The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/12/1986 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: P.nyone wishing to speak on an REGULARMEETING AGENDA aganda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS`& STUDY AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, P"-- MAY 12, 1986, 7:00 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start FOWLER JUNIOR NIGH of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are F 10865 SW WALNUT asked to be 2 minutes or lass. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 1. REGULAR MEETING-. 1.1 Cal? To Order, and:Poll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For- Non-Agenda Items: Motion to approve as amended. 2, VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. OLD BUSINESS (a) UPAA Discussion (b) Ordinance No. 86-24 - Business Tax Increase - Second Reading (c) Ordinance No. 86-25 - Streets SOC Increase - Second Reading 4. PARKS USE FEE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 86-_ a Community'Development Director - (reference item 8.1 -'2nd packet) 6. FREEWAY SIGN COME REVISIONS See Agenda item $1 7.2a for receive and file 7. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an; item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7.1 Approve Council Minutes - April 26, 1986 7.2 Receive and File a. Fre=way Sign Code Revision Memo b. Police Department Monthly Report - February, 19II6 �- 7.3 Cancel 5/19/86 Council Meeting 1 7.4 Adopt findings -'Cunningham Land Use -Resolution NO. 86-„__ 7,5 Adopt findings - Taktr•onics Parking Resolution No. 86- 7.6 Approve Tigard Safety Town Liability Insurance Rider 7.7 Accept permanent: sanitary sewer easement - Cotswalc Meadows 1/2 7.8 Accept and authorize Mayor and Recorder to sign: Cotswald N2 Subdivision Performance Bond 7.9 Approve permanent sanitary sewer easement conveyance from City of Tigard to Unified Sewerage Agency (lower scholls trunk sewer) 7.10 :Approve Fees & Charges Resolution No. 86-52 8.3 Approve Chamber of Commerce Lease Agreement - 12420 SW Main Street 8.4 Approve TCYS Lease Agreement- 9O20 SW Burnham 8.5 Approve white-Whilhelia Final Order of Denial CAP 2-86 - Res. 86 8.6 Approve Calling For Public Hearing Gonzaga Street Vacation Resolution No. 86- 8.7 Call special Council' meeting/Planning Commission workshop 6/21/86 - BAM 4PM 8.8 Approve prepayment waiver of fees on temporary sign permits 8,9 Receive and file land use decisions for Community Development 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 8.1 Park Use Fee Ordinance - (See Agenda Item 04) 8.2 Adopt Findings CPA 3-86 Housekeeping - Ordinance No. 86--- 9.1 Approve Council Minutes May 5, 1986 6.10 Receive and File -- Civic Center Smoking Policy 8.11 Approve Employee Recognition Resolution No. 06- e.12 Council Laison Assignments 8.13 First Interstate final Order SDR 6-85 & V 5-86 - P.es. No. 86-_ _ ____ 8.14 -Pall /Burnham LID Ordinance Amendment Phase III - Ord. No. 86-- 0.15 Landisark Ford Final Order SCE 2-86 - Resolution No. 86 S. UTILITIES AND FRANCHISE CM1ITTEE WORKSHOP o Council, Coimaittea Members & Staff 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) ( , } to discuss issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 12, 1986 - PAGE 1 T I tI A'-R--D `SIT 0 U N C I REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES - MAY 12, ;1985 - 7e02 P.M. 1n ROLL CALLS Presents Mayor John Cook; Councilorse "Com Brian, (arrived at � Bob 7:07 p.m.), Carolyn Eadon, and Valerie Johnson: City Staff. t Joan, ,City ;Administrator; Bill Monahan, ir�smmunity Development Director; Steve Crew, Legal Counsel; and Merry Bowles, Recorder Protem. absent. Councilor Jerry Edwards 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS F i' a. City Administrator reviewed the Updated agenda. Items have been added � to eliminate the teed to reschedule the May 19 meeting. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No one appeared to speak. 4. OLD BUSINESS' a. URBAN AREA PLANNING AGREEMENT b. City Administrator highlighted the key elements which were of major �. concern to the Council. The County has tentatively approved this draft agreement. l; C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to approve. x , Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. ORDINANCE NO. 86-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING BUSINESS TAX FEES AND TIGaARD MUNICIPAL; CODE CHAPTER 5.04.160 (Second Reading) e. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Council Eadon to approve. Approved by a 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Johnson voting nay. f. ORDINANCE NO. 85-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. AMENDING k ' SECTION 3.20.030 OF THE TIGSARD MUNICIPAL. CODE, STREET SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES --TRAFFIC CONTROL; AND PRESCRIBINGa NEW RATES OF CHARGES, (Second reading) g. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. � Approved by a 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Johnson voting nay. PA ARKS USE FEE a. Community I&yelcpmont Director *xplained that the Ordinance would allow a waivor of park facility fees for Tigard based non-profit e' organizations. Paye l COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 12, 1985 r , F b. ORDINANCE NO. eS-27 AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION"9.04.060 OF TITLE 9 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (WAIVER OF PARK RESERVATION FEES) Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSENT AGENDAg These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to 6.1 Approve Council Minutes -, ,April 28, 1986 6.2 Receive .and File a. Froewa} Sign Code Revision Memo b. Police Dept. Monthly Report - February 1986 6.3 Cancel 5/19/06 Council Meeting 6.4 Adopt findings - Cunningham Land Use - Resolution No. 86--54 6.5 Adopt findings Tektronics`Parking - Resolution No. 66m-55 6.6 Approve Tigard Safety' Town Liability Insurance Rider 6.7 Accept permanent sanitary surer easement - Cotswald Meadows #2` 6.8 Accept and authorize Mayor and Recorder to sign: Cotswald #2 Subdivision Performance Bond 6.9 Approve permanent sanitary ,sewer easement conveyance from City of Tigard to Unified Sewerage Agency (rawer scholls trunk sewer) .. 6.10 Approve Fees & Charges Resolution No. 86-52 6.11 Approve Chamber of Commerce Lease Agreement - 12420 SW Main Street 6.12 Approve 'TCYS Lease Agreement - 9020 SW Burnhan, 6.13 Approve unite-Whilhelm Final Order of Denial CAFE :2-86 - Resolution No. 86-56 6.14 Approve Calling for Public Hearing - Gonzaga ' Street Vacation - Resolution No. 56-57 6.15 Call special Council meeting/Planning Commission workshop 6/21/66 SAM - 4PM 6.16 Approve prepayment waiver of fees on temporary sign permits 6.17 Receive and file land use decisions for Community Development a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. a 7. NON-A8ENDA ITE:MSi From Council` and Staff 7.1 Adapt Findings CFA 3-86 Housekeeping a. Community Development Director summarized action taken by the City Council o April 28, 1986. b. ORDINANCE NO. 86-28 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAID AMENDMENT (CPA 3-86 AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 3-86) PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD (10580 S.W. McDonald St.) , Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1986 c. M0 tion by Councilor Brian, seconded by councilor Johnson to approve. Approved by unanimous voteof Council present. 7.2 Approve Council Minutes May 5, 1988 a. Correction on Page 41 B--f, should read "Motion approved by a 4-1 majority ...`� b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Radon to approve, as corrected. y umm�iMou% vote Of Council present. Approved d 7.3 Civic center Smoking Policy a.' City Administrator distributed maps delineating areignations. The assigned designations were the results of Office surveys' lar b. Discussion ensued on the consistency of the +olicy pith pdrtiublic concern to smoking in the private Offices and the forward public office arca of the Police Department. C. , Councilor Briars mewed for approval of an amended 'policy which would prohibit smoking in the forward public office card private offices Of the police Department. Councilor Johnson seconded the nadtion. d. !lotion approved by unanimous vote of Council presents 7.4 Approve Employee Recognition a. RESOLUTION NO. 85-58 ARE80LUTION RECOGNIZING CITY STAFF FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVIC CENTER COMPLETION. h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vete of Council present. 