Early in 2011, A City By Choice posted that Beaverton had annexed over 50 acres of land within the Cedar Creek boundaries, north of 26 to the east of Cedar Hills Blvd on Barnes Road. (As a side note, we later learned this annexed land helped contribute to a Beaverton tax reduction of 5 cents/$1,000.) The Peterkort property in this area was annexed to Beaverton between 1997 and 2011. In order for this land to develop, Beaverton must re-zone the area to fit its development code. Due to minimal planning resources, the County chose not to update the documents created in the 1980's designed to translate County code into Beaverton code. In addition, the County and the City have entirely different processes for planning and developing code. In this instance, the County added specifics to the plan. However, at the time of development these specifics can be challenged and appealed. The City's codes/zones are more general and it deals with the specifics at the time of development - with design reviews, etc. Beaverton has now zoned this area to match their city code as closely as possible - but first they had to make a few amendments to the zoning at a recent Beaverton Planning Commission meeting: http://beaverton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=891&meta_id=43958 The transition to Beaverton's code was not a simple task. It is difficult to understand the complex calculations, planning jargon and comparisons. Washington County staff does not have the time or resources to actively participate in this process at this time. New maximums and conditions have led some citizens to worry that the new zoning may alter the vision of the existing Cedar Mill Community Plan. http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/LongRangePlanning/Publications/ch-cm-cp.cfm A group has formed to appeal this decision and have raised about $4,200. For more info on this group: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-Sunset-Transit-Center-Zoning/223394691070639 The Peterkort Development Masterplan can be viewed here: http://www.peterkort.com/ For more general info - Cedar Mill News: http://cedarmill.org/news/1211/zoning.html A City By Choice feels this experience is another example of why it is a good time to let Beaverton and the County know you support the governance project we've defined and ask them to start sooner than later. The first phase of the project is about educating the community. It is clear that transitioning land and community plans into Beaverton requires a great deal of translation. Translation just not of code language, but of community vision, hopes and dreams. Implementing our project could help educate all of us as to the differences between Beaverton planning and zoning and Washington County's planning and zoning. And allow you to define a process of planning and community development that fits our community. Write to your Commissioners and to Beaverton's Mayor today and ask them to support the project today! Add Comment Road Diets Decrease Costs and Increase Livability - Why don't we have them in our community? 10/30/2011
="http://player.vimeo.com/video/21903160?title=0&%3Bbyline=0&%3Bportrait=0&%3Bcolor=9086c0" Check out this short video and learn what the experts know about efficient spending on roads, increased livability, etc. Let's add the void of funding created by a possible delay in TDT rates to the $130 Million shortfall on the taxpayers backs already. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2011/10/washington_county_may_delay_fi.html Read the lastest about Mayor Doyle proposing to decrease Beaverton property taxes by 5 cents per thougsand due to the offset provided by voluntary annexed lands. http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=130703370977781400 In 2007 Oregon set a 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal that is almost 30% below today's levels. How do we get there? In October of 2010 the Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC) unanimously adopted a roadmap of ideas, pending a public review process. The Global Warming Commission is seeking public comment on these recommendations it adopted last fall as the Interim Roadmap to 2020. The OGWC wants the public conversation around climate change to involve as many different Oregonians with as wide a variety of perspectives as possible, given that we share an interest in protecting our state's livability and economic vitality. You are encouraged to offer your responses to the Roadmap, or additional thoughts. Please attend one of the public workshops scheduled around Oregon that will ask participants to discuss and critique parts of the Roadmap of particular interest to them, in a collaborative process with others in their community. In addition, a reminder to share your perspective on how the state can best prepare to meet the challenges of climate change by taking a survey at: http://conversation.fuseinsight.com/topic/start/OGWC_Roadmap_3_3_2011/intro?SID=ODOE. Please