
, N T p
4~ e u
~
~1z 6
~ F ( a
~aOU ~
V' •.w• .
\
E~EdfPtel:,p: g
F R
~z
.
' W
' ' C7
~ v . ..........«.V~v.LLLt • • 1'.:«:' .««r~...tiV
U
a 3 M9 n. w
H~
h~` Z Q
OJ~ j O
o. . : J ~
.~ir%
.•~i• Z
Z
Q
. ~TWA . . .
TV-7-T
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 19'
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0001).
.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning
designation for two parcels of land located north of Bull Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed
annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land
use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
2S1 9AB, lots 100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential
and 200
Current Zoning New Zoninq
Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By W100-Ime6 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this;;23!4 day of L•f , 1996.
.l~ ~ ~•i ~ ~'U ~-~'cL~C.~-~
Ca erine Wheatley, City Re order
,
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this~'jday of 1996.
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Cit Attorney
n~a
Date
i:Urplnlray\zca96-0 1. ord
4/4/96, 3:15 PM
ORDINANCE No. 96-L7
Page 1
1',
' • .
i
AGENDA ITEM # ~ d
For Agenda of _ April 23. 1996
~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY , ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 96-0001 S h u l+ ~
~ PREPARED BY: Ray Vafone DEPT HEAD OK -9-, CITY ADMIN OK
:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
~
Should the City Council forvward to the Portland Metropolitan Anea Local Govemment Boundary
Commission a request to initiate annexation of two paroels consisting of 6,z`' cres located north of Bull
Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinanoe to forward the annexation request to the Boundary
Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformanoe
with the city comprehensive plan.
~ INFORMATION SUMMARY
~ ~ .
~ The proposed, annexation oonsists of territory comprised of two parcels of land, totaling 6.2 acres,
i which is contiguous to the City of Tigard. The applicant requests annexation in order to subdivide the
property. Attached is a resolufion infiating annexation and an ordinanoe to change the comprehensive
plan and zone designations from Washington County R-6 to Tigard Medium Density Residential, R-7.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~
Deny the request. -
~ FISCAL NOTES - ~
Since the temtory is not within the city's active planning area, the applicant is responsible for the
Boundary Commission application fee of $895.
i:lhp1nVaylzca96-01.sum
4/4/96.2:35pm
t
; •
, •
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 96-_
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
~I DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0001).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of two
parcels consisting of 6.2 acres located north of Bull Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and
i
WHERFJAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
~ law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
~
~ WHEREAS, the Tigard City Counal is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to inifiate an annexation upon
reoeiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
,
~ WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs
Patrol Distrid, Washington Courrty Urban Roads Maintenanoe District, Washington County Street Lighting
i Distrid #1 and the Washington County Vector Control Distrid would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
y automatically withdrawn from those distrids immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Couna'I that
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), hereby initiates proceedings
for annexation to the City of Tigani of the territory described in Exhibit A and
illustrated in Exhibit B.
Section 2: The City Counal hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the
' Portland Metropol'itan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effect it as soon as possible.
;
~ Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file oertified copies of the resolution with
the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemmerrt Boundary Commission at once.
PASSED: This day of , 1996.
Mayor - City of Tigard
' ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigarci
;
Date
I
,I i:WplMra~nzca96-01.res
~ 4/4l96, 3:00 PM
i
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
Page 1
. EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
April 23, 1996
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
~ 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
~
A. FACTS
~ 1. Generallnformation '
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0001
t
REQUEST: To annex two parcels of 6.2 acres of unincorporated
Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change
the comprehensive plan and zone maps from Washington
County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density ResidentiaVR-7.
~
~ APPLICANT: John Godsey, Jr.
~ 15256 MyV Greenbrier Pkwy
~ Beaverton, OR 97006 ,
OWNERS: James & Madeline Shultz
~ 13268 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road across from SW 133rd Avenue -
WCTM 2S1 9AB, lots 100 & 200 (see Exhibit B, vicinity map). .
;
2. Ycin' Information
Properties to the north and west are in Washington County and zoned R-6, single
family residential. Properties to the south and east are in the city and zoned R-7.
Immediately to the east is the Mountain Highlands subdivision, currently under
' construction.
3. Background Information
The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the two properties. No
~ previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to these properties.
.i
~
~
~
' .
, . .
,
4. Site Information and Proposal Descri t~ .
The southem boundary of the two parcels is located approximately 1000' north of
Bull Mountain Road. The vacant northem parcel slopes down at approximately
15% from southeast to northwest. The southem parcel slopes from west to east at
10% to 15%. It has a single family residence and two accessory structures.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Represenbng the owners of more than haff the land
. (100%) and a majority of the regisfered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, the owners have initiated this acbon through their written consent.
5. Ba_ency Comments
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police and Water departments, Unfied
Sewerage Agency. Tualatin Valley Water District and PGE reviewed the proposal
and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this
report. '
i
~ B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
~ .
~ The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
J 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Communrty Development Code chapters
~ 18.136 and 18.138.
i
, Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
; the comprehensive plan based on the following findings:
I 1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
because the West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate servioe capacity delivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water
Department and NF&R have reviewed the proposal and indicate that
' adequate servioes are available and may be extended to accommodate the
~ . affiected property. ~ -
~ 3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
' Departrnent has been notfied of this request and has no objection; the
i 2
i
~
, • •
~ affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to
accommodate the property.
j Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
! the community development code based on the following findings:
~
' 1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because:
~ a. Servioe providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
~
; b. Applicable vomprehensive plan policies and code provisions have
' been reviewed and satisfied. ~ c. The oomprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium
; Density ResidentiaVR-7 most closely conform to the county
designation of R-6.
~ d. The detennination that the affected properties are developing area is
~ based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
' 2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classfication of annexed
~ land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a
~ developing area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
,
C. RECOMMENDATION
,
Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution and forward it to the Boundary Commission
to infiate annexation of the subject properties; and that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinanoe assigning comprehensive plan and zoning designations to the
properties upon approval of the annexation.
, .
;
~
~
I
. 3 ~
i
ao , ~
H ~ ~
. • • .
oa ~ . . . .
N
~ . .
DC ~
W. .
'
, .