7.5 First Interstate Final Order SDR 6-85 & V_5-8G m. Community DevBlopment Director requested .amending section 7 t2) to read "The City Council concludes that direct vehicular ingress as shown on the.plan submitted b. RESOLUTION NO. 88-59 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL �lITE SITE UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A PLANNING DIRECTORrB APPROVAL OF A S DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST (SDR 6-86) AND A VARIANCE REQUEST (V 5-86) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. c. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson to approve, 12% amended. Drage 3 COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 d. Councilor Brian emphasized that the City Council expresved strong concern about 'traffic impact, and he;still has reacbrvati'on about the volume of traffic; however, given the State laws and City Codes governing zoning, the development could not be restricted. e. Motion approved by a 3-0_•1, majority vote of Council present, Mayor Cook abstaining. 7.E Hall/Burnham LID Ordinance Amendment phase I'II as Community Development Director indicated that the costs for the improvements are estimates at this time. b'. ORDINANCE NO. 86-39 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TICARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-47 '(MALL/BURNIIAM LID-PHASE ''111) c. Motion by Councilor Brian,;seconded by Councilor Ea;don to approve. Approved by unanimous vote Of Council present. 7.7 Landmark Ford Final Order SCE 2-85 a. Community Development Director reviewed the findings of the City Council. b. DiscusAlon ensued on the conclusions contained in the resolution. It appeared No. 3 and No. 5 were contradictory. It was recommended that No. 3 be deleted and a 90-day time liAlit be placed on No. 4 ` regarding removal of the used car sign. c. RESOLUTION NO. 86.60 1N THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 2-86) d. Motion by Councilor Johnson to approve; deleting No. 3 and adding to No. 4 the words "within 90 days of adoption of the Ordinance or upon installation of new sign, whichever comes first." Nos. 4 and 5" would become Nos. 3 and 4. Councilor Brian seconded the motion. Motion approved by a 3-0-1 majority vote of Council present, Mayor Cook abstaining. RECESSa' 7a47 p.m. REC6d79VENEs 800 p.m. 8. UTILITIES AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE WORKSHOP o The Committee explained their involvement in the recycling plan. They had reviewed the franchise agreements with the franchiseesandcame to the conclusion that a rate increase was in order. ..,The recycling i' program will be submitted to Metro through the County. Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1986 i t E 4 y-, T he committee recommended that the City nominate Poke Misovetz to € serve on the Metro Solid Waste Committee. City (administrator outlined a schedule and listed as key elements 1. Solid waste franchise ` a. Criterion and reporting on rate review. b. State mandate on recycling 2. review and and all utility til t esnd storm drainfranchise pandtsan tarytFsewerity 1 including the City s twions i o u r o City �Administrato reca�ttimended the present committee split into two pity Ad ministrttOOS in the summer with a staff liaison %orving on 9ach. i one committee would deal with solid waste rates criterion and reporting and one with the recycling program. Councilor Brian recommend } a ftp�s committee blyt hre as han whole h continue nrecycling rate study and a sub-committee to Possibly t the handl th to decide program. CrunciYc,r radon preferred on its own whether they wanted to split. o The haulers; expressed a desire for a uniform method of reporting with Ea possible change in operative dates. e 9. COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIONP4ENT9 6 made assigning Councilors' "o various City a, iiaison assignments weY committees. h. city Administrate staffindicated liaison, andd for himselfto hmeetu��inl order to committee chairman, devise a work program for each committee. 10. PERSONNEL TRAINING a. City Administrator requested approval for Joy Martin and himself to attend the Oregon ICMA 4-day Workshop in ?fiend. b. The Council requested ,a running recap of the money Spent on training. C. motion by Councilor Brian, seconded the Councilor Johnson to,approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. RECESS OPEN MEETING: 10305 p.m. gage a COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 EXECUTIVE SESSIONt the Tigard City Council vent into Executiv* ' 86asion under the provisions of OPE 192,660 (1) (d), ''& (h) to discuss labor relations and pending litigation issuer. A-DJOURNMENT c 10s15 p.m. Recorder 'r,)ueth Mayor - City of Tigard Pago 6 ^ COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 122 192& TI �. COMPANY Legal 7_6707 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice ESEAVERTON,OttEGON 57075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard 0 0 Tetarsheet biotics P. 0: Bok 23397 ® El Duplicate Affidavii ' Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE COUNTY OF WAS yss. i,_St ephan � R being first duly sworn, depose and say that l m the T mP Advertising Director,or his principri clerk,of the m newspaper of general circulation a5 (T ig a it d ��S �g�l the and 153.020;published st a aforesaid'aunty and state;that the a printed copy of which is h4reto annexed,was published a the entire issue of said newspaper for: 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 8, 1986 �for� this Mav 11E 1 98b ` Subscri4,eti an` 34'P w raga t otmry Public for Oregon shy ,orrarraisslora Eagairea 0/20/88 AFFIDAVIT 6 (z_ i�q @p p4 w r x CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF (lRi=W4 j County of Washington) ss City of Ti - rd ) I, ee., being first duly scorn, on oath depose and say. That -I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of ' Ordinance Number(s) which were adopted,at the Council Meeting dated � -_�^ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attatheby reaceffiade a part hereof, on the _ day of Yom, �3tt8e A ' ^ Dd v � k Subscribed and sworn to before aye this clay of lg � r .. , , Notary Public for oyAgon � l"ly Commission Expi, es: f� :LS 41 JFi CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITSM SUS'"ARY ` AGENDA ITEM #: ---- AGENDA OF: A ril 2g, _1986 DATE SUBMITTED: 'A�ari_1 23.1986- -- PREVIOUS ACTION: P2annin Commission Denial ISSUE/AGENDA TIl"LE: Sian Go___-�Q Excep_ tion�SGE 2-86 - landmark Ford PREPARED 9Y: Keith Laden REQUESTED BY: -- CITY ADMINISTRATOR: __ _ __._..--=--••— pEPARTi1cI T }LEAD OK: _—__- - �POLICY IS,SUS — -- Y --- - -- - INFORLP, TON UP?6 t 5tY a icati.on for a the Commission denied tle�° app- Baled this At its March 4, 9.986 hearing, l icarst has a�Op' fifth `Free-sfandinr3 sign for landmark Forzaacat e &PPtaff reports minutes and „-' appeal. d cisian. Attached are copia�s of fit Commission order, and the written app' transcript of the tyar-ch 4th hearing. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED y , the Commission decision. Conduct a public hearing and uphold ' Z Raverse the Commission decision. 3 Approve a modified plan for sign«ge- Conduct, a Pub hearing and uphold the s;orunissiUrr d�cisiarr for dwsri�l . (25043') e - 1 CITY OF TIGARD ' Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER — BY PLANNING CoMiSNION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SCE 2-86 2. Hame of Owner: Ford Motor Co. 3. Name of`'Applicant: Heath Northwest Address 175 NE Columbia Blvd. City Portland StateOR — Zip 97211 4. kation of Property: Address 12000 SW 66th Ave. Tax Asap and Lest No(n). 