Loading...
Resolution No. 80-10 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 80-2Q A RESOLUTION RESCINDING A COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN DECEMBER 17, 1979 RELATIVE TO I- THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Neighborhood Planning Organization #4 Plan on March 13, 1978, a;.' WHEREAS, this Neighborhood Planning Organization Plan has been incorporated in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, a new situation has developed recently - the Metzger/Progress Community Plan - which causes serious jurisdictional problems, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City Council hereby rescinds a previous action of December 17, 1979, relative to the signing of an Urban Planning Area Agreement now before the County Commission, the Council considers said document null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The issues be resolved between Washington County Planning Department, Tigard Planning Department, Metro and LCDC representatives prior to this Council's consideration of any future Urban Planning Area Agreement. DATED: This day of , 1980. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 80- Page 2 The most disturbing portion of the plan is contained in the policy language under Objective II - Neighborhood Stability - Policy 1! "Metzger/Progress community prefers its unincorporated status, and should remain unincorporated unless a plebiscite approves either annexation as a unit into one of the surrounding cities, or incorporation as an independent city. Further annexation by Tigard, or other surrounding Cities through piecemeal annexations shall be opposed by the County, even though City and County plans for the area agree with regard to land uses and policies within Metzger/Progress Planning area. Annexation of the unincorporated land south of Scholls Ferry Road, Highway 217 and Pacific Highway by Tigard; and annexation of the remaining unincorporated land north of Scholls Ferry Road and west of Southern Pacific Railroad by Beaverton should be supported by the County except whare there are unresolved differences between County and City plans. Annexation proposals for areas where County and City plans do not agree, or for which the City has no adopted plan, shall be opposed by the County and should not be approved unless differences are resolved and the petitioning City's plan is amended as necessary." After a lengthy debate.before the Washington County Planning Commission, I submitted the following suggestions: 1. Tigard NPO #4 Plan be recognized to Oak Street Y 2. OBJECTIVE II: neighborhood Stability, A., Policy 1 to be changed to read as follows: POLICY I.- Metzger/Progress :Metzger/Progress community prefers its unincorporated status, and should remain unincorporated unless a plebiscite approves annexation into one of the surrounding Cities, or the area is incorporated as an independent City. Annexation of the unincorporated land south of Scholls Ferry Road, Highway 217, and pacific Highway by Tigard; and annexation of the remaining unincorporated land north of Scholls Ferry Road, and west of Southern Pacific Railroad by Beaverton should be supported by the County except where there are unresolved differences between County and City plans. Annexation proposals for areas where County and City plans do not agree shall be opposed by the County and should not be approved unless differences are resolved. k� MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL February 21, 1980 FROM: ALDIE HOWARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR REFERENCE: URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT (UPAA) On September 10, 1979, you approved an UPAA which I forwarded to Washington County. After much deliberation, the County rejected this agreement, and sent back to us a revised agreement. On December 17, 1979, you approved this revised UPAA and I forwarded it to Washington County. On February 19, 1980, the County Commission postponed action on this revised UPAA following receipt of a letter from the Mayor. The County will now consider this issue on March 4, 1980. Staff will meet with the County, Metro, and LCDC people on February 26, 1980 to hopefully resolve certain problems. As you know, the NPO #4 Plan was adopted in 1978 and our Urban Growth Boundary went to Oak Street, north of 99W. When this Plan was adopted, you included a large amount of data gathered from this area which became then a part of our overall Comprehensive Plan. In an effort to expedite the process so that the County could resolve some of its difficulties with Metro and LCDC, I agreed to pull our Urban Growth Boundary back to the existing City limits in this area north of 99W. The County, Metro, and LCDC were all in agreement that as annexation took place in this area, the Tigard (NPO #4) Plan would be implemented. It was further agreed that Tigard 1 could apply for compliance review with LCDC. The County agreed to "honor" our zoning designations in the unincorporated area in the I-5, Atlanta, Franklin Street, 72nd Avenue area. t i All this was embodied in the revised UPAA agreement which you passed in December of 1979, and I thought that we (Metro, LCDC, and the County) all understood the rules. Not the case! While all this was going on, the Metzger-Progress Plan was being prepared. The County was a major force in this plan and when it was presented to me, without any prior notice, I was just a little upset with its content. Remember that we were never asked to participate in this planning process, and that we have had an approved pian in this area to Oak Street as of March 1978. A meeting with the Washington County Planning Commission was held on February 20, 1980 at Fowler Junior High School to review the Metzger-Progress Community Plan. I attended this meeting to voice my concern over certain policy issues contained In this Metzger Plan, F Page 3 In the first suggestion, I took a "fall back" position realizing that the group in attendance was hostile. We could easily "adjust" our plan in this regard back to Spruce Street, but I needed to start higher. In the second suggestion, you can see that the wording is general enough to allow the needed flexibility to resolve any differences we may encounter in the future. Now the real issue. I would ask you to negate, by resolution attached, the UPAA of December 17, 1979. obviously this is a bold and radical stroke, but if you do not clean the slate, I am afraid that we may suffer at the hands of the County. What I need for the meeting with the Washington County Planning Staff, Metro, and LCDC is a hammer. Trying to work with the present uPAA would be difficult because they point to the fact that you have agreed to it. Therefore, they do not have to consider my (Staff) opinions. To strengthen my hand, I have both Metro and LCDC behind me. They have found the Washington County Planning Staff to be less than co-operative. My attempt earlier to help the County, put a knife to my throat, and both Metro and LCDC realize that the only way back on top for Tigard is to start clean:. I want to be in a position to force Washington county to acknowledge our NPO 44 Plan of 1978 and I want to be able to negotiate from a strong position. What will happen if you negate the UPAA? The County will have to co-operate in drafting a new agreement. This time, the rules will be specific and the .Metzger/Progress issues will be known. The County Commission will at least acknowledge the fact that Tigard exists and that their staff is less than y co-operative - devious may be the correct word. We will have dealt with Metro, LCDC, and the County under present conditions to eleviate problems in the future. At our study session on March 3rd, I willpresent a report to you Of the February 26th meeting. This is not a standard planning issue. I apologize for such a lengthy and involved memo to you, but these crises cannot be anticipated and I need your support. if you have questions, please contact me immediately.