Ordinance No. 05-11 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2005- f I
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 2.68 ACRES, APPROVING WILSON RIDGE ANNEXATION
(ZCA.2005-00002), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER
DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR
CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation
upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed and written :consent fronn owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed; and
P
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties
which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Ernhalnced
Sheriffs Patrol District,Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street
Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the annexation
of two (2)parcels of land consisting of 2.68 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water
District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Waslningtoin County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District#1, and the Washington County Vector
Control District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council left the record open for written submissions for an additional seven days
after the Bearing on August 9, 2005 and;flowed a further seven days on August 23, 2005 for submission of
responses to new evidence submitted during that time, as provided by ORS 197.763(6)(c); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt
obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to asst,-ne, therefore, no
option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a
public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the
Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County
Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from
the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County
Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and
ORDINANCE NO.2005J,_ ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed
to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the
County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by
annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and
WHEREAS,the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has
been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive
Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public Bearing and the written
materialssubmitted after the hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the
applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Council adopts the staff report and the document entitled "Supplemental Finding
Concerning Compliance with ORS Chapter 222" as findings. Iii addition, Council adopts
the document entitled"Findings in Response to Comments"as additional findings of fact.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby amexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A"
and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the
Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District ##h; and the Washington
County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 3.0 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayor and posting by the City Recorder.
SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation,
includinugfiling certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing,
filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities.
SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the
Washington Comity Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the
Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006.
SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filirig with the
Secretary of State.
ORDINANCE NO.2005- / r ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation
Page 2 of 3
PASSED: By O . `LM--D-115 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only,this day of ��:r�: ,2005.
Cathy ieatley, City Recorder
� ,
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this l3 J day of 2005.
Craig 1{sen,Mayor
a
oved as to form:
c
Attonley
Date
ORDINANCE NO.2005- J ZCA2005-00002 Wilson Ridge Annexation
Page 3 of 3
Wilson Ridge I EXHIBIT A
..ZCA2005-•00002
*" alpha .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GRAHAM ANNEXATION JOB NO-32"27
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED'IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST,• WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON
COUNTY,OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:'
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF THE PLAT OF "MOUNTAIN
GATE". BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
DOCUMENT NO. 2004-06529; THENCE ALONG THE*EAST LINE- OF SAID PROPERTY
AND SAID LINE EXTENDED, NORTH 01°31'37" EAST 132.47 FEET TO A POINT-ON THE
NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.W. BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD (COUNTY
ROAD NO. 2515] LYING 20.00 FEET, RIGHT-ANGLE MEASURE, NORTHEASTERLY OF
THE CENTERLINE;THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 59°20'07" EAST
472.32 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF WESTERLY
RIGHT--OF-WAY LINE 'OF SW - 133RD AVENUE LYING 25.00 FEET, RIGHT-ANGLE
MEASURE WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SW 133RD AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID
EXTENSION AND WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 00031'25" EAST 19298 FEET.
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT
NO. 2000--04259; THENCE LEANING SAID RIGH'-OF-6TIAY HNL ALONG THE SOUM
LINE OF.SAID PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO.
2000-14685 NORTH ,89° 43'44" WEST.402.59 FEET TO A POINT LYING 10.00 FEEF
RIGHT ANGLE MEASURE EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE PLAT OF "MOUNTAIN GATE'
THENCE SOUTH 01" 31' 37" WEST 928.57 FEET PARALLEL TO.THE EAST LINE OF
"MOUNTAIN GATE" AND "MOUNTAIN GATE NO.2" ; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE
NORTH 88°.22' 19" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A THE SOUTHEAST CORNER LOT 64
"MOUNTAINGATE NO.2"; THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED PLAT LINES
NORTH 01°31' 37" EAST 1213.81 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.104 ACRES. .
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION 1S WASHINGTON CbUNTY SURVEY.
NO.22,110
N-.\proj'\32M27\Wixd\LEGAL DESCRIPTIDI GRAHAM.doc '
Plaza West—Suite 230—9600 SW Oak—Portland—Oregon 97223
Office 503 452-SCM—Fax 503 452-8043
www.alphacomm6nity_com
•. 1,,,,.rf3� .'• ` 1, 1. 5 r• .4, r5. r',, Ir, F A ^ , „7, 2$1 09AC LS•1 09AQ,
.90 .
fry� \ „'14jq, •�`1,,�r'•- '•� %+ C :%i.s�% _ �t.L%!..�..�''''.ry+.;+•+;.5yf'�,r;�;''1. ,st',+;`::7 ';I,.,i;�;>;;,�s'';r;"1i ��'�I,'�5 '''J:3d;, 1:;5�4�J1I ,1;"3t',e'.':Sf; d1M'"�;.;.7;�r' SJ;�s(''- 'J;'' '�.1," '
:"'"y y111j11 'f•"'Ir�'.�s°'"1;': ,r•;� ;r'Y'71;,,1�,'ilr^ —T �.r'�11f ^, '' ''.'1' il.�•' 'NAKnrSti,�,�Nv�Witx�''•t c'• •�
,1;"% �Mkr 1V(II,I ,aY i;,,iii, � .1 `;e:,�i5,• r't.,rl.r .i7r ''i'. �t.,i i'i',a.,Sl, �.+.,�7 .\' �:. �' .:•''� 'ro �F:J+i:t r�7f;1 �
F... ;,':, �5` rign�' .�,,:;�,'�,�, ;6 C ;rr„ '71;, .,,.r' ';le;Y �":5^ :t .L;�;r,,, ';+;•}r �, `• ,, ' ,,;,',t.a~'F,,,%lr '';,� of":Sqr. i�i'rr�l' �>?r,y'n
''31.,• 311 ,,IP• 5 ;.,,"�•�^':Y�;li`. 15'di.r' ''.yi`:
,�,,,/�� Y, ..'4 r 'y,�•;'+,�„ 11,Ih" ''(�'' '.t• `� fi :li,.''` '' '�•''�y"J• 'r' ''r'1 'S:rw r t; 41',fi`''r 7; 5;'`'J ,+,r .LLI t: ✓'�. ���5,, �r, "
'i,r li '11'"'71'�i:Y's I; �'�HalI1gt1 ' ;It ., ;ti w '�;�ra. •• .t '': ';'J;,•. ;, 1•;1%"b';�'J'' "" ii'+ ;, � �":,'�;.:J.r,.'+:, ti''•' i,:r'
:( „'"'r:•'3i la ''I rtiN ( ,"If r; ' v ' ,�!Ij r sJ:7
X11' 111 . ,,,r ' 71.: ,.�;� Y,;`dY::li':,r`n;''ti"�',.`{,'' ii'7'M•ti ''';'J+'• 2
'.yt. ;4;" ';r';I ''Y'' '%r , ' ., •r; , :,,
'1 1,,*. , ,,t'1 �,"':, '' 1' C1 5�•�',;�a6 ' ;�..LLL `' .q I••f•rl(;.'1't: �,.5�.