2S1 DAP, lot 400 5. Nature of Application: Request to allow a fifth freestanding sign; that is approx 25' 11" tall and 15 F sq. fr. where one sign, 70 sq. ft. in area:an 1 ------------ in erg t is perm3.tt —.-- 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions {f X_ Denial 7. Notice: Notice Fastspublished in the newspaper, posted at City Hall an wailed to: jTX The applicant c owners . XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization g, XX Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 4, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILE+. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City hall, 12755 Std Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9 A sal: Any party to the decision may, appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 28.32.370 which provides that a written appeal s may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 2:30 PM April 4, 19$6 �.. 10, se—ti m:asc Af you have any qucctians, ` . please call the Clay of T'igar4.1 Planning Department, 639-4171. . f r (0157P) . f CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COiISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86-_D±- PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, 14E#iCti DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 2-56') REQUESTED BY FORD MOTOR CO. The Tigard Plarsrting commission reviewed the above` application at a Public hearing on March 4, 1566. The Commission based its decision oe the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 2-56 REQUEST: To allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately tall and 151 ,square feet where one sign. 70 square feet .in area and 20` in height is permitted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) A' APPLICANT: Heath Northwest %tNER: Ford 'Motor Co. •_.. 175 NE Columbia Blvd. 300 Renaissance Ctr. Portland, OR 97211 Detroit, MI 48243 LOCRTIOAN 12000 SW 66th Avenue (N5?:Tih 2S1 11A, T.L. 400) 2. Background No previous land use, applications have been reviewed by the City. 3. Vici�tita Lnformation The property to the south and west is also zoned C-G. The ar ea to the north is zoned C-P (Commercial Professional.) and I•-5 lies to this e=;st and the Dartmouth/68th exit is immediately north. A. Site information The Property i occupied by Landmark Ford„ The foli.rjuirnj, silnr: presiantly located on the property: - 2 free-standing signs similar in size to the One proposed 7. small free -st.an<ii,ng signs aPprhximately fl feat; high and A to I. squar•L feat in size - 1wall sign for the body shop - l roof sign in the front 1 "A" frame s icon -' in add iti{rn, t;ni�rE ar;• twri sign. Inr .ats�d within thr ;ir.•r•t ri.ttrt ( a.a� rzi 66th arld ( r.+rrG:;? .n .And t)61.h and ( r•„rnk i in ? it�ft} 'trt211k ?;- NO s i The applicant proposes to install a,fifth' free—standing sign that is 25 t , it" tali with a total sign area of 302 square feet. 5. �gency and Np0 Comments . The Engineering Division has no objection. The 0tiildang inspection 0ivision is strongly' opposed because of the precedent this request would set. NPO �.14. is opposed to the request. wo other comments have been received. A, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in' this ' case is contained in Section i ltt.114 145 of the Community Development Code. The Planning commission concludes that the relevant Community Oevelopment Code requirements leave not been met based upon the findings below: 1. In order to justifyan exception to the sign cods, one of the following three criteria (COC 18.114.145) must be satisfied: a. The proposed sager code exception is necessary because a N.= conforming building or; sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected can the site in conformance with the sign code standards. b, The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign< visible from the street because of the topography of the site. C. 'There is an access .drive which services the business. or service from a street other than the street or, whichtho business is located. 2. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exception of those an the subject property) which block visibility from 6601 Avenue or I-•5. The ,Landmark Ford property is slightly 10wer th.ari - l the freeway but a sign which conforms with Code requirements would be clearly;visible from 1-5:- l Criteria (7 d-2s not apply in this case The. two existing off-site signs within the street. right ��f' we+v., •arr' illegal and must be removed immndlata'ly. The A" fr'.ame sitars e the• stty cart be allowc,ci as a temporary sigig. However , _a permit. tnu::t. b+ r stagycl the City and the maximum time period fur such a piertrsrt is b60 d:av% � Until ;a permit is obtained, this sign must be removed alst t:t) {:a;t db7 tit,t M. i The four free-standing signs and the roof sign do not conform with City requirement. The Code only alAows one free-standing sign per development and roof signs are not allowed within the City. section 18.114.110 of the Code 'States that regardless o€ the date installed, all non-conforming signs may only be continued until March 20, '1988, a C. DECI$T_0f4 nclusions noted Based upon the findings and coabove., the Planning Commission denies SCE 2 It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the 'entry of this 'order. PASSED: This day of 'March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSI.:pm/2392P) y i' t i�ICa1 rrfti)I R. 1[c, i1rgip, i � •�.I r 5 _ i ' TRANSCRIPT HEATH NORTIIWESTiFORD MOTOR CO. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-86 PLANNING C()fn"IISSION PUBLIC HEARING 3%4186 COSeIISSICr"'ER PRESENT: Don P4aen, (3onnie Owens, John Butler, Milt Eyre. Deane everett, pave Peterson,' Chris` uande vaood and WillFlewmar.. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner• Keith Liden, Secretary 0iane Se`laerks s REQUEST: To allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25' 11" s :sign. +0 square Feet i0 area and tall and 151 square feet where one i, 20' in height is permitted. LOCATION: 12000 SW 66th Ave LANDMARK FORM (WCTF1 21S1 lAA lot 400) g. I„ at PUBLIC 14EARING OPENED 8: Don Moen, "Item 5.2 staff." gn Cod?' to Senior Planner Keith Liden, "This proposal is for Sitall ion and 15511 y allow a 'Fifth free standing sign thats approximately, 25° 11" tall and side square feet in area Pet is side, ew ithereed. Thone emis is forn of 70 Landmarkquare s Ford uh, 66th , maximum height 2O fee P Pram I-S, I,v" including in site Avenue, and also has is certainly visible property right now, r, _. es of signs that are; one .he prprop informiation a number of types, uh, and in our review of this, we, staff concluded that the proposal dons not meet the applicable criteria, uh, for granting a sign code exce�stian and we � �a are recommending denial." t^.oen, "Okay, i Liden, "Are there any questions?" "one questions, what is that uh, what are the Commissioner E?). . , this use. standards, what would be the allowable, to have normally . Let Liden, Weil, what they would be allowed, s just. assume that they are to ow 70 square feet Per s�zdee putting in the dealership and 120 Lfeetin a hticPubi th�aL one free standing sign of q could be enlarged to 22' and r30 square feet per side if they have a 20 toot for setback for the sign. Also during Site Developnwnt Review yeu can 9�t the this type of this you could get an increase in sign arca up tot`5UE, but sign are cannot be used for lettering a -rld logcss. Its si.miiathoLb5 problem we had last month with Kaiser, with the Lettering and so (vfrLF�at i5oul,datbs e'+t the limit of the sign eKcgeded : thc� squaro fonticge. allowable. . several people talking far th:;se Lhat Moen, "I: though that there was a specl.al sign criteria azrc facing the freeway• 50 feet Ftii3h and extra big and all that R6 i AN1Dr11P1Y_f 0r,1+ L.iden, "Well, uh, in the case of Texaco there waisn`t rkally. what we did in that case was we do have an allowance for what we call outdoor 'adver'tising signs, which are literally intended to be the billboard type sign, you know, = two`weeks in Vegas, for you know, whatever, you know whatever the message is, but its the thingsthat Accurately has, an owned company. We use that and the ' Texaco coughing well, we