respond by May 31!Currently scheduled events are listed below: Eugene May 26, 6:00 – 9:00 pm Location: Eugene Hilton & Conference Center 66 East 6th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 (Please RSVP to roadmap2020@ci.eugene.or.us) Bend June 2, 7:00 – 9:00 pm Location: Bend Parks & Recreation District Office Riverbend Community Room 799 SW Columbia Street Bend, OR 97702 Portland/Multnomah County June 9, 6:00 – 7:30 pm Location: Multnomah County Building, County Boardroom 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd Portland, OR 97214 For more information please review the Commission’s Interim Roadmap to 2020 and the Commission’s recent Report to the Legislature, which contains key elements of the Interim Roadmap to 2020 and additional background. Please visit the Global Warming Commission web site at www.keeporegoncool.org for more information on the Commission. Washington County may ask voters for money to pay for sidewalks and street safety in unincorporated areas Published: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 3:35 PM Updated: Friday, May 20, 2011, 9:31 AM By Dana Tims, The Oregonian The Oregonian Follow Share0 8 Share close Google Buzz Digg Stumble Upon Fark Share Email Print A proposal likely headed for the November ballot will ask voters in urban unincorporated Washington County to put up with reduced road maintenance in return for getting sidewalks and related street-safety improvements. Although key parts of the proposal are still being worked out, it involves expanding the legal mission of the county's urban roads maintenance district. The district, formed by voter approval in 1987, oversees maintenance of the 430 miles of local streets lacing through unincorporated but urbanized portions of the county. It raises about $3.6 million annually for that task by charging property owners about 25 cents per $1,000 assessed value. The owner of an average-priced house in the county pays about $50 per year for the service. Commissioner Andy Duyck first floated the idea to broaden the district's purview beyond just local street maintenance six years ago, only to see it go nowhere. He resurrected the idea during his successful campaign for board chairman last year and is now pushing to get a measure on November's ballot. "Neighborhoods that used to be suburban are now urban," Duyck said. "That's put a lot of kids at considerable risk when they are just trying to walk to school." Road maintenance would remain the district's first priority, he said. But unincorporated parts of the county -- home to more than 200,000 people, enough to compose the second-largest city in the state -- now course with enough motorists and pedestrians that sidewalks must now be considered crucial, as well. Duyck is confident the measure can pass, even in the current era of budget reductions, because it won't ask voters to increase the district's assessment. His proposal would free up money for sidewalk construction by allowing for reductions of pavement conditions in the district. It would not increase the amount of money residents are currently paying. The "average" rating for all of the district's roads currently stands at 84.9 percent, according to the widely accepted Pavement Condition Index. Duyck thinks that can easily be reduced to around 65 percent. "We're talking about levels that the average person would never even notice," he said. "If we explain that clearly, I think it will be a very easy sell to the public." In addition to sidewalks, those savings could be applied toward intersection improvements, new pathways and signage and adding stop signs to currently uncontrolled intersections, said Victoria Saager, a spokeswoman for the county's Department of Land Use and Transportation. The district's citizen advisory committee, initially convened late last year, currently is studying the idea. It is expected to make recommendations to the board of commissioners no later than the September deadline for placing measures on the November ballot. "This is a big problem for the county," said James Trumper, committee chairman. "Newly developed land generally has sidewalks, but roads in much of the county have only a ditch, some vegetation or, if you are lucky, five feet of gravel to walk on." In addition to mulling the street maintenance/sidewalk trade off, the committee is also considering a change that would allow district funds to be spent on major collectors and arterials. Currently, the district can maintain only local streets. Trumper, however, said he is not yet personally sold on the latter point. "I'm adverse to that," he said. "It doesn't solve local safety improvements." When informed that Duyck favors that change, Trumper replied, "I'm not here to be a rubber stamp for Andy Duyck." There is little argument that the district has met its original goal of improving the neighborhood streets. Prior to the district's