.
•
.
.
•
'
'
•
'
~
. . .
' ~
'
. ' . ~ ~
' ~ ~
~ ~ ~
•~~~1~~~~~~• •~11~• •~~~1~~1~~~1~~1~1~~~~1~~~~~~~~1~1~~1~~~~1~11~~~~~1~~• •~1~• •~Y~~1~• ~
•~~~~1~~~~~~~~1~• •~~~1~ 1•11~1~~~~~1~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~1~~11~~1~~11~~1~~~~1~~• •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~ ~ ~ ~
• •~~~~~~~11~~~~11~~~1~~11~1~~~~~~1~~~~1~• •~~~~~~~1~~11~~~~~1~~1~~1~~1• ~,~~~~~~~1~• r ~ ~
• •~~~~~~~~~~~~~11~1~• • •~~~~~~~~~111~~~~~~• • ~~~~~~~~~~1~1~~~~~~~~~
• ~~~~1~~1~11~ •~~~~~~~1~1~~~~1~~~~~~~1~~~1~11~1~~~~~~~1~~~1~~~~~11~~1• .1~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~11~~1~~1~11• ~ S ~
•~1~~~~~~. • ~ff ~
•~1• •~1. • •~11~11~~1~~1• • • p `
•~~~1• ~1~~~ • , •~~~~1~1~~~1 •~~~~~~~~~~1~~1~~~ • ■ t
• •1• • • ~~~1~~1~111~~~~ •11~~~~11~~~~~~~~ ~ • • •
•1~• • • • •~~11~~~~~~~~• ~ ~ ~
•~~1• • ~ ~ • •1 • ~~~~~1 ~1 1~~~ •~••~1•~ ~ • , . ~
•1~• • •1• ~ •11~1~~~~~~~~1•
• • • •~~~1111 • •1 • •
• •1~~• •1• ~11~• ~~~~~1~~~~~1~ •1~~• , •
•1~ • •~1~~~~• •r~~1~• ~ •~~~~~~~1~~~• •1• •1~• ~~'1 •
~ • • i~ •~~1~~~~~~~ ~1~1~•
•~~1~• •~~~~~~~~~~~1 •1~1• ~ •~1~• •
•1• • ~~1• •~~1~~~•
• • • ~ • •1~• •~~1~~/~~~~~ • • • •1//~~,,,.,...~
• •~~~1~• ~ •~1• •~~~~I
~ . eto.:.....::.. . ' . :
. . • ~ . ~ : . ~ . • . . . . . . . . . . : . • : : . : : . . : : . : . ~ :
~:J::JJ.."
'
. . : . : . . ' . ~ . . . . . . ' : . : : : : . ~ : .
. ' '
. . R . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . . : : . • : : : : : . .
: ~
. Z
~ . •
. .
. . ' '
.
'
. . . W
' ' '
. . . :
• .
~ Z
. ~ .
•
. ~
'
. V
•
.
. . . . . . . . b, a nn~ w
~
~
Z
.
g O
~
N
. •
. }
p
F-
~
.
~ Z
.
V
• Z
s O
.
• . ~ ~ • ~
.
. . . . . • ~ . ~
~
.
•
. . • . •
, . • •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • tir . . : : . . . .
. . : ~ Z
.
Z
• . .
• . Q
~ • •
• .
•
.
' . ..t.
• ~ ~ . ~ • • ~ ; : : . . . . ' ' . . : : ~ • .
, . . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0001).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning
designation for two parcels of land located north of Bull Mountain Road acxoss from 133rd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Counal approved a resolution forvvarding the proposed
annexa6on to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning distrid designation necommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most dosely approximates the Washington Courrty land
use designation while implemerrting the aty's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
~ Density Residential.
~ THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
~ SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
2S1 9A6, lots 100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential
and 200
Current Zonin4 New Zonina
Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Counal members pnesent after being read by number and title
only, this day of . 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorcier
~
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of . 1996.
James Nicoli, Mayor
i Approved as to foRn:
City Attomey Date
~ f:W*vay\zca96-01.ord
4/4J96, 3:15 PM
~ ORDINANCE No. 96-_
Page 1
_ .TRp,NSNtITTAL
ARO
F AX ~ TIMES 996
E UND~R CCTI°N OF TdF~G TIGAR~ pATE. p r 15
LEG A L NO TICE SE f x) 620-3433
White, Legals ( 639-417A
e GaMno{, Gity of Tigard ~,Ph,)
FROM; Jerr T~ ard
30 at the 9
r~~ 23 Written testimony
Council on A Both public oral and rules of Chapter
the i9ard TCity , Oregon, with the raise an
to
T
igard ~n accordanCouncil. Failure to
W~11 pe considered q `I Hajj gl,~d., conducted of the C~t`1 uest or fa►lure
The followin9 Town Hall, 13125 S~ matter will be on the req ond to the
on th►S and pracedures hearing tQ resp
Civic Center ' ublic hearing rules c1ose of the an opp°~unity goard o~ Use vited. The p a~ Code, a o nt p ~and
is +r t h e Tigard ►NuniciP at some p r~ a~{o d trie decisio~~ aanraPpeal to the p,v s~n at 13A25
18.32 Of ar by lette sufficieont~h~ fequ~st, preclu tne Pia n nin g
issue in person or evidence be obtained from
prov~de statements pf the hear+ng ation ►raY
to the close Further inform 639-4171.
issue prior that issue. or by calling
APpea1s based on pregon 97223, 13n from ,
SW f-1a11 Blvd., Tigard, comPrehensive P {ram
e the e the Zone from
city chan9
and chan Road across
EAR►NGS cres into the an Resident'a1 ie
pUgLIC 96.000 1 SNULTZ °f 6.2 a tiledium Density h of Bull Mountain re~evant revw
~o parcels T~gard IA: The sen+ice tleGUe~
ZCA Annex LOCATION: N°~' CR►TER
VEST ~ 6 to City of R-7 . REVIE~N ent; 10.1.1, ment Code
c ity eVelop ZONE:
REQ County R6 to of T+gard, PLICABLE ~nvolvem p
G~mmunitY
Washington ately 1000 ~ pP 2.1.1, citizen AIsQ, ter
Gounty R" roxim plan policies ~,ation. exed
SW ritorY Washingtonenu~~ app rehensive Zpn~ng des~9 of ann
133rd Av Comp 1p.1.3, la~,d classification
criteria in thls case are criteria; and I8.138,
10.1 •2, baundary uirementsand
capacity; 18136, annexat►on req 6
ters County R-•
chap shin9ton .