If,,•'H..'t''1 r'i ,J:•': :+.•\,+,,, !1;' 11;.\,',., 31 ,y,` t;�'"'}Hi•i4:,� Irl P •f'"`'1
,
,,l :r,'•,.,�sde'• '.'{• 1q 'r( J ;!r :;r:'' 7f;, }, i' `I •\rr 1"°°• Q :x06 yy 1 f. .,i ,.✓ 't'.r,." �:,•Il•t `✓
F;�' Vl' .Vll :r;' ',L'�1r , ''� • %l; t; 11;'% ';51,, 'tiy�'A • YIlkl[,rr,Y'13,,,�,Y•r,;};:^:;f
J: :1: •''si' Iq '' '(' �jd., ,1., �,.'.'�, O 1 .� ,s1 nw,•d;• � I"r :IlMgr;,.,
';It''1' :`S ,'`;ti^,� 'ir 4'll III '4'.Jtd `' 'r.': y:fN�'.�,r( f.'i :�,rr' ,r 1� ,5 awa9 �. '� •J,� .,i.f, ,Ilrr:y:M1fk;4�:•J�IN;i1�M.i'�'S
W Y, 7. ',; is;/."'a''';e �•+ /S �''J.`ii '�•:S;,ti, ya il..SV°r,�;, t, s:':ii' •'k;�U;"��,,'\�,1t�'�
FI'"r\ Y. Yr S, r5• rr`, .'t','Y .'t. •.:� ,1{\r; •„h.•r
'4,} r:' 'fll.' + ,r;'iY''3t''' k'�;.•�:!J," r: Fl, 'Il :r,>,' 3(.rJs'. 'St f ,t' `' e' i•�'3 ri`�'.^,r 715 r it si:+'s i;.�i'•''"�•J11
,' �, ' �.f•• ,:i(1rY•,r:ifY3C; �4.�3 ,J 7 r ryr 1
rl :�rr;i;l' 5!k ; '`,5; 5' S:r�`i,' I:, )i %'"'J •rY` Ilr.x1 71•;r`r%r;Y,''1! Cd
1 r;li'':'S!'•':1 ' ` ' h 5�' 5: . 1 ;r' t`Ir Y. F. ;• -^i,
'',\' ;:'•1`I' :: r ' ,'S r , •' J VVV A
r '4,''ran 'It' ` ''J; .`''1'.' .1% •;;,\' ';,' �d erg k' 4,.h�1'hl,li,,J,' J ;i'�i.xjSJ ''' r If tt: r, ,
,iatV�'''J• •aJq";�',`'^"'•r L,I j5 '`'',r1ir• ,.,'1'` "+', �, r+1,,r1'' "1 i r�j.(ir, ��_- ,@11 ;;tj • . •':[�' � .
Y;• ;r" ,FtJ. �' r'�{�%',J •,'�:K ;f 0,'S:,,ti. ::'',+t„G,.' .'r. !e 5; 5. z •'11,,�yr•vr'. ++4''�''s'p' m,r
..._. .. :'Ir,', /,r':IY;rt';, rti,, If,•:' 1{' i ,,J, %1, S; 1'' Yi �Sy,r t 1 7;3t'
,;., r xeo6 •i
•,1r.,:3nrw; .5,,+. '''7l';r. , ,r,',4 ,: •I ''a"� ,.da�a
MITI. lul` 1;`' '1(; 'r x, �� %+,. WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON
9` ,'• ''✓. •
;. �•,'r,; '':r;; •/ ``l'•; 1;;;5� 1:,r;lt' ,: 5 'rf, yp:`; p ': ,; y1 8W114 NE114 SECTION 09 72981 W SM1r.M.
:,r r. a ''';.;';, ,; r. 'Y; +n ,,. .,y,,r; 5m•• '8[sALE 1” tQ0'
-, '1.4a,a :�"�,�•r';5� n„r,�•,. zoo �1 �f .,•L,r,,,,'r� gypf �� s,n,�” •�'�.
'ard` %' ' •' '`• ��'if 1'1';31,��•%i i[, '•;� RI joJ{ x��a •q 'h r.rn y M
'r�i,a�;,i-,o,r;.f;rY•.'i1•,�3. N r ;r�I'',t, I� rn,a h '.S;xµ;�,•), ;1 rt�•y;'S,t � •1' -
'n' 'S: 'r, 'r, .•C ':�r_ - _ - {y `� - a i %�',:'' SW 6IRDSV
•,';fi4, �\�;J,':;•?�,,�1` i , 2{,106- " '" ri': MAI
i se;a,1 i,•3'"'`' a a b ,40.0e j tom �p !it Al 7 -3� s t•r:�'l"'I
",I:,,•r, ,J., y:'n,'i4h
23-74
Y.
���'�'• ''' l J` r g.�'' ' 7066 �•� flkqu�• YI•sti''• !^�1r�4it _
•'4a'1f 5,`,,'1 `/�• '1' w^L,�yl \e1 W 1 `a' III� ,•{It
�: er' 'r� Ir°�•�•,,'Jl
. ��• - e r :,1,•'g"1' �',: '�q'Ir .✓' ?oil Agpf7'IOHA{MAP>tV15JToUAWF&SAYAi'
N r�5�,''`i
+nI:,,rL•� •,.s�:ra'',, �:1'rl' kIr1Y.0a.w�iRi11P(en.or.°i
Q� d `4 '4' ,.3'�•`�S ' '''i �•l tal.w16a i wnn
,Q '1. hpG • .''',y�;r a�Ae - 14°6 M�r'J y , •'rr'.�` . ;4`.. I X$�c'.
•a ,ef, ,�./ r, ";,' auK t 5\115\\�\� ,NN\\5wu%55\\NV1tj�5 5''C _ss F ';i�5�r1:.•ia�'i ::3f'.f'
CG
LA !. �'� jr, �n.��. 3•c— ;•t,, t ,tu, t, ;.•}S 5, rr;t:
w ,Sf4,;,SS;.'• I "tl.u.•w s •a :t�;3,, ,>;;'s t•'';Ir t5�,f�f3,� .�Jir.:+ Af1 jyAP>:1
- 0r dU a�pK,r'k*Y.�,'. -� "1,1.4,'.Y!.'s,•s•'''l%Ai,�ti,l'`'•dt.,,t.;.I5:%, �� 1. �0 � •�''4 ' � f.ra � .iil.c ' N•1t,py' :'r'I��';''4r':','�?,1.,V,7'''r•,'ii1;;r•.i:r\',..;%'1•'"Sf'•rj;„;, ;1;;''`;x11 �r,A,'•✓a.ir;Y3i.'`�.f p.4"''".''