didn't see any particular harm than advertising towards the freeway, sort of in the manner of an outdoor advertising sign and in that case their square footage was far below what the limit was, I think 675 square Feet or something like that at their's was 150 Moen, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I' believe we also, there was an allowance, at least to the code at that time that gave us the several people talking Moen, "Lets go on with theapplicarnt's presentation. Could we have the applicant." My name is Allan Conant, I with Heath Northwest, ;we are the sign ,nanusacturer, for the sign. Uh, We're Dere to appeal, I guess in two areas, the area of suns that they have is directed to the type; of business tnaat thQY have- Their not talking about moving 'people aroused their talking about moving cars around and so they need the various other signs that they have, the service sign, ttee body and paint sign, the used car area: . .several, those are directional sign that they have and I think its somewhat slanSer� that the direction that we may be going is oversignage and that =uh, you I h&ve to understand that we are trying to get these People off the street in an orderly on that they wanted. Their lots are obviously manner and get em to the directi �* full of merchandise to sell and so its quite a bit of congestion and they need that ability to do that. The second thing is that it is unique that this borders I--5 and Chats where their market is. Thats where, whu Landmark Ford located at that location, and so they need to be able to advertise to those people and prior to this its been in terms of banners and newspaper and etc. but uh,- if they could have the ability to market directly to that public. then its obviously, going to make them a much better, successful dealership and this is what their trying to do. I have numbers and figures t!'eat would be of any interest an the type of market that there is in terms of households and buying power, its and outstanding opportunity for Landmark Ford to market their product,,, - Moen, "Okay, Thank:you si.r. Is there anyone here from the NPO or CCI on this issue. Okay: Moving onto those in favor- of the proposal, Gene Paulsen. ,.Yes, I'm Gene Paulsen, with Neath Northwest, 175 NE Columbia Blvd, - ]. have recently ;surveyed that location, and I have some photos, tbat was taken, I want to point out, there" is . and there a lot of trees here, you cyan just 'arunly 'see the one sign there. This is just past the on ramp ort'ha, off- ramp of 1--5, . . . . . several talking. . . . . these are more or less directional signs. This arrows been in there oh, this is a nion ili ori end p<` e int stoop, necessary. And he's fac. sign, over the bodyn, this x,n e Very hard to get on and geL off hero. frontage road, there off of several talking while lc_aking at pictures unably to transcribe. . . . . TRAN�3t;RTPT SCF: 2 Ala 1,f)NDMARK I"t)RD Seacle 2 "I'm Jim Corliss, the owner of Landmark Ford, I live at 9750 5W Inez in Tigard and this proposal' we look to uh, we don't mind that theres, the staff's is talking about the advertising signs, uh, and with the current freeway, construction; or, uh thats been completely cut off our frontage road, uh things, began a problem, traffics been a. problem . . . . .. this to be, a alternate form of advertising to get traffic into our `dealership, uh, because it has finished and, plus uh, with good signage we can be . . . . .. . . . . .inaudible . very good looking sign, the signs that we have there now are ones that really identifies, as far as I'm concerned, the dealership thats the large blue sign, and other than that the direction' signs, with perhaps the exception of the used car sign, which at some ;point we will betaking down, uh, at hopefully expand the dealership and move it to the west side of the property. institutional and advertising sign I just . . . . . . Moen, "Okay, thank you Neomian " "I guess i have two questions, one is, uh, when you put up the original sign, the existing sign, did you, how did you do :that? Corliss, "The original signs where' put up, uh, 1970 when Del Ball owned the ' dealership and it was neither in the City, uh, I don't know what the County zoning was. It was not zoned commercial until about three years ago when, that when Council, when we had the zoning changed to commercial. Before that it was office building, it uh,; it was special zoned in through the City,uh, fewman, "And all of these signs were . . . . . . silence on tape Poen, "Okay, Close the public hearing, uh Commissioner Newman, any problems. Newman, Well, first, again I have a questions of staff. Reading your report you indicate that uh, that virtually all of these signs have to' come out. My question is if they were there before they became apart of the City, (pause), s could you sort of clarify that. It seems a little un---" Unidentified. "Picky. New-man, "Picky, well I don't know, I don't know exactly, it seems to me if 1 had a business and then moved in, and got annexed to the City, and they didn't at that time say, why do you have to take all your signs out. I would be a little, now having come to get .a per for an exception and as a result been told that I have to take all but one of our signs down." Liden, "Weill when we bring, when the new sign -ordinance was p,,isss?d ii I believe it was in 78, and in our Code now talked ' about' non-confoYmirtcj 'signs that are not conforming to the Code would be removed by, it said M.-Arch 20, 1988, 1.. would assume that this provision in the adopted March 20, 1978 . And the idea being that if your really going to try and force the sign curie uh, that. if you _allow the non--conforming signs to say indefinitely you are essentially penalizing all the new development which comes in aftorwards .and has to play the game by new rules, uh, and the idea with, uh, ton yc�ar period, is which we sort r-)r• amortize t:hn_ investment of the sign, WoII 'y„u have to have all your non conforming signs down in six months::" Newman., "So has his application then triggered` " ;T- 06 ! ANDM RK r•ORtl rtago 3 I � ; I i Ciders, "eta, and this is not saying that he has to take down all his non—conforming signs down now, what I =-said in the report is just to bring this ' to light, at least far as what the ordinance says where expecting all 88. Uh, there were, non—conforming signs to be taken down by March 20, 19 1' there are a cou le signs that were not, they were put in with a permits orad those where, I think I referred to three. Two directional signs that are in the right-of- y on the corner of 66th and Franklin, 68th and Franllira, will creed :some sort of permit or possibly a sign code exception to be located adhere they are, ?and then there was an A frame sign, uh, which was out in front of the gsrope,rty, uh, which is permitted on a temporary basis, but we didn't have ` any record of a pert.it for that as well. So those are the three signs that I have indicated, 'something had to be dealt with right away, and then the others fall tinder the nor.--conforming signs." Newman, "Do you know whether .those three signs where there when the area was annexed to the City? Liden, °'I;. presume not, they looted pretty new." several people talking Moesa', "Sign code, enforcement code, falls Under that., Liden, "That wasn't really the main part of thisorder.°' Newman, "I understand that. I was tryingto fagure :out what the process was. And 'exactly how`these' things got triggered." fM_ Moen, "Okay, anymore questions? Commissioner Owens, comments." 