~a „ . . . `::i::` ; ` : . . ~ : , :
presentlY,
:;t:;',''.:•~.•'.',':'.':..,c.:".':''.''..".i~ :~~:.:,'.'i'i,:•..
D
i
. 1 .
.
a
~ A4`} '.•.81.~.:'{c;."•.t'.':';i
~ :.:~,..:i..'.:: i.:'.. i~.t_.• ,.::".'.t..?.i!t::!..
1 -
-
p, ri111 1996
.j.T Pug~ISH
. • ~ ~ ~
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Mike Miller. Water Deqt March 22. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 1, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
X- We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: lMtk-`~- /l/1/t-6-4574--
Phone Number: 1bg
GJ~
• 0 RECEIVED PLANNING
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
2 7 i9g6
TO: Lee Walker. USA March 22. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 1, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If vou are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
)L Written comments provided below:
&%8 Conf.Ai4s A WAsWKbroa1 Cov+-04 pF.5I4NA7G,D 0e21-V464 0141040 AQGA•
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: L • wA'LIGCi,(Zi
Phone Number: 6o Le8'`
03/27/96 14:01 $503 526 2538 TV FIRE MARSHAL 0002/002
- ~ i •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MAR 2 7 1996
F1RE MARSHAL'S OFFlCE
T4: gene Birchell. TVFR March 22. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valane
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax; (503) 684-7297
RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHUL7Z
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10_12, boundary criteria; and 10,1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the praposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, 1/VE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Aari! 1, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments.. )f vau are unable to respQnd by
the bove d te, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEM5 THAT APPLY:
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office. .
~ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: P( lL
/
Phone Number:
. • • •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Brian Moore, PGE March 22, 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: _Ray Valone Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 1, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number: S`~- \'~S►
_ ! •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Kelley Jenninqs, PD DATE: March 22. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex finro parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 1. 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Pfease refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number: l~ a,
0
~
~
n
~
n
~
ti
a0zG° ~ ~
~aXo a
°n~sa i
c 4
~
b
~
~
~ .
•
~
~
.•h~ .H'~••••:
Z
.
W
. ~~{;df-1El'~G1•' r:::~::::::.~'.;.~: Z
~
ui
4Q
. •a: 3 o
: ~ ~
• Irns Q
W
~ z
. ~ ~ AV`
~
~.w
.~9 . ~AV .
' id ~
~T
° • ~
" REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Brian Rager. Engineering 7March 22, 199 6
A~ Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACTalone
Phone: (503 RE: ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road,
across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement;
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also,
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land
classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information availabte to our staff, a report and recommendation will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 1, 1996. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bx
the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning
Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Ti9ard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number: X ~18
~ ~ .
PROPOSAL DESCRI PTION I
~
CtTY OF TIGARD
OREGON
FILE NO: ZCA 96-0001
FILE TITLE: SHULTZ
APPLICANT: John Godsey, Jr. OWNER: James & Madeline Shultz I
15256 NW Greenbrier Pkwy 13268 SW Bull Mountain Road
Beaverton, OR 97006 Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive
plan from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density
Residential and change the zone from Washington County R-6 to City of
Tigard R-7.
LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road; across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'.
APPLICABLE .
REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and
. 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.136,
annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
CIT: West CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request
PHONE NUMBER: (503)
DECISION MAKING BODY
STAFF DECISION
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30
HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00
CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 4/23/96 TIME: 7:30
RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP - X_ LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER
STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (503) 639-4171 x336
. ~
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
April 26, 1996
Ken Martin, Executive Officer
Portland Metropolitan Area
Local Government Boundary Commission
800 NE Oregon Street #16 Suite 540
Portland, OR 97232
Dear Ken:
I am writing to submit the enclosed forms for a city-initiated,
double majority annexation (Tigard ZCA 96-0002) and to request
space on the Boundary Commission's agenda of May 30, 1996.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
call me at 639-4171. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter. Sincerely,
Ray Valone
Associate Planner
Enclosures
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
i
MM-r~ -n~,w:._~~
~
~ 2623
BULL MOUNTAIN RANCH
13268 SW. BULL MOUNTAIN RD. 639-5012 ~
TIGARD, OR 97224 24-2Z36
,s 1230
~i ~
PA'y
TOTHE
~ ORDEROF_ - - •~~•y~vi~~ ~ ~ ~~5+`~/b~
~ • - - - OIM~_-( ► ~U ~ t A R S .
,
U.S. BANK JAMES R. SHULTZ
TIGf1470BAANCH MADELINE E. SHULT2
P.O. BOX 2330P T16Al70.OR 87223
UNITED B;ATES NA710NAL BANK OF ORE60N ~ p
1
F~'1°~=~?:'°R~ts~h2.:.-°reCZim~rr:~?~~±~'±'~ ~:=.i~rsr...i.ffif~,~nnm..~!.~~..i:"!e,v=.+,7~✓°.:~•,!~,,•ri7e;nro-~r=~rFs;,±Mrn,~'~._!!t~.r.r7,.•:~~•r~ca-r,nrnm.-:= I
' •
~ RVAL GBC FOR1tiI #1 S •
PETITION FOR AiVNEYf1TION TO THE CITY OF TzCIARn , OREGON
TO: The Council of the City of TzGARD Oeegon
We, the undersigned properry owners of and/or registered voters in the area described below,
hereby periaon for; and give our consent to, annexation of the area to the City of
TIGARD . If approved by the city, we further request that this peririon be
forwarded to the Portland Metropolitan rlrea local Crovernment Boundary Commission for
the necessary procedures as prescribed by ORS 199.490(2).