766 '�i•1 1":'ir l'1'o(.,kk Fif,r
o.;l,r x� •{Jt++,,i,•.,i � ,•.,,�„� � r 'Y''t F:4 .:�?�,':r�'�',r: '+Jt'S."r•�,.r;�.f',!,J,°.+i;;i. 't; `;"
,ttll��t''iti 1� � rwr+•, r i;i':rS K,'.:;';Ji `i.rrti�•'� i+ry;+•:�1[ i 1�.�r ''+t�Cl':'t.3$�7�1:1��Ai,':j' '
,5 ,. � „',•.r�s+ig�r?'' ur+4w laic 1 9rll,'a.,:5'3:` 'lf;''Y,�,YLS.fil�,u�';3r i'+,a• rii eisr ;t`3 aY'��:rit'•"%
:} -3-78
3' it 4 •:, ` I:•;ll;a74,,1:,:.,7. .
•:+ 7P l":'1 �" t• 1�1 h�•il' I,1y;3i;r f'r
5r •3 `78 7166
'J' '. ;:t• ' '' ''' "Pow " 4110 'It;Iti �.:,ti1(..!�i(;''L•';3 r.''%,;'il.y.5,i
".;Ar.:d•,r' "P°,a• t106 •?��r��x •;�`x ry�•��,_�'L i 1 'i '
S�VMM• eif, , 11164
C41JliT,y i^'.r^..•:� ,' r:`,ll;S'. 5� ,,,u y; ':,'ti;
•,A„;,5;r
. JC,•,,, e,.Y';11r'Y,''';..'�,�..'i.
I Lu
1w n
”, "�,'`!A'y• �4 •t'XZ A. MoeJ.o , ,� i . J• r'h!'I'.,1+,',, .•, 1+' '
C3 'a 706 k 'r,' +; ;5'•5,ry �4 a s RP 7 3 441 Pl 4
;•:r,'rl • l�'+;'l• "r-�
:° `'i"d �q rl k• FI]Lauf J 1 1. .• r1'','�l''v
• 6 '
'r'}, `, ;. •'., YN7 t a1/C Jt :1:'' "sf T 40 X a Y f 0 n
".Y : :r' •,:*r,"r ± .r���.�� 1.AH "r ,ti,.;ll;';14;';f'';rl�R�"Y ':� I,'.
' ` ''J5, :'( +Oa:;,,7 `I0O° ""' _ ' ',v,'•�:r:;,1;�;t;sr;•'Is;':,; v;•;�(s:,�x PLOT
qD,/TEI oNoo�yVljMbber 30,2004
"„t.fe:;�: aw - '_'•;t;RS �.u;�,,'f,';:e;';5'•':i;'. If �OONL OR�}THSTFf USE�N�$
'J• •�'S :. r'P�': � � R
Lur5 a°� .n' 4;"`(t;J,�'J k;C:ra :i'';,;;,. Mwasu dlil«hlbyrMpr prs'wKrtaa+rmud+w5ra.
,7,' Y ti,'r 5• ' nrwrn:n rrnnnr,n a+:'.idr.rrn.rnu!r.n n.,.w
�1 .( k ''.'. •,5.'. ` J �..�a...�.�.�� a'i''�,`i'i�: ,'r��,41r.",S,•%1�'• r1a141fMl�rh/hwlduYL NIrM ObIMAIJb ppya'fI�rM1�
f\ ' 'S y 1 ) '. •.,,r. F 1' ��� �. ''' •'� r' •`I -,,,'t , N-iW mManrtlW'm.Mt
�L ; No
oI. ,.-r.Y•-,•.•�- , r—.—�.... •If''•- cif r rtil.'`�^;T:%'; �,y.75'' 5,,'
fry ! ;t',,. ,, ;S�'% r, i;y� :F'';i A'r r''ti' ,'I',;' .t Y,, 14;' .'`'r,a";+:'':r';t�1':f'";7 t, rl;• ^'1f
4 rJt, „'Y.•Yr, 'r ""�r;l��ni',�r^,-,^rpx�.r-r,.--. '''i;�y,Jf,`'1{':S„)i,•' :ri 'T,;S.J
'y'' 'il. �( 1. Ir. ,. �'r.�++r.h {�r 'i'ri'' •;n;" ,�'�d�;•ri,•P ';tt
J:!t• ,t' :1 •:v' ir,\`t..r, 'r!1" :;":Il' ''R'1,'';h:h„', V;1;:{";i:"rt �,,i' , ,r.' •,h,'•^'r; r'4+'' k",r' ^'4 .:' r rti ,1•'i'�••'
t��5f�d .r'%f',arrsl•% ,vJr'r: }}'\ti . . ` y,r5.',1,:�. 7i+•:,,. 2• Y, .. „•;K ,". ., .. r5 r, .. „ ,r r'',, ,, .+, X, ,. .� :'S .'i ., r. .. .' TIGARD
_ 2s 1 asAc' •2s 1 09AC
` Glglhlw o -
N I
1 QCITYTIGARD
I GEOORAPFIM e1 NFORMATIOH SYBYaM
I
U :ALPINE VIE Hoa VICINIVY M"
m
ALP
_
T1. 1:� 1 m ZCA20�5—����}
WILSON RIDGE
co
ANNEXATION
4z
• BI !EW-ST$FERk
- Be y7�n,ry`i ;,a
Tigard Area Map
RH HE
0 too 200 360 ant Feel
A V.311 feel
Informatlon on this map In for general loaatlon only and
. �hauld ba verifiatl 1Hlh khe peyelnpmen!Servlcea Division
15125 SW Hall Blvd
Tlggrd,OR 07M
(50S)A39.4i71
http9MW Y.c0AFQard.or.ue
Attacluuent to Ordinance No. 200511
See Section 1 ATTACHMENT 5
Agenda Item: . f
Hearing Date: August9,2005 7:30 PM
wyy,- - - «,_ .:a•.�H:•r•^...-x4c,.�:: n s•: -�z�K•'.:£91=.;; .w' -r.=•,r.:,.•, n...w:y=.a,..- -.,: - _:, •..: -
fIGARD
SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: WILSON MIDGE ANNEXATION
CASE NQ._' Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005-00002
AGENT: Alpha Community Development
--- - _ - Attn.derry-Palmer
9600 SW Oak Street,Suite 230
Portland,OR 97223
OWNED: Ridide and Linda Graham
13400 SW Bull Mountain Rd
:Tigard, OR 97224
..PROPOSAL: The applicant has applied for annexation of 2.68 acres into the City of
Tigard. r
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION:- R-7, Medium Density Residential.