0waris, 11 `°well I think this and a couple of the other sign code exceptions that' we're looting at tonight, highlight, or pin point the need for, huh, I've said this before, huh, I'll have to say it again, taking a look again at our sign code uh, regulations. I think that we have a number of situations in the City that theres some . . . . . . . . . . consideration. find where running up against some problems that our sign code laws currently 'really cannot address. You know, in realistic' way. However, five, asking for a fifth "sign, uh, this one, this one 'presents a real' delemia for me. I uh understand the need for wanting to snake, you know, the presence of the business known to the traffic on I--5.' F Um, but, we do have a sign code, and I think that probably they are going to ct- have to do something else." Moen, "okay, commissioner Newman, any comments. Newman, "too. Nothing useful." Moan, ,commissioner Butler." autler, "mo, iso comment at tris tiros. Moen, '°I would like to take thrix opportunity tt, make x t thi+rk .ttaere are a number- of signs on. the property and 1 don't held it ac�ainat Landmark Ford for having T would have a v,•r v difficrilt time, I can undorst:and why they w.-Ant this sign, zurs u+ill traave to be taken up withr: th" CounciI. on �rm, Iial . . . . . . sErr.akifw; & i.•. tr softly can't hear . . . . . : TRfaiV'aCf81 trl ;t:f" 06' I AtJ12Y9Rr21! F'r�8tr {',�°j� Cla missi®Hers to far from tape cannot 'transcrire . Moen, "Commissioner Fyre you want to make a motion. "Move 4R©ve to deny Sign Code Exception SCE ?--46 and to authorize staff to prepare the final order and for President Moen to;sign that final order. Peterson, "Second." Moen, "Motion has been made a seconded for denial, any further discussion? All those in 'favorof the motion that has been made and seconded 'please signify by saying aye. Moen, Ch�aens, Butler, ;Fyre,` Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Newman, "AYE." Moen, All those opposed? (No one) i Ji z1,, 1"1t1ARD PLANNING COMMI`,SION RU.,ULAR MEF_1'LNG - MARG 4, 1086 (r k: 1. president Moen called the nwetingto order .at 7:33 PM. The mvetinij wtatt n held at Fowler Junior High Sr_hool, _10865 SW Walnut, ,I.GI Room. 2.. ROLL CALL: PRESENT : President Moen: Commissioners Owens, Butler, Fyre, Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Newman. ABSENT Commissioner Bergmann. STAFF: `senior Planner Keith Lidtan, Secretary Diane M. tt Jelderks ss 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6g P President Moen requested that on the end of paragraph 8, page 2 add "and (lid not feel it was a conflict of interest."; paragraph 5, page 3, .harige "neighborhood" to' "Planning Commission" last paragraph page 6 add "and did not represent`a conflict."; and paragraph '7, page 8, change "21 1/2" to "22 1I2", Commissioner Butler requested that on paragraph I, page 4, add, "but could still be objective.". �. Commissioner Newman moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Vanderwood, Fyre, and Owens abstained, 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Staff noted that item 5.5' which had been hand delivered to the Commissioner is actually item 5.8. Senior Planner Liden distributed a E- memo regarding' a workshop with City Council. President Moen stated he could get invitations to the Manufactured Homesshot if any of the ' Commissioners were interested. Also, President Moen had attended the ODOT meeting on the b year plan. !; PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 2-86 ELIZABETH BUTLER/SAM COTTER NPO !! 6 ' Request to divide a 1.37 acre parcel into 7 lots with a. minimum lot size R - of 7,500 sq., ft. and to allow a cul--de—sac of 600 feet in length where a maximum length of 400 feet is required. This item had been tabled from the February 4th hearing to allow the applicant to meet: with - sur•roundinc; property owners/NPO and to submit a plan which meets Code requirements, Senirar Planner Liden reviewed the proposal noting that the f ebruary 4t Aff rupart. was attached and that the findings, conclu-sions, .ar)d Cnndtt ru.,.; m.ay_ be modified to reflect the Commission's decision. APPLICONi 'S PRESENTAi ION: Jahr, IDeJong, 8835 SW Canyon Lane /! 405, ' Portland, 9727.5, represrn4iriq the _ owner, had no problems" with tw sl.aff rnpvrt Arid w.as availabiv 1'.,r gt..zv c l i ons Pi f{rStVTtu,• t;rtit�iMf', .;iY;^ r'ilrgUli i v't;i+ _, I'is3ie ',i�i,r;i i. f- 5.2 VPrRI(tN(:t. V 3 06 W ASHINGI-ON CO. St'lioot_ I)CST. tf Rftlt_.A. D6:V. CO. Nl30 p 7 Request to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac thrat is 470 feet. in length whore 400 feer t. is the maximum length permitti=_d in Penn Lawn f:stat.ces (S 3-85) Located. SW Corner of Springwood Drive and 115th Ave. (WCIMt 1S1 3480, lot` 7000)`. ' Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal arid made staff's re coaunerrdatiur, for approval. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Kers Nelson, Otak, 17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd. , LO 97034, supported the staff report. µ PUB1_IC TESTIMONY ` o No one appeared to :speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED •o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve V 3-06 based on staff's findings and 'conclusions: Also to request staff to prepare the final order and for President Moen to sign that final order. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Butler:voting no. 5.3 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION.0,? HEATH NORTHWEST/FORD:MOTOR CO. NPO It 4 'equast o a, .ow a i 't% free- standing sign that is approximately 25' 1 l" tall and 151 'sq. ft. where one sign, 7U sq. ft. in area and 2U' in itei.ght is permitted. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the staff report and made staff' s recommendation for denial. Discussion followed about what would be allowed if the site was newly built. APPLICANT'S PRESENTAi'IOPd o Allan Conant:, Heath Northwest, 175 NE Columbia Blvd., Portland, 97'.11, F stated the signage was necessary because of the type of business; Also, the area is very congested and it borders I--5 and they need to be atble to, market to 1-5, o Jim Corliss, 9750 SW Inez, explained that since the Haines Ro:gd Construction it has raused problems and the signage is necessary to Assist, ed pictures of the existing signs. in directing people. tie submitt o Discussion 'followed regarding when, the other signs had btten installed, what s i- where grandfathered in and what signs would need to be ri,movt•d f. to rcomit into conformance with tho cock. ;tnd whr.n Pum lY; HEARING r;t tl$! t3 ` tti ; o Commissioner ovens stated she: felt thu sign cod(, needs to bo rev„•wed >r Commissioner' Fyro R,ovru' arnj t'ommissionor• Pt±t_t�r,„jns t•crn'dod to dor, 7.-8G per sttaff' tindi,r,rj•; ,and rec,rn,mrnd;atn,ns Alfr tO direst ,.: C prep.ar'r the final' vr'der' .a n:; 'fr,r Pry i i,'.•rrt. M<rrtrr tri -;L4 tn �,f f i�rd6rr'. fiotivr, aarrird 'un,+nirrnusly. by r:r;aun, si rrtr ; !u r,t i'. tet r5(dNIN: rail` Ltt)N t"L.*;�9f tin;; '�� •9 �. Irrr,f fir, t "SAi..a'AGTD41d IS OUR MAIN CONCERN" R (D 12000 S.W.66th AVE. � PHONE(533)639.1133 ! P.O.SOB(23970 TIGARD,OREGON 97223-0133 � April 3; 1986 `ld3CI OMINi City of Tigard avoll �O A)i:) .. Tigard, Oregon 97223 missio Reference: Planning Camn Case tESCE 2-86:�' ! {'< 1 �� a%7c is Gentlemen: ' appeal of the planning commission denial of our Enclosed is our app electronic advertising billboard sign request for a free standing for our. business. Council to readdress the I believe it is time for City to pertain to commercial currentsign codes, e j and Highway 217. The codes are property fronting Interstate to all businesse's in all t o apply universally too restrictive tre 'logical exceptions the ou locations,. There aexception dt®shthe d'c de address and but in the interim I request an approval of our application. w, sign ox: our . Currently the code allows for 1 free standing Guns location regardless of frontage'. We have two free standing that are not directional: ` 1 . Ford brand ID sign 2. Ford A-1 Used Car brand sign al is to low effective signs but The. Roy purposes of the sign code that our business operates to prevent sign clutter. Considering I don' t believe it on approximately 600 feet of freeway frontage, n in itGelt- third sign would be considered clutter and the nes. sig will :be attractive. if there were free standing sigusinesses in ns wlotilci 1b�1 on 100 foot frontages , Qe should have a large , bear in£; on the permitted by code. Fronts. sign erode. If you believe that three signs are clutter, l t;auiti be willing to remove the Ford A-1- Used Car be sign, but i don' t think that removal should be required. and size of sign we want to construct . it As far as the type adequately covered under sl,ec-i.aJ con icier rt ire+r appear;; to be q (i�)(l of tircj s:i£;n code as arr cl tt' Lto �r si;;ns sr_ction 18. 