The property to be annexed is described as follows:
(Insert Legal Description /iere OR attacli it as Fxliibit "A
17
Revised 11i93
PETITION SIGNERS
Ncil'E: Tliiu puiifiun muy bu uiunud liy (iuulifiud puraunu nvun thouUh thny irioy not knuw thuir prupnrty damcriptiun or precinat number.
SIGNATURE PRIN7ED NAME I AM A:• ADDRESS PROPERTY DE&CRIPTION PHECINCT # DATE
PO RV OV L071! 1/4 SEC. T R
J1INIES SIMT7, X 13268 sw suTa, rrr RD 188 9AB 2s lw 0009
` Ml1DLLINE SI-NLTZ ~ 13268 SW BLTLL MI' RD ZSO 9AB 2S lW 0009
A
' PO = Prupurry Ownur
- ftV = RuUistnrod Volor
OV = Owner Voter
~ •
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SHULTZ
BULL MOUNTAIN
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, R.ANGE 1 WEST,
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
THE BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER AND
SAID NORTHEAST CORNER BEING MARKED WITH A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "G & L P.L.S. 1989".
THENCE N 880 13' 49" W, 357.28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID
NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT TR.ACT OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JAMES R. SHULTZ AND MADELINE E. SHULTZ AND
RECORDED IN DEED DOCUMENT 93-73654, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS.
THENCE S 010 37' 01" W, 382.43 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID
- DEED DOCUMENT 93-73654 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF AND SAID
SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT
TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JAMES R. SHULTZ AND MADELINE E.
SHULTZ AND RECORDED IN DEED DOCUMENT 93-73653.
THENCE N 880 16' 29" W, 93.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDA.RY OF SAID
DEED DOCUMENT 93-73653 TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID DEED DOCUMENT
93-73653.
THENCE S 010 37' 01" W, 315.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID
DEED DOCUMENT 93-73653 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DEED DOCUMENT
93-73653;
THENCE S 880 16' 29" E, 446.70 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH BOLNDA.RY TO THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 9;
THENCE N 010 53' 29" E, 697.15 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 277,259 S.F. OR 6.36 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
. . . ~ •
P1tiIAL GBC FOR1V #4
CER TIFICA TION OF LEG.4L DESCRIPTION AjVD XL4P
I hereby cerhify that the descriprion of the properry included within the attached petition (located on
Assessor's Viap 2S 1 9AB TL 100 & 200 )
has been checked by me and it is a true and exact descriprion of the propecry under consideration,
and the descriprion corresponds to the attached map indicating the proQerry under consideration.
NAViE PDTI,
=E
DEPART'INfENI'
C OLTNTY OF ~~CI d"UYl a i M
. DATE n i- i ~ Q
19
Revised 11 %93
. ~ •
P.,VAL GBC FORM #16
CF,RTIFIGiT10N OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
• (Double 1fajorrry Meihod)
I hereby certify that the attached petition for annexarion of the territory described therein to the City
of TIGARD contains the names of the owners* of a majority of the land area of the
territory to be annexed, as shown on the last available complete assessment roll.
Nr~~
rrrt.E
DEPART?VENT
COUNTY OF
JDATE
* "Owner" means the owner of the ritle to real property or the contract purchaser of real
property.
PAItiLGBC FOR111 #17
' CERTIFIG4 TION OF REGISTERED VOTERS
I hereby c-ertify that the attached peauon for annesarion of territory described herein to the City of
TIGARD contains the names of at least a majoriry of the
electors registered in the territory to be annesed.
NANiE
TITLE ~e/nio'r Administrat-i vP q Ar; alist
DEPARTIN1Eti"I' Assessment & Taxation/Election Division
COL~tTY OF Washington
D AMarch 4, 1996
T'E
i s
Revised 11/93
. ~
OIALGBC FORiVI 919 (continued
)
(This jorm is iVOT the perition)
ALL O-i-YNERS OF PROPERTYANDiOR REGISTERED vOTERS INCLUDED f1V BOUNDARY
CHANGE PROPOSAL ARF-4 -
(To be completed IF the proposal contains 10 or fewer land owners/registered voters. Please
indicate the name and address of all owners/voters regardless of whether they signed an
annexarion peririon or not.) This is for notificarion purposes.
NAVIE OF OW1tERNOTER A.DDRESS PROPERTY DESIGNATIO`I
(Indicate tax lot, section number,
Township and Range)
JANIF'JS SHULTZ 13268 SW BULL NIr ROAD TL 100 & 240 of MAP 2S 1 9AB
MADELINE SHULTZ 13268 SW BULL N1r ROAD TL 100 & 200 of MAP 2S 1 9AB
(9)
(10)
i
~
Ili
31
Rzvised 11i93
. ~ • .
, PAIAL GBC FORItit #20 (continued) .
.
RE'GISTERE'D vOTERS
.
~
ADDRESS OF REGISTERED NAlvIE OF REGISTERED SIGNED PETITION
Voter Voter Yes No
13268 Sw Bull Mtn Road James Shultz X
13268 SW Bull Mtn Road Madeline Shultz X
13268 SW Bull Mtn Road Amy Shultz X
TOTALS 3 3 3
' StI1LPyIriR'I
TOTr1L WINMER REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PROPOSAL 3
N[TTNIBER OF REGISTERED VO?ERS WHO SIGiNED 3
PERCENI'AGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO SIGYED 100s
TOTAL ACREAGE IiN PROPOSAL 6.2
ACREAGE SIGiNED FOR 6.2
PERCEMAGE OF ACREAGE SIGiNED FOR 100 0
23
Revised 11193
• ~ •
P1IIALGBC FORItii #6
BOUIVDARY CHAIvGE DATA SHEET
1. EXISTING COIVDITIONS IN ARF..tI TO BE ANNEXED OR WITHDRA i3rjV
A. Land Area: Acres ~.15 or Square Mles
B. General description of territory. (Include topo;raphic features such as slopes,
vegetation, drainage basiris, floodplain areas, which are pertinent to this proposal).
~
~a/'.ASS UL't r:=•'> Ln'= c•~
i
TC) ~ ' = c'~{, - ~ •:s5 L' '.~''•°~-%K- . ( S
~~C~•41tti,;~J PA•Zea~..C rC'1S !1 .5~•~1.L r~ ^'4't-f" /~.r's~,c f"-~c
S i~"l C itit t G:F:-, .