EQUIVALENT CITY
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R 7, Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zoning district is designed-to
-accommodate attached single--family homes, detached single-family
homes with or without accessory residential units, ata minimum lot size
of 5,000. square feet, and duplexes, at �a minimum lot size of 10,000
square.feet. Mobile home-parrs and subdivisions are also permitted
outright. Some civic and' institutional uses are also permitted
conditionally.
LOCATION:. 93350 and 13400 SW Bull Mountain Road,
WCTM 2S109AC,Tax tots 100 and 200
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code, Chapters 18.320 and -18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and
ORS Chapter 222.
STAFF RFPnRTTaTHr-EiTy Fni wr_5
i �
SECTION il. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffevm ,eradthate--Courc�l find thate praposecT,anhoafi� wall` iot�acl,Verey� fect<°
th°e yeaanri welfare o fine Gih, Therefipre, 5#aff recommer� 1 ►PPf p / !L,o ,t r'
r�hi✓ aon I��r,idopton ofhe atta'c)ned orinr5ce
SECTION Ill, BAGKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information and Pro osal Description-,
Tfi
e app icant, p a ommunity eve opment, has applied for subdivision review for
which a decision for approval is pending but has not yet become effective. The subdivision
is tentatively named Wilson Ridge_ A standard condition of approval for -subdivision
proposals on property that borders City limits within the Urban Services Intergovemmental
Agreement area is that the property annex prior to final.'plat approval. There is no
requirement that an applicant or property owner wait until receiving land use approval to
annex the property. A parcel that is contiguous to the city limits may apply for annexation
at any time. The total area represented in this annexation request is 2.68 acres and is
contiguous to the present city limits along the western property boundary. -
Vicinity Information_
The su fect parce s are located,at the southwest comer
'of SW 133,d and Bull Mountain Road.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Tfi
e relevant criteria in is-case.are igar ompre. ensive an o icies 2.1.1, 10.1.1,
10.'1.2,and; Tigard Community Development Code Cnapter-18.32u.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the
Comprehensive Pian based on the following findings:
Com rehensive Plan
a ,�y : e i shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall
assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in allphasesof the
planning process.
This Policy requires an -ongoing citizen involvement. program. Interested parties and
surrounding ..pproperty owners withrn 500 feet have been nolified of the public hearingand
notice of,the hropOparihas been ppublished in a newspaper of general circulation. The sie has
been posted since June 23, 20U5. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to
be involved in the decision making process, including the review of the subdivision request.
Policy14.1.1: The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate
capacity or such services to-be made availablex to serve.the parcel if developed to the
most miehse use allowed, and will not significantly reduce -the level of services
,available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services
are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection.
This policyrequires adequate service capacity,delivery ;to. annexed parcels.. The City of
Tigard Polce, Engineering and Water Departments, Natural Gas,Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue,_have @II reviewed the-annexation request and have offered no objections. -While the
subdivision approval is cam lete but hot-yet effective, in the subdivision review staff found that
the ad'acent streets had adequate capacity,sewers will be extended.from the-Alberta-Rider
Schol site, storm drainage is conve ,ed through a new pipe to-the Alberta Rider project, and
water is provided by an existing 1" water line, in Bull Mountain Road. The subdivision
approval is contingent on the applicant providing these services prior to recording the final
plat. This policy is satisfied.
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: 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: water, sewer, drainage-and streets. The formation of a
special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the property into a
special service district for any of the above services.
=No L:I,D's have been required with the subject parcels or subdivision approval_ Ali public
infrastructure listed above will have to be completed before the land is subdivided by a final
subdivision plat." The costs of providing such services will be borne by,the applicant Since
there are no capital improvements identified for this site, no nonremonstrance agreement,is
necessary_
The City shat1 provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban planning area or
with the urban growth boundary upon annexation.
The City of Tigard has.an urban services agreement with Washington County for those areas
Within the City's urban growth boundary. This policy has been complied with.
Policy 10.1.2: approval of proposed annexations of land by the city shall -be based on
findings with respect to the,following: the annexation eliminates an existing .'pocket"
or Isfand" of,unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular
boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an:emergency situation to determine
.whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented
upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area.and.is
contigguous to the city.boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the services
lister iri 10.1.1(a).
This Policy-pertains to boundary criteria for annexations_ The proposed annexationwill not
eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of,unincorporated territory; however the annexation
will also not create an irregular boundary maKing it difficult for police to.determine.wriether a
particular parcel-is in or outside the city. The proposed-annexation will incoTorate the entire
subdivision boundary for Wilson Ridge. There is along 10 foot wide "pole that:.runs south
from the parcels. This is a remnant of an.easement for access that benefited other properties
further south_ That .easement has been vacated on tete subject parcel, so essentially what
remains is a long strip of land. While odd in its configuration, the annexation is simply
-including the entire extent of the parcel as this.policy requires. There is no attempt to include
a cherry stem (typically achieved by annexing.roads) with this'subject request. All future lots
within this subdivision will be inside city limits. The police department has commented on the
proposed annexation request and did not voice any ob"ections. The land is within the Urban
Services Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the
northern side. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This policy is met.
Commun#y Development Code
ec ion is e-ction addresses approval standards for annexation
proposals:
All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to
provide service for the proposed annexation area;
Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage; streets; police, and fire -protection) capacity is
available to serve tete annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water
Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the
annexation request and have offered no objections. Additionally, the adequacy and
availability of services to serve the intended R-7 Medium Density-residential development will
be reviewed and conditioned as necessary as part of the Wilson Ridge subdivision review.
Therefore; this policy is satisfied.
The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions
have been satisfied.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above._ The implementing
ordinance provisions' of ORS 222, TCDC 18.390, and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in
processinggthis annexation request. Conformance with other development code provisions
Will be addressed•at the time the property develops. This standard has been met.
Assi nment .of com rehensive.-plan and- zoningdesi nations. The comprehensive
pan esigna ion an a zoning eslgna ion p ace on a grope shall be the City's
zoning district.which most closely "implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive
plan map designation. The assignment of these designa ions shall occur
automatically and concurrently with the annexation.An the case of land which carries
County designations, the City shall convert the County's,comprehensive plan.map and
zoning .designations to the City designations which are the' most similar. A zone.
change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map andlorizoning
map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18'380). A
request. for a. zone change can be processed concurrently with an. annexation
application or after the annexation has,been approved.