formation, more than 80 miles of neighborhood streets within the district were in "poor" or "very poor" condition. Only 77 percent were in "fair" or better shape. The district's current pavement condition index of 84 ranks second in the county behind only Tualatin's 95. Beaverton (81), Hillsboro (83), Sherwood (76) and Tigard (68) all lag behind, according to district documents. Although voters approved the district in 1987, it took two subsequent elections before they finally funded it in 1994. Even so, it took only five years from that point before the district met its stated goal of improving most urban local streets to a rating of "fair" within five years. "We think we have a very good track record to point to," Duyck said. "We're hoping voters agree." -- Dana Tims May 19, 2011 8:54 PM Council's approved redistricting plan includes minor refinements By Nick Christensen. This story was not subject to the approval of Metro staff or elected officials. Its content does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Metro staff or councilors. The Metro Council approved its redistricting plan Thursday, voting 6-0 in favor of a revised version of the map known as Option 3. The final version of Option 3 included minor changes in the Sellwood and Cedar Mill areas. It will take effect when councilors are sworn in in 2013. Councilors said the map wasn't perfect, but was a good option. "The best solution is impossible," said Councilor Carl Hosticka. For example, said Councilor Shirley Craddick, concerns from representatives Maywood Park were difficult to address. The city's mayor wrote a letter earlier this month asking to stay in Craddick's District 1 (see story, May 10). But with Craddick's district gaining population, such a move was difficult, she said. The town was moved into District 5. "I'm disappointed I'll be losing Maywood Park," Craddick said. "I wish we could have accommodated Mayor Hardie's request." The adopted map addressed some concerns from the Sellwood neighborhood, which Metro staff had proposed to split between districts 2 and 6 at Tacoma Street. The district boundary was moved to the Clackamas-Multnomah county line, a few blocks south, in the adopted proposal. The new map has only two districts that don't cross county lines - District 4, represented by Kathryn Harrington, is exclusively in Washington County; Barbara Roberts' District 6 is exclusively in Multnomah County. That prompted Councilor Rex Burkholder, whose District 5 picks up the Cedar Mill area in Washington County, to talk about the regional nature of the council - even suggesting that there may come a time that Clark County needs a voice on the board. "It would be great to have that viewpoint around the table," he said. "I'm not encouraging annexation of Vancouver, though we do work quite closely together. There are times we wish we could work more closely together in our desire to make everyone's life better in the whole region, regardless of political boundaries." Metro's redistricting website http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/37013 Metro news reporter Nick Christensen can be reached atnick.christensen@oregonmetro.gov or 503-813-7583. Follow Metro on Twitter@oregonmetro. Cedar Mill sidewalk plans for Northwest 119th Avenue to be shown at public meeting http://www.oregonlive.com/north-of-26/index.ssf/2011/05/cedar_mill_sidewalk_plans_for_northwest_119th_avenue_to_be_shown_at_public_meeting.html Proposed Budget for 2011-2012 Fiscal Year Release date: 05/10/2011 Sponsored by: Board of Commissioners Budget Hearing Thursday, May 26 The Board of Commissioners will meet as part of the County Budget Committee for a Budget Hearing at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 26, in the Shirley Huffman Auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N. First Avenue, Hillsboro. The Budget Committee for three Service Districts will also meet at this time, including the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Urban Road Maintenance District and Service District for Lighting Number 1. The purpose of the hearing is to consider approving proposed budgets for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Opportunity for public testimony will be provided at this hearing. The Budget Committee and Board of Commissioners will also meet jointly for discussion on the proposed budget on Tuesday, May 17, following the regular Board meeting from approximately 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Law Enforcement Center, Training Room 215, SW Adams Street, Hillsboro. No public testimony will be received at this meeting. More information about the proposed budget can be found: FY 2011-12 Proposed Budget http://www.co.washington.or.us/Support_Services/Finance/CountyBudget/2011-12-county-budget-report.cfm Contact: Philip Bransford, Communications Officer (503) 846-8685 philip_bransford@co.washington.or.us | ArchivesJanuary 2012 CategoriesAll |
RSS Feed