C. Describe land uses on surrounding parcels. Use tax lots as reference points.
( 2-S i 4~`
Noct}l: A Z.'L"f Tti ,,.~r2=~;4- iS S~ ~G~L ~?ae~•~'L ~ ~ ~as~- `z~(
W ) sFJ'c.._ . 6~^~o,•~ ~ i~h.'3 t~•~ e c-~L 1 S ,H ri2~: c s^-A 2 S u.S P~~.S • v-•J c.► l~ cc.e c3
_ Lc
East:
. South: Ef~ ;'-tcc; L r> A s P_: -1
CZS 1 1
;LOU ri2 7,t,
west:
D. Existing Land Use:
Number of sin?le-familv units ~ Number of multi-familv units (D
Number commercial structures C) Number industrial structures C)
Public facilities or other uszs c~ What is the current use the land proposed to be annexed:
E. Total current year Assessed Valuation S R~0 `i f~
F. Total existing population
11 -
Revised 11 /93
~ , ~ •
II. REASON FOR BOUNDARY CHAVGE
A. ORS 199.462 of the Boundary Commission Act states: "In order to carry out the
purposes described in ORS 199.410 when reviewing a boundary change..., a boundary
. commission shall. consider local comprehensive planning for the area, economic,
demographic, sociological_projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective
physical developments of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the
proposed boundary change..." Considerino, these points, please provide the reasons the
proposed boundary change should be made. Please be very specific. Use additional
pages if necessary. (Tnis information is often quo:ed in the Staff Repor, so be
thorough and complete.)
~,;y~~,~
p;;;i~ c n r l~ Lz~.• L cc~l 1 J'~ ~J-~ ~'L
B. If the property to be served is entirely or substantially undeveloped, what are the plans
for future development? Be specific. Describe rvpe (residential, industrial, commercial,
etc.), density, etc.
n..~ .J
III. L.41VD USE AA,`D PL.4NNING
A. Is the subject territory to be developed at this time?
B. Generally describe the anticipated development (building types, facilities, number oi
units).
C. Is the subject territory inside or outside of the Vietro Regional Urban Growth
Boundarv?
1
Revised 11/93
. . •
0 •
D. What is the applicable County Planning Designation? ~
or Ciry Planninc, Designation kl~ -1
Does the proposed development comply with applicable regional, county or city
comprehensive plans? Please describe.
E. What is the zoning on the territory to be served?
6 u.1? ti \ 'L A, S,~ C ~ ' l,~
F. Can the proposed development be accomplished under current county zoning?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If No,---has a zone change been sought from the county either formallv or informally.
0 Y !~s ❑ No
Please describe outcome of zone change request ii answer to previous questions w•as
Yes.
G. Is the proposed development compatible with the city's comprehensive land use plan for
the area?
o Yes ❑ No ❑ City has no Plan for the area.
Has the proposed development been discussed either formally or informally With any of
the following? (Please indicate)
o Ciry Plannina Commission o Ciry Planning Staff
o Ciry Council ❑ Ciry Manager
Please describe the reaction to the proposed development from the persons or agencies
indicated above.
13
Revised 11193
. ~ . • ~ ~ ~
H. Please indicate all permits and/or approvals from a City, Counry, or Regional
Govemment which will be needed for the proposed development. If already granted,
please indicate date of approval and identifying number:
APPROV.AL PROJECT DATE OF FUTL"R.E
FILE 4" APPROVAL REQUIREMENT
Metro UGB Amendment
City or County Plan A-mendment
Pre-Applicarion Hearing (City or Counry) I
Preliminary Subdivision Approval I
Final Plat Approval
Land Partition I
Conditional Use (
Variance
Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal
Building Permit
Please submit copies of proceedings relaiing to' any of the above permits or approvals
which are percinent to the annexarion.
I. If a city and/or counry-sanctioned citizens' group exists in the area of the annexation,
please list its name and address of a contact person.
IT
IV. SE'RTrICES .4'VD UTILITIES
A. Plesse indicate the following:
1. Location and size oi nearest water line which can serve the subject area.
~j t. J~`~ IL L~• n~t~ i•~ S~ i,~ i N C.:': o..~ ~:,'C l~r~ ~/.n: ~ l,`f
_ I 0 1~~'1-~ ~/JS~ ~ A lt 'C C.T W i l, tit i..i "6-1,
ti~ 6...; v ~..~6-.: 17- C_ u.ti5 -i c.u c-kL a-L
J
14 Revised 11 /93
e . . • •
~
2. Location and size of nearest sewer line which can serve the subject area.
s C'`~..+ ~`C E..t c ~ J .~i c..l-'~'~.~, C'~ o...J ~ ~`.1.~~'l_ y~/~,~. O..n'~~ U--~
. .
3. Proximity of other facilities (storm drains, fire engine companies, etc.) which can
serve the subject area
i;
1 S l•:~ ~ fL ~!l L ' 7"I i' ~ C.....~ :.v i l,.~t.~ • ~ l ti ti., ~v •-c.'L~
4. The time at which services can be reasonably provided by the city or district.
l.k rC.A,, L '~:-V e 1.r- D•"L-EN'~ c ~ S'. c
5. The estimated cost of eYtending such facilities and/or services and what is to be
the method of financing. (Attach any supporting documents.)
~.6, , r~~!Z -X, ci w.'J c:i I ;-V'pL,, c.Ati--
6. Availability of the desired service from any other unit of local government.
(Please indicate the government.)
1 ~
Revised 11/93
i . : . . ' •
.
B. If the territory described in the proposal is presently included within the boundaries of
any of the following types of governmental units, please so indicate by stating the name
or names of the governmental units involved.
City Rural Fire Dist T~'`~.
Counry Service Dist.~"~•r..a.~<<-!N s,t.~ fo Sanitary District u•S ~ •
Hwy. Lighting Dist. Water District WnQ: c r~s cs- .
j ~(~~.r~- i ~1L1i• N
Grade School Dist. Drainage District
High School Dist. Diking District
Library Dist. Park & Rec. Dist.