The subject property. is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned. R-7 -medium density
residential, pursuant to the City of Tiggard's Urban Services IntergoVemmental Agreement
The R-7 zoning designation is consistent-with the original Washington -Counvs -FR 6 zoning
designation as shown in the table below_ The City's zoning was adopted by-the-County with
`the City's R-7 zoning-district-when the dntergovernmental Agreement was signed between the
county and the city to provide city planning services to this area. Therefore, the property does
not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.0, the City's
Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrently with the
annexation.
Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and
zoning designajlf&ns to City designations which are most similar..
TA-8LE 3211-1
C-ON1 ER-SJON'i`A9LL FOR COUNTY AND CITY PLAN ANI) Zi KING DESIGNATIONS
' ashingtoll County Land Use City.ofVigard Zoning City of M*44•d
Districts l-Olato Designation plan Designation
R-3 lies-5 unim.acre R-4-5 SFR 7.500 scl_ ft. Low%densih I-5 uilitvacre
R-b Res. 6 uuiis;at~Te R ,9rR 5_00)0 sq- ft. iw(ed_densis} 6-12 units;'aLEc
R-9 Res- E[lTt1:Sr°aGrZ - R-12 Multi-f-unit 121 uni�tslacre Med_density-6-12 units/acre -
R-12 Re-s- 1 units'acr-e R-12 Multi-funily 12 unZ;acrc Med_ density-6-12 unitsiacrc.
R-15 lei's_ i5 units3arre R-25 Multi-hitnily 2_5 unitsracre Medium-1-1iah density 13-2v
un its,'acre
R-24 Res.24 units acres R-25 t%luiti-rvnily 2f units.'acre
Medium-High densis;- i3-25
oT1'IC:Ct7i71[lYu'r'Cl<`ll C-P Commercial Professlonni CP Comme1'Cial Professional
NC Neighhorhoad Coninicrcial CN Nc,i�jYUorhood ConitderG441 CN Neighbu,rhood Commercial
CI3U Conitzicr�ial BYjsiness CSD Commercial Rusiness CBD Commercial Business
r?islfict
District District
GC General Commercial CC, Cieneral Commcrcia( CG fieneral CoairlEerci31
1\11?liYdustrial l-L Light industrial Light lndustrialm
E
Metro
e. ro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in anriexation'decisions,
in addition to the local and state review,standards. These are addressed and satisfied..
as discussed below:
.Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider
agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to CARS 195:065;
The processing has - been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider
agreements_
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement,
other than agreements adopted pursuant to CRS 195.065, between the affected entity
and a necessary party;
The process required by the Development.Code and Comprehensive Plan i$ consistent with
the Urban-Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary
changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; .
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable- standards or. criteria for boundary
changes contained in the Regional ramework Plan.or anyfunctional plans; -
Because the Development Code has .been- amended to comply with applicable Metro
functional-plan,re uirements, by complyy�n with'the Development Code and Comprehensive
Plan, the annexation is consistent,with the applicable Functional Plan and the Regional
Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote .or,not interfere with the timely, orderly
-and economic provisions of public facilities and serviices;
The proposed annexation'will not interfere with:the provision of public facilities or services
because it is adjacent to existing c4'limits and services, and the delivery of those services
was anticipated as part of the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the
timely, orderly, and economic delivery,of those public facilities and services.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation' of territory to- Metro, a
determination by. Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban
Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval;
The subject.property is already within the Metro.bod ndanes.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under
state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report. _
OTh CC 37coJ m'r ll Y1] I-rry P nq IhIr ll
SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS
Washington County Department Of Land Use & Transportation, Verizon, (Qwest
Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton School District #48, Comcast_Cable
Corporation, Portland Gene ral'Nectric, Metro Area-Communications, Cleanwater Services,
Metro LandUse & Planning, Tualatin. Hills Park & Rec. District, Tualatin Malley Water
District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had
the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no.objections.
yBi4S D QN THfw .F1NDi G TNDIC A�Ela °949QUH; PLAT 'N[NG STAFF RE OMMElI DS
' APPROVAL QF' SONE •�lfiANGE ANI+IE)CATt�O'I?] �Z-iia►]; �{�;05rUDAii2 .' 1Nl�L�S�?�t �I<RG;E�
July 28 2005
Morgan Tfacy DATE
Associate Planner-
Ju[ 28 2005
kc rd l3ewersdo�ff
Planning Manager
STAFF RFPORTTO THF(ITY MI I ril PGrF F n�R
SUPPLENII;NTAL FINDINGS
CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH QRS CHAPTER 222
ZCA2005-00002-Wilson Ridge
The City is proceeding with this annexation without an election in the territory to be
annexed under ORS 222.X25. That statute provides:
The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city
or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the
.hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners
of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors,-if
any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the
land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the
legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by
owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city,
by resolution or ordinance,may set the final boundaries of the area to be
annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation.
The Council finds:
1. There are two owners of the two properties that are in the territory proposed for
annexation under ZCA2005-00002. Both owners have consented in writing to
annexation to the City of Tigard'and those consents have been duly filed with the
City.
2. According to County voter registration information, two registered voters reside-
in
esidein the territory to be annexed under ZCA2005-00002. The City has received .
signed consents to annexation from both voters and therefore has_ the consents of a.
majority of the electors in the territory to be-annexed_
3. Because the City has written consent of all owners of land and the majority of the
electors in the territory proposed to be annexed under ZCA2005-00002, the City
may proceed with annexation of that territory without a vote in the territory to be
annexed,pursuant to ORS 222.125.
Revised Findings as Submitted to the Tigard City
Council from.the City Attorney on September 13, 2005
FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
At the August 9, 2005,the City Council received testimony from various persons
regarding four proposed annexations. The Council allowed all parties until August 16 to submit
additional written information. This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and
factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions. The Council received a request
to reopen the record to allow a response to the post-hearing written submissions and allowed
.until August 30 for persons to raise new issues relating to the new testimony, as provided by
ORS 197.763(6)(c)and 197.763(7). This document sets out the City's findings on the legal and
factual issues raised by the testimony and written submissions.
1. After the Council allowed additional time to raise new issues in response to new evidence
submitted in the post-hearing written submissions,the City received two submissions,
both e-mails sent by Julie Russell. Neither of those submissions raises new issues
because all issues presented in her e-mails had been raised previously. Furthermore,
neither of the submissions addresses new evidence submitted after the close of the oral
hearing,but simply contain fiu-tlier argument on the same factual and legal issues she and
other opponents had raised in her earlier submissions. Therefore,neither are proper
submissions under ORS 197.763(6)(c) and 197.763(7).