114 .09 L,n t'.i.i.I be an outdoor adver i-Si rr? r s',rr Oil Si. advertising sign. wi.11 be an electronic adver t.is.int, in every sense . It _. use tlir that will display lvariousadVertadvertisingISreSRc.f;e5 �l�r,itir£l "I"' t�r3 ,1`li,, ir�t of each (lay . In addition we intend to 1 City of Tigard April 3, 1986 Page two as many public service and civic : orientedannouncements, as possible in; addition to our advertising messages. The code permits a 300 square foot sign for such application. I appreciate your consideration and approval of our request based our needs, and to future economic on prudent judgement at developement 'and growth of similar locations in Tigard. Very truly yours, NDMARK FORD, INC. .� m Corliss ealer JCdbjc Pf EAl.. �f 1, POR; AND, YAK IMA, Sl Al II 1, lrOKA' 1 1 Nh1%\i(k WI(v,\!(fill April 2 1986 City of Tigard RE: Notice of Appeal for Case #SCE2-86 ' Ford Motor Co. iz000 sw 66th Avenue TAXM Lot 4 2S11AA 'Lot 400 t" Application requested to allow a fifth advertising billboard ' e j sin that is approximately 25111" tall and 151 square feet where one , sign 70 square feet in area and 20 ' in height is permitted. We would like to appeal the decision based on the following conunents. Signs that exist were all installed prior to being annexed into the city. Two of the mentioned freestanding , signs are actually directional signs reading "Servi'ce' & "Body & Paint" . These signs should not be classified freestanding as they are directional only. Each sign has an arrow and designates the entrance. - Landmark Ford has agreed to remove the large "Used Car" sign pylon bringing the existing pylon count down to one. - Landmark Ford has also agreed to reduce the size of the two directional signs if required, but it seems 'rather` impractical and expensive to manufacture two new signs to reduce the total square feetage by approximately 10 square ?: feet - It should be pointed out that of the approximately 50 letters sent out to the adjacent landowners regarding; the additional signage that there was not a negative response there was a positive reponse! IO. i �u Page 2 April ''2, 1980 City of 'Tigard Also and most important is that the 'City of Tigard: does not 'adequately address the signage problems that merchants have adjacent to I-5. Under the Code,, the sign cannot be large enough or high enough to, adequately address 55 MPH, traffic. The following cities and counties address the Freeway direc'tiona'l business much differently than Tigard: Albany, OR Allows freestanding ;signs - maximum 50' high and a ma.:imum of 25 ` square fee# per: sign face. Also allow building signs .based on frontage. Salem, OR Allows freestanding signs 50 ' high and a , maximum of 250 Iso allow building signs as per square feet per sign face. A building square 'footage. Woodburn, OR Allows freestanding, signs '45 ' high and a maximum of 200 square feet no matter how much business frontage. Building sign allowed. P Tualatin, OR Allows freestandingsigns 45 ' high and 250 ' square foot per face 'plus building signs. Clark Co WA State Allows freestanding signs up to 60' high and 350 ' square feet . Building sign also allowed. Page 3 April 2, 1986 City of Tigard In conclusion, Landmark Ford's market is the I--5 traffic and he must be allowed to adequately address this market., They are malting a dramatic concession in the removal or reduction of signs and should be allowed to have the ' additional advertising billboard pylon. i Exceptions have been granted sander the outdoor advertising classification as in Texaco, 'Shilo Inn, etc. and that the 'City of Tigard needs to address this problem as it will continue to hinder businesses thatf ace I-5o Regards, HEATH NORTHWEST, INC. Allan Conant Vice President AC:hp ply' ( t STAFF REPORTAGENDA ITEM 5.3 MARCH 4, 1985 7:30 P.M. ~ TIGARD PLANNING COM1M ISSION FC*4LER JUNIOR.HIGH SCHOOL - t GI: 1.0855 S W. WALNUT TIGARD, ,OREGON 97223 A, FACTS 1General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 2-•86 REQUEST; To ,allow a fifth free-standing sign that is 'approximately 25° 11" tall and 151 square feet where one sign, 70 square feet in area'and 20' in height is permitted. C011PREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:" Commercial General' ZONING DESIGNATIO C-G (Commercial General' APPLICANT: Heath Northwest OWNER: Ford Motor Co. 175 NE Columbia Blvd. 300 Renaissance Ctr. Portland, OR 97211 Detroit, MI 4823 LOCATION: 12000 SW 66th:Avenue (WCTM 2S'1 1AA, T.L. 400) i 2 Background No previous'-land-use applications have been reviewed by the City. E 3. -Vicinity Information The. property to t:hc south and west i.s also zoned C-G. The area to the north `'is zoned C-P in is and I-5 lies to : the east and the Dartmouth/68th exit is immedi.atel.y rrorth. 4. Site Information The property is occupied by Lar,dmArk Ford the fulluwinc; sictns ar: presently located on the property: j ' -: 2 free-standing signs similar in size to the one proposed - 2 ;small free.-standinq ' ,igns appri3ximat(sly 8 frret high and fl t.,r square f<zet. i.rr sir(! 1 Nall sign for the bndy shut - 1 rr)cyf sign in t:he fCbr;t - 1 "A" frame sign lto(7 uli t.hir, I.I„, sLrvct rit tst ut W,a S' In addition, thorn faro tw„ siyr,t, 1 .� t tiR tt"i and t'r.a•rk l i n anrt hr+t h .,r„i 1 r.inF:l in J IN 10 J. The applicant proposes to install a fifth free-standing siert ghat. is 25' 11" tail with a total sign area of 302 square feet. 5. f�ency «rsd Pd!'U Comments The Engineering Division has no objection. r,. The Y3uilding Inspection Division is strongly opposed because of the precedent this request would set. NPO #4 is opposed to the request. No other comments have been received. S. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval. criteria in this case is contained in Sectior% 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code. The 'Planning staff concludes that the relevant Community Development. Code requirements have not been met based upon the findings below: 1. in order, to justify an exception to ;the sign code, one of the following three;criteria (CDC 19.114.145) must be satisfied: a, Tf+e , propQsed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming "building or, sign on an adjacent property ,;ould ., limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with the -sign:code standards. b. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign cod` is necessary to make tete sign visible from the atreet because of the topography of the site. C. There is an access drive which services the business or- service rservice from a street other than the street on which Lhc business is located. 2. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exception of those on the subject property) which block visibility f.-om 66th Avenue or I-5. The Landmark Ford property is slightly lower" th•-err the freeway but a sign which conforms with Code requireuxarits would be clearly visible from I-5. 3 , - Critceria- C does nut apply in this case. The two txistiny >ff site signs within the strt�c•t right of (4-41Y •ir illr�y.41 and -uuitiL bi, removed immediately. Thr! "A" fraamr .iign on L„• title Carl bV a l0wed ••,:i .