Special Road Dist. Other Dist. Supplying Water Service
C. If any of the above units are presently servicing the territory (for instance, are residents
in the territory hooked up to a public sewer or water system), please so describe.
S i{-6'~' JCT S Prsi ~~OL TT-S
' ~ y F~.2 ,~.r~,l~ + 1 G aE,1 ws.22 a..:c,t S.: 'Z;f~: + 1•: /z,"v~-(
' APPLICANT'S NANE L "'t"~ 1r Z_".'
MAILING ADDRESS (~~i Z'~_ SL„~ (J.ALL .3 v'%) .
~
i1 GA~ 7Z2-
' L 2..) 'A C . i • A il L;, ~ c
TELEPHONE NTJMBER 3 5-~- I 7 I (Work)
(Res.)
REPRESE\rI'ING
DATE: N?U L 2b ~ 1 ~4 ~
16
Revised I1/93
. T• ~ • ~ •
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RcSOLUTION NO. 96-a:~
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD Or= THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRI6ED IN EXHIBIT A AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B(ZCA 96-0001). .
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on Aprii 23, 1996, to consider the annexation of two
parcefs consisting of 6.15 acres located north of Buil Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission
law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and
WI-~cREAS, the Tigara City Councif s authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon
recaiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed and written consent from owners of more than haff the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, the prooerty which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Streei Lighting
District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be
automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Counci{ that:
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), hereby initiates proceedings
for annexation to the City of Tigard of the territary described in Exhibit A and
' illustrated in Exhibit B.
Section 2: The CitY Council herebY aPProves the ProPosed annexation and requests that the
' Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission approve the
proposal and effect it as soon as possible.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the resolution with
the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once.
•~-,rd
PASSED: This,;2~ day o ~ 996.
May r City of Tigard
AT..TEST:
.•L hY L [ ru. L(. ; il_~ c:_L~--c-L~
ify Recorder - City of Tigard Certified to be a True Copy of
^_/423 1.2-6' ~ ~C~1 aL C~
Date ' Originat fite
,
i:\IrplnUaylzca96-01.res
rder • City f Tgar
gr iR4/23/96, d:00 PM City
pqo
Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 96- -:27
Page 1
I
. • . • ExxzazT a
~
STAFF REPORT
Aprii 23, 1996
TIGARD C171' COUNCIL
TiGARD TOWN HK_L
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0001
REQUEST: To annex two parcels of 6.2 acres of unincorporated
Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change
the comprehensive plan and zone maps from Washington
County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-7.
APPLICANT: John Godsey, Jr.
15256 NW Greenbrier Pkwy
Beaverton, OR 97006
OWNERS: James & Madeline Shultz
13268 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road across from SW 133rd Avenue -
WCTM 2S1 9AB, fots 100 & 200 (see Exhibit B, vicinity map).
2. Vicinity {nformation
Properties to the north and west are in Washington County and zoned R-6, single
family residential. Properties to the south and east are in the city and zoned R-7.
lmmediateiy to the east is the Mountain Highlands subdivision, currently under
construction.
3. Backaround Information
The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the two properties. No
previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to these properties.
,
. • ~ ~
a. S,ite information and Proposal Description
The southern boundary of the two parcels is located approximately 1000' north of
Bull Mountain Road. The vacant northern parcel slopes down at approximately
15% from southeast to northwest. The southern parcel siopes from west to east at
10% to 15%. It has a single family residence and two accessory structures.
The owners request that their property be annexed to the city by means of the
double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land
(100%) and a majoriry of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, the owners have initiated this action through their written consent.
5. Agencv Comments
The Engineering Division, Tigard Police and Water departments, Unified
Sewerage Agency, Tualatin Va{{ey Water District and PGE reviewed the proposal
and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this
report.
B. FiNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters
18.136 and 18.138.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the comprehensive plan based on the following findings:
1. Policy 2_1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied
because the West CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified
of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published.
2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed
parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water
Department and TVF&R have reviewed the proposal and indicate that
adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate the
affected property.
3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the
proposal will not create a boundary irregularity in this area; the Police
Department has been notified .of this request and has no objection; the
~
. „ . , . ~ •
affected fand is located within the city's urban planning area and is
contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are availabie to
accommodate the property.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of
the community development code based on the foilowing findings:
1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation
proposals, is satisfied because: a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services
are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site.
b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied.
c. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations of Medium
Density Residential/R-7 most closely conform to the county
designation of R-6.
d. The determination that the affected properties are developing area is
based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code.
2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed
land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of a
developing area and shall be so designated on the development standard
areas map of the comprehensive plan.
~ C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends that the City
Counci( adopt the attached resolution and forward it to the 3oundary Commission
to initiate annexation of the subject properties; and that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance assigning comprehensive pian and zoning designations to the
properties upon approval of the annexation.
~
,
~ ~il. _ •eit+b '
~
,n• .
sj,~,,•~--
.
z .
t~n o .
~ y 6W ~ .q' • ~
0 C ~ .p
Z n O
zZ -
o ~ • .
~ ~ ..M+'r~~~~~~ .t't ~ ~ •
Z .i•'••"~! ~ .0~• ••t~~~
~ •t'•• ~4 ~
m ~
. a. .'~;.T...
z 4' ~
~
~
:ar.: • ~
\
~
~
\
~
a _
~
~ ,
~
r
~
~
~
~ ~ p~ •'r'~• ~ ~ ~ •
►N 'y~1111~'~ . .
~ ~ ea
• .
~ c~ . .
P
5 .
~
~9 . •
~
& ~ ~ . .
6 '
0
~
~
0
a
V
o •
~ J
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON •
ORDINANCE NO. 96- /•T
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0001).
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1990, to consider a zoning
designation for two parcels of land located north of Bull Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed
annexation to the Portland Metropofitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land
use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Tax Map, Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use
2S1 9A6, lots 100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential
and 200
Current Zoning New Zoning
Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By ~~~~1►~ »~~~lS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this-;2~L' day of 1~96. `
c.•i CL.
Ca rine Wheatley, City Re order
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this,->`day of.~.~% 1996.