Issues Raised By More Than One Person
HB 2484
2. Some people testified that House Bill 2484 (which has been enacted into law) either
prevents the City from approving these annexations or demonstrates a legislative intent
that a vote is required in any area to be annexed. House Bill 2484 is straightforward. It
amends ORS 195,215,to make it clear that"annexation plans"under ORS Chapter 195
must be approved both by a majority of voters in the territory to be annexed and by a
majority within the City.
A. HB 2484 does not apply to the annexations being considered by the City because
HB 2484 applies only to annexation plans under ORS Chapter 195, and the
annexations before the City do not involve annexation plans or ORS Chapter 195. .
They are annexations under ORS Chapter 222, in particular ORS 222.125. HB.
2484,even if it were effective, would not apply to or affect these annexations.
B. HB 2484 requires a separate vote in the area to be annexed for annexation plan
annexations. However, requiring a vote in the area to be annexed would be a
meaningless and futile act for areas in which there are no registered voters. There
are no registered voters in the area to be annexed in Mountain View Estates
annexation (ZCA2004-00003) or in the Alberta Rider/Summit Ridge annexation
area(ZCA2005-00003). All of the registered voters in the Arlington Heights 3
(ZCA20005-00001) and Wilson Ridge (ZCA 2005-00002) annexation have
consented to annexation.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 1
HB 2722
3. HB 2722 (which has been enacted into law)withdraws the right of cities to veto
formation of new cities within three miles of their borders. Some opponents of
annexation have argued that the intent of this bill is that the wishes of citizens in the
affected areas are respected.
A. HB 2722 does not apply to annexations.
B. The affected areas are the areas to be annexed. Two types of persons have
interests in the affected areas---those who own property and those who reside
there. All owners of all properties to be annexed, and all voters in areas to be
annexed have consented to the annexation. No owner or resident in the areas to
be annexed has indicated that they do not wish annexation.
SB 877
4. SB 877 (which has been enacted into law)has three major effects. One is that it limits
the ability of the City of Beaverton to annex"islands"of territory surrounded by that
City. The second effect is that it requires a majority vote in the territory to be annexed by
means of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195. The third effect is to prohibit the
annexation of certain types of industrial property without the consent of the owner.
A. The provisions affecting only the City of Beaverton do not apply to the City of
Tigard.
B. None of the proposed annexations are"island" annexations, although an"island"
is created by the Alberta.Rider School/Summit Ridge annexation.
C. The annexations are not annexation plan annexations and are not subject to ORS
Chapter 195.
D. The annexations'are not of industrial land and are not the type of land that cannot
be annexed without the consent of the owner. The City has the consent of all
owners of all land being annexed.
Voluntga or Coerced Consents
5. Some persons argued that the consents are not valid because they were coerced.
A. None of the people who provided consents stated they were coerced. Those who
testified that the consents were coerced did not specify which persons were
coerced. Several persons representing property owners (Tom Weber, John
Marquar, Sean Foushee, and Al Jeck) testified orally and/or in writing that
consents were voluntary and not coerced. The City Council finds that there is no
evidence that any specific individual was coerced into consenting to annexation.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 2
If any person who provided consents believed that the consents were coerced, it is
likely that the person would have appeared at the hearing. The Council finds the
testimony of Tom Weber, John Marquart, Sean Foushee and Al Jeck to be more
persuasive than the evidence of those claiming coercion because the named
individuals were in a position to know whether the consents were voluntary or
coerced and those who claimed that the consents were coerced did not have
personal knowledge regarding the consents. The Council concludes that none of
the consents were coerced.
B. ORS 222.115 specifically authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner
relating to the extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner
consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in
return for a contract for the extraterritorial provision of service is explicitly
authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides
planning and building inspection services extraterritorially and may require
consents to annexation in order to provide those services.
C. ORS 222.175 recognizes that cities may solicit consents to annexation. The fact
that a City seeks consents does not mean that they were coerced and does not
invalidate the consents.
Consents To Annexation In Connection With A Land Use Proceeding
6. Some opponents argued that some of the consents were required in connection with land
use proceedings, and the City cannot require consents to annexation in order to process a
land use application or as a condition of a land use approval.
A. For consents that were provided in connection with a land use approval,the time
to challenge the City's authority to impose the consents was during the land use
process. In all but one of the cases,the land use process has been completed and
the appeal period has passed. The requirement to provide a consent to annexation
can no longer be challenged in those cases.
B. None of the persons who provided consents in connection with land use
proceedings have in any way challenged the consents or the requirement to
provide the consents. To the contrary, some of them have expressly testified that
they affirmatively desire that their properties be annexed to the City of Tigard,
The applicant for the one land use process that has not been completed (Arlington
Heights 3)has testified that the consent to annex that territory was voluntarily
provided, and the City Council finds that the consent in that case was voluntary.
General Concern For The Bull Mountain Area
7. Some opponents stated concerns related to the Bull Mountain area in general and to their
property in unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain. Some of them argued that the
proposed annexations should not proceed because of the negative vote when the Bull
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS
Page 3
Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to the voters in the area to be annexed.
A. The rights and interests of the owners and registered voters in the areas proposed
for annexation are recognized by statute. The statutes do not create a legally
protected interest for other persons.
B, These annexations are different from the annexation plan presented to the voters.
r These annexations are property-specific annexations under ORS Chapter 222.
The City and the annexation applicants are not requesting approval of an
annexation plan. The rejection of an annexation plan under ORS Chapter 195
does not prevent later annexation of specific territory under a different annexation
statute.
"Double Maori "Vote
8. Some opponents of the annexation argued that a"double majority"vote(a separately
tabulated vote in the City and in the area to be annexed) is required.
A. A"double majority"vote is or will be required for annexation plans under ORS
Chapter 195. However, for annexations under ORS Chapter 222,votes in the City
are not required unless required by City charter or ordinance, and votes in the area
to be annexed are not required if certain criteria are met. A vote in the area to be
annexed is not required if all of the owners of all of the land and a majority of the
electors in the area to be annexed, if any, consent to the annexation. ORS
222.125. The City Charter and Code do not require a vote within the City.
B. As to each of the annexations,the City has received the consents of all of the
owners of all of the land. The City has also received the consents of all of the
registered voters in each area that has registered voters. These annexations are
not annexation plan annexations-under ORS 195, so the double majority
requirement does not apply. The City is not required to hold a vote in any of the
territories to be annexed, either because there are no electors in the areas to be
annexed or because the City has the consent of a majority of the electors in those
areas.