+ t(2mpurary sign. however, ii permit mu-,t bo r>•.t.i,•,i by the t;iEy and Ltt, maximum tinge period for- such a pormxL 'is until a,permit' is obtained, this sign must, b(' removed L, The four free--standing signs- and the roof sign do not conform with City requirements. The Crede only allows one free--standing sign per- ( development and roof signs are not al]`)wed within the City. Section 18.114.110 Of the Code states that regardless of the dnatrt installed, all y non-conforming signs may only be continued until March 20, 1988. C. RECOrYIENDATION staff - Based open the f:indi:ngs and conclusions noted above, the Planning spa recommends denial of SCE 2 -86. PREPARED 6'Y'.: Keith Liden APPROVED 9Y: William A. Konahan Senior Planner Director of Community �a. Development (KSL:pmf2392P) f, rs ;a �a 5 11720 SCJ bath Ave. Tigard, Ore., 97223 Phone: Area (503) 639-1497 rf11,11"A If, Real Estate Broker and Investments osxsa� taa�t 6or the-minimization of u%m4sx*1aoc esalsvProperty Managementdpa PROFESSIONAL OTd !r � EErreYt CONSULTANTS TO: CITY OF TIGARD an4 TIG RD PLANNING COMMISSION FILE k�tj'e�i�ER., ( ,SCE 2�$ i ' -RE: APPLICANT: HEATH NORTHWEST OWNER: PO, 175 ME COLUMBIA BLVD. 300 RENAISSANCE CFXTER PORTLAND, ORE. 97219 DETROIT, 1411CH. 4€3243 consider this letter an my urging your approval Of �u3a pct SIGN `CODE EXCEPTION allowing a fifth free st ding sign that is proposed to be 4pprm�zia� 1� 25 fit. 91 inch � tali aid. 151 q. ft. at 12000 S.W. 66th Avenue. I raver your &pprsa al 01� this �i code exception baoaugg .,., I p ra ��t <� aimi.lar sign' code exception for int 1.08,8r 25 ft to 30 t . i lith t � 1; 950` raq. ft. i3► Q& oma: Block 6 d/or Block 13 between SW 67th Aveaue and SW 68th Parkway which hopefully will be teen from `,Istisratate H . 5. -Our 'Lexffiom .F ill joint V amtur e'F 10,000 sq. f%,. (100 a x low) ty' 66th Ave. betw*cru SWClinton at and ,SW Dartmouth laud facing S St. was taken by Oregon Department of Treamportatica for I®5 2.a;it -Hoa 293 off-ramp to SW Dartmouth St. in 1950. Thio si%uatiom forced us to mOvQ the l.ocatioN of azy p opposed sign or :coigns 260 St to the W@gt on land which we o is ',€ ubsteatielly lower elevation than our Land which faced 5W :66th ;Avenue. r` Mom Mill, e� t � CITE' OF 'TIG L) 4 a Gentlemen: We at 'Landmark Ford at 1200 S.W. Seth request permission to erect the proposed sign becauseadditional exposure is required! The street the business is on (S.W. 66th) is only a frontage ' road and .the market that Landmark Ford is trying to reach i the mo ist on 1-5. Also the adjacent property is Heavily wooded, which limit's the' business exposure . T}$e 'p csposed exception to the height limits in -the Sign Code is necessary to snake the sign visible from I_5 because of _ the: topography of the site. The site is located below 1-5.` J' t f 5 c 4 5 k�i+ ♦ k� �x d ru t � s 5 ON z". r �3 . r a.s---------------- ad �a Dvc rsl 1ed T) Kt�tL,n fl,14. °0ililili�'llOrla��!'drl�iri� rir(rl►lfirI�Ij!j ywfm rp Ifr- 11''9 R fir i il7l 1 r 1 I I _ 11 � �: I ! ( -P, ! � �. �.!—F,i � ! ( !�]�i1�li�illi�ii�Iiillli{111(lilpIt�11t6ifl=rilll+,IItill I1IN1EJill III CIII ryllIII •• NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED -__ ..----"I. 2. 3 4 -- _ $ -. s- - 7 8 eI O !i .----__•2 ' DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO T THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL - DRAWING. 0£ 62 BZ G2 82 SZ OZ EZ Z2 1Z OZ 6i QI LI --91 Sr 41 EI Z1 11 — 01 6 gEmu. ft111ii1i�1111�tL1iilll�luliNlaHiet�Uiim �11 _ ,f�flfjl�lli -. MARCH .................. • k I �� • Zvi to 00 W as 40o Am f `"s vV6 - UIJUUUUUIJUUUUUUUUUUUuuuutluLluulLgumwmuu r N I • I REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1986 - 7605 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council President Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon (arrived at 71110 p.m.), Jerry Edwards, and Valerie Johnson; City Staff: Bob '< Juana City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Directorl Tim Rariis, Legal Counsel; and Gerry Bowles, Recorder Protein. Absent: Mayor John Cook 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA 'ITEMS �. a. Appointment of ,Gerry Bowles as Recorder Protem for two months. c r b. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. , C. City Administrator noted additions and amendments to the Consent Agenda and additional Non-agenda items. ` d. The Community Development Director is reviewing the citizen concern regarding reservations for Cooks Park. 3; VISITOR'S AGENDA a. No One appeared to spoak _ s: 4. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-85 LANDMARK FORD - NPO #4 t A request by LANDMARK FORD for Council review of a Planning Commission denial of a request for a sign code er.ceptic?n. The sign code exception request was to allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25' 11" tall and 151 square feet when* one sign 70 square feet in area and 20' in height is permitted. The property is located, at 12000 SW 65th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1AA lots 400 & 1001 and WCTM "1S1 36DD'lots'4800, 4900, 5000, and 5100). a. Public Nearing Opened fi. b. Community Development Director synopsized report noting the Planning Commission denied the application- C. Public Testimony: Proponents a Allan Conant, Heath Northwest, expressed the need for I sac,,-, of additional height and size to allow for exposure from Interstate r. Fie felt the sign code should be readdressed with regard to �roportr� r . a abutting Interstate 5 and Highway 217. o Jim'Corliza, 9750 SW Inez, President, Landmark Ford, presented an original rendering of the proposed sign, stating titers are a ttaltt .. only<two business suns on the site; the other two beino d p`c.t, :%I�a; COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 2G, 1986 signs. He is willing to remove they Used Cdr sign if noceezary. Opponents o Geraldine Ball, 11515 std glat Avenue, Tigard, representing DJB, Inc., objected to the content of the published documents because of tax lot number inconsistencies. Tax lot 4800 is not leased by Landmark Ford and should not be 'included in the property description. DJB, -Inc. has no abjection to the sign.' d. Public Hearing Closed. £. Discussion followed regarding the size and number of signs at a location next to a freeway and the precedent set by other allowed signs approved in the area, along with clarification of the "Planning Commission's decision.` f. Community Development Director addressed code definition of billboard signs. g. City Administrator reviewed criteria justifying an exception to the sign;code. There is an opportunity for Council judgement with regard to Criteria b and c. h. Community Development Director stated the Planning Commission recommended denial upholding staff's reccsmmer3datioai. i. Public Hearing Closed. j. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards to delete tax lot 4800 from description of property and allow exception of sign requested with the agreement that the existing- signs will be brought into conformance either by permit or size. Clarification of motionexplained that the used car sign would be removed along with the two off-site signs. The remainder of non-conforming signs will have to come into conformance by March 20, 1988. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards to amend as clarified. Motion to amend was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Motion as amended approved by unanimous vote of Council present. k. The consensus of the Council was to have staff review the sign code with regard to freeway properties. 5. COMPREHENSIVE FLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-86 ZONE CHANGE-4-86 WHITE/WIL HE_.M' - NPO #2 � u " H r._corcarriendation by the Planning Commission not to grant a request• for a Pa gc, 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL ; .9-c CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDiNAN r NO, 86-�� r'r AN ORDIPJANCE AMENDING HUS'INIESS VAX FEES AND TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.C4.160. c WHEREAS, the Budget Committee has recommended to the City Council an increase in business tax ;fees, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Effective July 1, 1986 the Tigard Municipal Code Section 5.04. 160 will be as follows: 5.04.160 Fee schedule. (a) The taxes required in this 'chapter shall be paid 'in the amiount specified balrw prior to the issuance of a receipt. Administration Total T crf_Tax and Ensor cement' Tax Business Tax Small business $15.001 $ 35.00 $ 50.00 Medium business :15.00;.. 85.00 100,00 'urge business 15.00 185.00 200.00 For purposes of this subsection, the ward "year" commences on the first day of the quarter in which the tax receipt is obtained. (b) The initial payment of an annual business tax may be made at any time. Thereafter the annual 'tax shall be paid before the expiration of the quarter- in which the initial tax was paid. lst' uari er 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter July l- Oct. 1-•-" Jan. 1— April I---- June 30 Sept. 30 Dec. 31 March 31 PASSED: By 1� vote of all Council members present after being r�ead -by" number- and title only, this ? day of _'Lr.Y1��1...t____."