/
James Nicoli, Mayor / Approved as to form:
r
Cit Attomey
- 21~,[ c ra
Date
i: U rp I n Va y 1z ca 96-0 1. o rd
4/4/96, 3:15 PM
ORDINANCE No. 96- ~~'Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD
May 1, 1996
OREGON
Thomas and Jill Jurhs
12975 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jurhs:
We have received a request from a neighbor in your area to annex to the
city (see map). We are writing to inquire whether you are interested in
becoming part of the city. You may join the current annexation request
which will be heard by the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary
Commission on May 30, 1996. The procedure for joining the request is a
simple process with no cost to you or the city.
I have included a brochure about annexation to the city. If you are
interested and have any questions or would like more information, please
call me at 639-4171. You may also call the Boundary Commission at 731-
4093 to find out about joining the annexation. If you call the Commission,
refer to Proposal 3596.
Sincerely,
Ray Valone
Associate Planner Enclosure
13125 SW Hall BNd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
ll
. •
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLZCATION
CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Bos 23397 '
Tigard, Oregon 97223 -(503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY
CASE N0. ''~C-,+
OTHER CASE NO'S:
RECEIPT N0. P -,-'A - ~'J'~NKC,~ •'ss•L,
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:
DATE: 0]!Zo ! //y`(-
1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted:
PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 13268 SW BULL NT ROAD, t/(A) Application form (1)
TIGARD, OREGON _1,,"(B) Owner's signature/written
TAX MAP AND TAX LOT N0. MAP 2S 1 9AB authorization
TAX LOTS 100 & 200 (C) Applicant's statement
SITE SIZE 6.2 AC (pre-app check list) <f;:z
g o,.w1> 1
PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* JAMES & NIADELINE SHULTZ (D) Filing fee
ADDRESS 13268 SW BULL MP ROAD PHONE 639-5012 Additional information for Compre-
CITY TI~'~ ZIP 97223 sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes
APPLICANT* JOHN GODSEY, JR. _,Z(E) Maps indicating property
ADDRESS 15256 NW ('~IZEENBRIER PKWY PHONE 690-6600 location (pre-app check list)
CITy BEAVEIZl'ON ZIp 97006 (F) List of property ownera and
*When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1)
people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record v"~G) Assessor's Map (1)
or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1)
from the owner or an agent of the owner with written
authorization. The owner(s) must sign this
application in the space provided on page two or
submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE:
~ I S 15 c~ ~t/
2. PROPOSAL SiJMr'IARY
The owners of record of the t6ubject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE:
request a t(if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION:
applicable) from to-1-?„anl) .wCa. ~j:-o" s+Y
and a Zone Change f rom c,Jn •C, to
i~~6AA-6 ~--Jj N.P.O. Number: OR
The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date:
following sections of the Co ve Plan
or Community Develo ode
City Council Approval Date:
' 0737P 23P
Rev'd: 5/87
3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered
as part of this application: ~J I/>, '
4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to eubmit attachments
described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this
application.
5. THE APPLICANT(S),SHALL CERTIFY THAT: I
A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be
attached to or imposed upon the subject property.
• • B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights
granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and
limitations of the approval.
C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the
applicants -so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this
application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are
false.
D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including
the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving
or denying the application.
DATED this 4~1 day of Hap-c ~ 19 C(6
SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property.
S
~ .
(KSL:pm/0737P)
I
•
. ' m
~
' s
q . .Y
. . . c s
. ~ e
. . .
• s
0 ry
O
o
0
V ~
• s ~ a
0
. r~si E S T.
eM u
. . c r e V
. ~ o
x~
s
ftu~ ~
.iy• • j~ ~ ~ , .
• \
. .
~~4~{~r~.u. g • ' . .
•~~,~III ' ~
F R
~ • C~
- ti Q
2
" U
103 M9 Z
C O
Z
1 i <
•
J2 V Z
. . . . . . . ~O ~ ~
•.i . . . v Q
a. . . .
a•
~g. . . . . . . . . :
w
. .
. .
.
. n~x
. .
~ z
. ~ Q
~.N'AV. . . .
~j;.:~:.:':: ~ T
• ' UBLIC HEARING • EXHIBIT~
~ NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,
AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, Anril 23, 1996, AT 7:30 PM,
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, ~
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 CITY OF TIGARD
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ
REQUEST: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan from
Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the zone from
Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road, across from
SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery
capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development
Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED
BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH
IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY
WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND
QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN
ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT
PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND
, WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER
MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION
ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER
April 1. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS
NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST
THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM
THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE
CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS
RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE
2S109A6-00600 2S109AA-03100
BOLTON, BETTY J CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
13269 SW BULL MTN RD 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S104DD-01700 2S104DD-01800
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-01200 2S109AA-02700
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-02800 2S109AA-03000
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 I
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-03200 2S109AA-03300
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-03400 2S109AA-03600
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-03700 2S109AA-02900
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340
PORTLAND,OR 97217 PORTLAND,OR 97217
2S109AA-03500 2S109A6-00700
CASCADE COMMUNITIES, INC DEUTH, ROBERT & CAROL J
700 NE HAYDEN ISLAND DR #340 22340 SW AEBISCHER RD
PORTLAND,OR 97217 SHERWOOD,OR 97140
2S109AA-01201 2S109AB-01200
ERIC RYSTADT HOMES INC FORAN, FRANK B PATRICIA A
13765 NW CORNELL RD 13145 SW BULL MTN RD
PORTLAND,OR 97229 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S109AA-01400 2S109AA-01100
HEMRY, KURT T AND NANCY J JURHS, THOMAS A& L JILL
14332 SW 130TH AVE 12975 SW BULL MTN RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
. • ' • •
2S109AA-01300 2S109AB-00900
KLEARMAN, JOHN B/SHERYL A METZLER, EDWARD J& SAUNDRA C
14318 SW 130TH 13267 SW BULL MTN RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S104DC-05800 2S109AB-00400
PAULL, DAVID & PAULINE TRUSTEE RIPPEY, S K
13277 SW BULL MTN RD 13271 SW BULL MTN RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
I
2S109AB-00200 2S109AB-00100
SHULTZ, JAMES R& MADELINE E SHULTZ, JAMES R& MADELINE E
13268 SW BULL MTN RD 13268 SW BULL MTN RD
TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224
2S109AA-01500 2S109A6-00300
ST PETER, MATTHEW P& JULIE S STEBBINS, GLORIA M AND
14356 SW 130TH AVE WILLIAM M TRS
TIGARD,OR 97224 13273 SW BULL MTN RD
TIGARD,OR 97223
2S104DD-02900
TIGARD, CITY OF
13125 SW HALL
PO BOX 23397
TIGARD,OR 97223
i
~
~
. ~
+ •
A&AVIT OF MAILING '
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon.