"Islands" Of Unincorporated Areas Surrounded By The C
9. Some opponents argued that these annexations create islands of unincorporated areas
surrounded by the City. They also note that the City may later annex those islands
without consent of owners or electors.
A. There is no legal prohibition on the creation of islands. The City must consider
annexation applications that create islands under applicable standards. While the
Council must consider whether the borders created by an annexation are so
irregular as to potentially cause problems with the provision of police services,
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 4
M
the police department accepts these boundaries as being acceptable and not
causing confusion for the provision of police services. The police department has
provided written statements that they can provide services. The Council finds that
the boundaries are not irregular to the extent they create confusion in the
provision of police services.
B. The City does have the authority to annex islands,but is aware that the statutory
authority to annex islands may be withdrawn, as it has been withdrawn from one
other city and from certain types of land. The possibility of a future annexation
proceeding is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding whether to
approve these annexations.
Re alar Boundaries
10. Several persons commented that the annexations will not result in a regular boundary.
A. The applicable standard is Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.2, which provides:
Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings
with respect to the following:
a. The annexation eliminate an existing "pocket" or"island of
unincorporated territory; or
b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that
makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine
whether the parcel is within or outside the City;
C. The police department has commented on the annexation;
d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area
and is contiguous to the City boundary;
e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed
in 10.1.1(a).
B. Policy 10.1.2 is complied with if either(1) subsection a or(2) subsections b
through e are met. These annexations comply with subsections b through e. The
annexation boundary will not make it difficult for the police in emergency
situations to determine whether the parcel is within or without the City. The
police department has commented on the annexation and stated that it is capable
of providing service. All areas proposed for annexation are within the Tigard
Urban Planning Area and are contiguous to the City. The services listed in
10.1.1(a) (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection) can be
provided to the areas to be annexed—the City and other responsible service
providers have capacity to provide service to the areas to be annexed. The
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 5
Council finds that the annexations provide for a reasonable extension of the City's
boundaries.
Individual Comments—.Testimony at Hearin
Les and Ellen Godowski
11. The Godowskis argued that the annexations will also prevent certain areas from creating
their own cities or annexing to King City.
A. The City has no obligation to refrain from annexing territory based on the
possibility that some other city may be incorporated in the area at some point in
the future.
B. All applicable plans and intergovernmental agreements that address urbanization
or the provision of urban services designate Tigard as the City that will annex
and/or provide urban services to the areas being annexed.
Charles Radley
12. Charles Radley argued that the annexations would violate Dolan v. City of Tigard and
that there is no"essential nexus." Mr. Radley also provided a written document.
A. Dolan v. City of Tigard applies only to cases in which the City exacts property
from a property owner at the time of a land use approval. Dolan does not apply to
annexations.
B. To the extent the Mr. Radley is arguing that the City could not require the
property owners to consent to annexation as a condition of land use approval, that
challenge is too late. The land use approvals are final and cannot be collaterally
challenged. Furthermore, Mr. Radley was not the applicant or a landowner in any
of the land use cases and lacks standing to challenge conditions that have been
accepted by the applicants.
C. The"essential nexus" requirement is imposed on exactions by the Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission case. Like Dolan,the case applies only to
exactions at the time of land use approvals,not to annexations. To the extent that
Mr. Radley is challenging conditions of approval in the previous land use cases,
that challenge is too late, and Mr. Radley lacks standing to make the challenge.
D. The document that Mr. Radley provided is an excerpt discussing the requirement,
under Rhode Island law,that a building official must issue a building permit that
meets the requirements of the building code. Rhode Island law concerning
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 6
building officials is not relevant to any issue regarding these annexations. If Mr.
Radley is attempting to argue that the City cannot require a consent to annexation,
any requirement regarding consents to annexations by the City are imposed in the
context of a land use proceeding. The City has more authority and more
discretion in land use proceedings than in issuing building permits.
Julie Russell
13. In addition to issues raised by others, Ms. Russell claimed that the map included with the
notice of annexation was inaccurate as to which areas are included within the City limits
and which areas are outside the City limits. Ms. Russell argued that the City's process
violated Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1. and CDC 18.320.020. Ms. Russell stated
dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning.
A. The maps provided with the notice were accurate. They showed the location of
the properties being annexed and accurately showed areas within the city limits by
a shaded yellow area. There is no requirement to provide a map with the notice of
the annexation hearing. Even if there was some inaccuracy, the maps provided
sufficient information to advise of the location of the properties to be annexed and
their relationship to the City. The City provided notice in compliance with all
applicable requirements. In the event that some person may have failed to receive
notice,failure of a person to receive notice does not invalidate the notice, which
was properly provided.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 provides: "The City shall maintain an ongoing
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process." This policy is
not an approval standard or criterion for an annexation application. The City's
land use regulations have been acknowledged, and those regulations provide the
process, including citizen involvement, for considering land use applications.
That process includes notice and a hearing, and the City provided notice and a
hearing, as required by the CDC. Compliance with the acknowledged regulations
demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies implemented by
the regulations. Citizens, including Ms. Russell,have had the opportunity to be
involved in process. The process of necessity works differently in a quasi-judicial
land use process than in a legislative process.
C. CDC 18.320.020 provides:
18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards
A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a
Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using
standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below.
B. ADDroval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS ANNEXATIONS
Page 7
modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City
shall be based on the following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have
sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed
annexation area; and
2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and
implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied.
C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The
comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed
on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most
closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map
designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur
automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of
land which carries County designations,the City shall convert the
County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the
City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is
required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or
zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See
Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed
concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation
has been approved.
D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion
of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations
which are most similar.
The City used a Type IV approval process. The City has capacity to
provide all required services to the area to be annexed, and the applicable
Comprehensive Plan Policies,including those in Chapter 10,have been satisfied.
The properties being annexed already have City comprehensive plan and zoning
designations,that have been adopted and imposed by the County. Ms. Russell
specifically argued that the City lacks parks capacity in the area. However, the
City has sufficient parks capacity throughout the City to provide service to its
residents, including residents in the areas being annexed. The services listed in
the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire
protection, are the essential services that must be available, and those services will
be available to the newly annexed areas. Ms. Russell questioned the adequacy of
the street system. The City Council finds that the street system is adequate to
provide service and will remain adequate. If the properties are not annexed,they
could still be developed consistent with the County zoning, which is the same as
City zoning, so whether the properties are annexed or not does not affect the
impact on the street system.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 8
D. The areas to be annexed all have existing City zones that were established
consistent with Table 320.1. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and applicable Community Development Code provisions.
Scott Miller
14. In addition to issues addressed in the"Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section
of these findings, Mr. Miller stated a concern with an increase in taxes. Mr. Miller also
argued that the consents received by the City are not consents.