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
_ City of Tigard Planning Director
_ Tigard Planning Commission
_ Tigard Hearings Officer
X Tigard City Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the 1 s~
day of April, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an
appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the lst
day of April , 1996, postage prepaid.
Pre&red Notice
~
v
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the ~ da f , 19
OFfICIALSEAL NOTARY PUBLIV2`:
REGON ,
DIANE M JELDERKS
NOl'ApY PUBLIC•OFEGON My Commission COMMIS510N N0. 046142
My GOMMIS5ICN EXpIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999
a.
. ~
RAUEST FOR CO 93
NonRCAnoN usr Foa urro use a, oevaoPMevr APPuc.AnoNS .
, .
: .
. .
: . . . . ~
, u~v
one}
CIi Area =~S E C m Placed for review in Ubrary CR Book m
: . . . . : DE P...::
. . .
; : C11Y AitiMENiS::::::.
BLDG. DEPT./Oavid Scott, wrsnonaw ~K POUCE DEPL/Kelley Jennings, w- ft..«non a.o., OPERADONS/John ACker. ~.a,~. to...
C1TY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley, arae. KENG. DEPL/Brian Rager, o...aw-o..w..a.&,.. _ COM.DEV. DEPL/D.S.T: S
ADV. PING./Nodine Smith, r.,w„u,o..~r„ WATER DEPT./Michoel MBIer, oo.or- #,ojoo«o.,,.,Am
. . . , .
.
, : . . :
SPECIAL':DIS1JICt8:...
FIRE MARSHALL ~UNIHED SEWERAGE AGENCY _ TUALAi1N VALLEY WATER OIST.
Gene BirChell ~~SVVM Ptogram/Lee Walker PO Box 745
Wa. County Fre District • 155 N. Frst Street Beaverton, OR 97075
(pick-up box HMsboro. OR 97124
.
• , : . . . .
. . . : .
:.:::AFPEC?ED.:JU2ISDIC?IONS:.:.;;
.
WA. CO. DE". OF LAND USE i TRANSP. YMETRO AREA BOUNDARY COlNAAiSS10N _ METRO-GREENSPACES
150 N. Frsf Avenue 800 NE OregOn St. N 16. Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA'S/ZOA'S)
Hdlsboro. OR 97124 Portland, OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grcnd Avenue
' Portlcnd.OR 97732-2736
&ent Curtis CPA's RAiE HIGHWA
( I Y DIVISION
_ J'un TiCe (IGA'S) Sam Hunaid'i ODOT/REGION 1
Mdce Bareson (6ngineer) PO Box 25412 Lourie Nicholson/Trans. Pfcnning
_ Scott Kirg (CPA's) Partland, OR 97225-0412 123 N.W. Flcnders
_ Tom Hcrty (Cument Planning App's) Portland, OR 97209-4037
_ Lynn Bailey (Curtent Ptanning App's) OREGON OLCD (CPA's/IOA's)
1175 Courf Sheet, N.E. _ ODOT/REGION 1, DISiRICT 2-A
I _ GTY OF BEAVERTON Salem, OR 973140590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord.
Larty Conrod Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412
PO Box 4755 _ CtTY OF PORTtAND Portland. OR 97725
Beaverton. OR 97076 Planning Oirector
1120 sw stn oniaR
_ GTY OF K1NG C1TY Portlcnd. OR 97204
Cify Mcnoger _ CITY OF U1KE OSWEGO
15300 SW 116th CITY OF DURHAM City Monoger
' 1Gng Ci1y, OR 97724 Cify Manoger PO Box 369
PO Box 23483 ~ Lake Oswego. OR 97034
_ GTY OF TUAIATIN Tigard, OR 97281-3483
, PO Bwc 369
Tualatin.OR 97062
; : .
SPECIALAGENCIES
~ GENERAI TELEPHONE ELKTRlC ZPORTLAND GENERAI ELECiRIC _ COLUMBIA CABLE CO.
~ Efaine Setf. Engineering &ian ►NOOre Croig Eyestone
PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old SchoUs Ferty Rd. 14200 SW Brigadoon Court •
Tigcnd, OR 97281-3416 _ Beaverton. OR 97007 Beoverfon. OR 97005
NW NANRAL GAS CO. r+e~~rn.awr _ METRO AREA COMMUNICADONS TRI-MET TRANSR DEVELOPMEM
Scott Palmer F~= Mo rr.nm Jason Hewitt Km Knox Project Plonner
220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks TeChnobgy Center 710 NE Holladay Streef
Portland. OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 Parfland. OR 97232
8eaverton.OR 97006-4886
_ iG CABLEVISION OF OREGON - US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SOUTHERN PACIRC TRANS. CO.
Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Duane M. Fomey, PlS-Project Eng.
3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Sheet 800 NW 6fh Ave.. Room 324
Portlond, OR 97201 Portland. OR 97204 Union Station
Portlond. OR 97209
. : .
. .
:51'A1L~AGE~TCIES'::::>::::`::;;`:>::>::>;:;:::;>::>:';:. :>~'::::;;`.:>:°:c::.':..`:.,`:::>:;:. . :::r...::<:>;' ° ,
_ AERONAUi1CS DIVISION (ODOn DIVISION OF AATE LANDS US POSTAL SERVICE
COMMERCE DEPL-M.H. PARK HSH 3 WIIDUFE Randy Hommock, Growth Cord.
_ PUC _ DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station
_ DEPL OF EM/IRONMENTAI GiUAUTY Portland, OR 97229-9998
-OTMER _ U.S. ARMY CORPS. OF ENGINEERS