A. Mr. Miller does not own property being annexed. His property is outside the area
proposed for annexation. His taxes will not increase as a result of the annexation.
The properly owners in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation.
Whether taxes may increase is not an applicable standard or criterion in deciding
an annexation.
B. For each of the annexations,the City has either the written consent of the property
owners or a petition from the property owners to initiate the annexation. All are
valid consents.
Lisa Hamilton Treick
15. In addition to issues address in the"Issues Raised By More Than One Person" section of
these findings, Ms. Hamilton Treik argued that Measure 37 gives property owners rights
that are violated by these annexations.
A. Ms. Hamilton Treik does not own property that will be annexed by these
annexations. All owners of property being annexed have consented to these
annexations. The property owners or their representatives who testified expressly
stated that they voluntarily consent to the annexations. One of them., Tom Weber,
stated that he actively sought annexation to Tigard because of the value it brings
to his property. Measure 37 is not an applicable standard or criterion for
annexation.
16. Ms. Hamilton Treik also argued that the City has no authority to condition land use
approvals or acceptance of land use applications on a consent to annexation.
A. In addition to Findings 6 and 7,the various agreements with the County and other
urban service providers,including the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement and
Tigard Urban Service Agreement, anticipate that the City will provide planning services
and will ultimately annex Tigard's urban service area. Requiring annexation is not
inconsistent with those agreements. Urban Service Agreement Section I.D provides that
the City shall endeavor to annex certain areas, including all areas currently proposed for
annexation. Requiring annexation consents effectuates this provision of the Urban
Service Agreement. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement gives Tigard all
land use decision-making authority over the area to be annexed. Land use authority
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 9
includes the authority to impose conditions. The City has the authority to impose a
condition of approval requiring consent to annexation when it receives a land use
application for a property outside the City.
Individual Comments--Post-Hearing Written Submissions
Julie Russell
.17. Ms. Russell again discussed general opposition to annexation in the Bull Mountain area,
HB 2484, SB 887, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1.and 10.1.2, and CDC 18.320.020.
The above findings address those arguments.
18. Ms. Russell also argues that the zoning is wrong and inconsistent with the Bull Mountain
Community Plan. The areas have all been rezoned by the County and the zoning being
applied is the zoning required by CDC 18.320. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the
written testimony of John Marquart, there is little or no practical difference between
Washington County R-d and Tigard R-7 zoning, as applied.
19. Ms. Russell argues that not everyone who was entitled to receive notice actually received
notice. The City provided notice as required by applicable regulations. While it is
possible that some persons did not receive notice, the City complies with the notice
requirements.
20. Ms. Russell complains about possible effects on other service providers. The City has
not received any negative comments from other service providers. All service providers
in the area have agreed that the area being annexed will be annexed to Tigard. Services
will be provided as agreed to in the Urban Services Agreements entered into by the City
and other service providers.
21. Ms. Russell argues that the annexation will interfere with the orderly and economic
provision of public facilities and services. However,her argument appears to be that
services can be provided without annexation. That does not mean that annexation will
disrupt or interfere with service provision. The agreements between the service providers
will ensure orderly and economic provision of services.
22. Ms. Russell argues that the Alberta Rider School property should not be annexed. None
of her arguments relate to any applicable standard or criterion.
23. Ms. Russell opposes the Summit Ridge annexation as non-contiguous. The Summit
Ridge area being annexed will be contiguous with the City on annexation.
24. Ms. Russell objects to the Annexation of Arlington Heights 3 on the grounds that the
annexation will cause annexation to a homeowners association. That argument does not
related to any applicable standard or criterion. Participation in a homeowner's
association is a matter of contract between the parties and unrelated to a City's authority
to annex. Ms Russell also argues that the City cannot annex only part of a subdivision.
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 10
r
No applicable standard or criterion prohibits annexation of part of a subdivision.
Furthermore, Arlington Heights 3 is a separate subdivision from Arlington Heights 1 and
2.
LaVelle and Marie Da
25. The Days object to the annexation on the grounds that the annexation may interfere with
efforts to annex to King City or to create a new city. This argument does not relate to any
applicable criterion or standard. None of the Days' other arguments are based on
applicable standards or criteria.
Jackie and GM Kislin
26. The Kislings raise issues related to HB 2484 and HB 2722. Those bills are addressed in
the above findings.
Hexane
27. Mr. Kane makes arguments against island annexations. None of the annexations are
island annexations.
Lisa Hamilton-Treik and Tom Treik
28. Ms. Hamilton-Treik and Mr. Treik oppose the process in which the hearings on four
annexations were combined as causing hardship on those who wish to appeal. Even if the
hearings had not been combined,the hearings could have been, and most likely would
have been held at the same meeting. Therefore,the appeals would have all been due at
the same time. Combining the hearings allowed people to state their objections a single
time so as to avoid multiple repeated testimony. All persons were given a full
opportunity to address any issues related to any of the four annexations.
29. They also object to the boundaries as being irregular and question the voluntariness of the
consents. These issues are addressed above.
30. They also oppose the transfer of Traffic Impact Fees to Tigard's TIF accounts. That is
not a relevant issue and does not relate to any applicable standard or criterion.
Philip E. Decker
31. Mr. Decker opposes the annexations as not being contiguous. No property being annexed
will be separated from the City by any intervening unincorporated territory. The
annexations are of contiguous property.
32. Mr. Decker argues that ORS 222.115 allows annexation contracts only for contiguous
parcels. ORS 222.115 does not require that property be contiguous at the time an
annexation contract is signed. One purpose of ORS 222.115 is to allow properties that
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 11
are not contiguous to consent to annexation so that they can receive urban services
immediately and be annexed later when intervening properties annex. The contiguity
requirement applies only when the annexation becomes effective.
33. Mr. Decker argues that the areas being annexed are irregularly shaped. The shape of the
area being annexed is not an issue.
.34. Mr. Decker argues that previous annexations were improper. The previous annexations
are final and have not been challenged. They cannot be collaterally attacked at this time.
Comments In Suort
35. After the hearing,the City received several written comments in support of the proposed
annexations, including statements from Sean Foushee, on behalf of the applicants for the
Mountain View Estates, from John Marquart on behalf of the applicant for the Wilson
Ridge annexation, and from Torn Weber, on behalf of the owners of the Arlington
Heights 3 property, all of whom stated that the annexation applications were voluntary.
Mr. Marquart and Mr. Weber addressed other issues, strongly supporting the annexations
of their respective areas.
G:lmuni\Tigardlrevisedannexationfindings081705.doe
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS--ANNEXATIONS
Page 12