._. 1 L)f3 6. _green R, Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This day ,of •r M�ayr�r - - - ORDINANCE NO. 86- Page I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE No . t' AP.1 ORDINANCE' OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL_ AMENDING SECTION 3.20.030 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, STREET SYS i EM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES — TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PRESCRIBING NEW RATES OF' CHARGES. WHEREAS,; a system development charge is imposed on new development to provide revenues for the construction and extension of extra-capacity street facilities .and traffic-control es, which are required to accommodate the impacts of increased traffic utilization on existing street facilities; and WHEREAS, the charges currently in effect have not been adjusted since Marctt 1984; and WHEREAS',: the costs of providing extra--capacity street facilities and 'traffic control devices have increased over 20% since 1964; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 82-72 granted the City ;Council the authority to, se'#. rates for Fees and charges. THE CITY OF' TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLO1.41S:: ' SECTION 1: , section 3.20.030 Rates" is :amended as follows, with bracketed items {[ }-deleted and replaced with underlined items +13.20.030 Rates. A system development charge is imposed upon all lands within the City of Tigard according to the .demands which proposed development said lands will place upon the collector and arterial street system serving the City of Tigard as follows: (1\ Si.1gle•-3family residential unit [$5001$600; (2) Mobile home court space [$187.50]°;122 a; (3) Multifamily residences [$3003$360 per unit; (4) Commercial, industrial and institutional [$67.50] U per parking space as required by .section 1.8.60.120." SI=GI'IOi�I 2: That this ordinance shall be effective on arid after the lst clay of June after its pas(ge by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: 11y ) f➢� vote of z-(tll Council. members present after being t.7ead }� _ number and t,itIe anly, this _ �Ti� day of a 1986. 't (�,r-een R. 4Si lson, Deputy Rererder APPROVED: This 19; day ( f V)')c:( t{ 1986 ORD1Nj)N(,E No, 86- Page 1. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON' ORDINANCE No. 86-.;�� AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 9.04.060 OF TITI:E 9 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (WAIVER OF PARK RESERVATION FEES) WHEREAS, Chapter 9.04.060 of:the Tigard Municipal Cade requires that any waiver of park reservation fees be :approved by the Park Board and the City Administrator; and WHEREAS, the Park Board has historically;;granted fee waivers and: refunds of park reservation fees for Tigard abasednon-profit groups;- and WHEREAS, at the April lo, 1986 Park Board meeting, the Park Board voted unanimously to waive park reservation fees to 'special service groups; ,and WHEREAS, at theApril '21, 1986 City Council meeting,: the City Council;agreed to initiate a Cade amendment to allow Tigard based non-profit- organizationsto use Cook Park without payment of fees. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Delete the following from Title 9 of the Tigard Municipal Code: [9.04.060 Waiver of fees. No waiver shall be granted except by approval of the park board and the cityadministrator and in accordance with the following standards: Fees for facility reservation (Group II) may be waived in whsle or 'inpart on a..discretionary basis for groups.,;submitting written. request:. - -- -` detailing equal value services to the community.j (Ord. 83-55 S1(part) , 1983) Section. 2: Amend Title'9 of the Tigard Municipal Code by adding the following language: 9.04.060 Waiver of Fees. A waiver of any fees for use of park and recreation facilities owned and/or ,maintained by the City of Tigard shall be granted as nutlined:in Sections (1) and (2) below: (1) Fees shall be waived for any Tigard based non-profit organization provided the following criteria are met: A) The organization must follow established procedures for, making` reservations for use of the -facility. B•'• At the` time the reservation is made for use of the faci.] t.y b} the organization, documentation of non-profit status must be_provided. C) The organization shall meet the definition of Tigard based non-profit organizations as set forth in Sectjor: 18.26.030 of the Tigard Municipal Cade. r ORDINANCE No. 86-z� Paae ;I (2) A waiver of fees for use by other groups or organizations shall be granted only upon approval of the Park Board by majority vote. The Park Board shall provide written verification of the waiver to City staff in the form of Park Board minutes or a letter from the Park Board chairperson. Section 3: That this ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day of passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By l-LvtirAv\,Ii pv nti, , vote of all Council members'present after being read by number and title only, this JD71A day of 1986. 1 Iioreen R. Wiison,. Deputy=Recorder APPROVED: This __L,;2 rh day of d 1986 john-E. Cook, Mayor ORDINANCE No. 86-__2(7 Pagel : ate CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE No. 86-S;2�0 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS' TO APPROVE -'A COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AMENDMENT {CPA 3-86 AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 5-86) PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD (10580 S.W. McDonald St.) PlanAmendment from Medium Density Residential to Gene Commercial, and a Zone Change from R-12 WHEREAS, the City has requested a Comprehensive Plan (Residential 12 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial. General) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning ;Commission reviewed the proposal of April 8, 1986 and recommended approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on April- 28, 1986 }, to consider the Commission recommendation. THE 'CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the. April 8, 1986 Planning staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit "A:) . Section 2a The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's to recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan band Use 'Map and Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "B" (maps) . Section 3 This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council, and approval by the May(-,r- vote of all Council members present PASSED.: ByrrIYY,Gc��r 1986. on the /2;7 day of _ JL4?L 7 1. puty Recorder , City of Tigard + APPROVED: Thisj'D71? day of c 1986. Mayor _- City of Tigard -- -- � r a ORDINANCE NO. R if 7, 1 SI'Af F M.P0111 nt:f NI)ft' 1 I t hl �i.rF 1 1!'I)AY, APRIL, 8, -1986 7:10 PM a TIGARD PLANNING; C.OMMI•'."ION }'l)S,tl_F:F2 LUN LOR 11 I�;Fi;S1:F10t�1- ! t;Z 10865 .`,.lr1 CJAl.NU1 TIGARD 01ZF:t;0N 972.2,3 A. F-AC1S General 'Information CASE Curtcprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 3- 86 lora• tih. rc :C 5-86, REt;t1F51 : Comprehensive Pian Amendment from Mcedium :Density Residential to Commercial General: and a 7ril Ch,,cr,yc, from R--12 (Residential:, 12 units/acre) to C--G (Commercial General). FIPPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Sun Fund Investnu>nt PO Box 231811 Tigard, OR '41223' LOCATION: 10580 SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 IOAA, Tax +.ot ` 2. Backil The City approved construction of the existing office building in 1978 (files nos. CU 17-78/SDR 44-78) . At the time of construction, the property was zoned C-4 (Commercial Neighborhood). During the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Crrde, the property was inadvertently zoned R- 12. 3. Vicinity Information The properties on the 'north side of McDonald Street and those immediate west are zoned C---G and the properties to the south anc, east of. 10.5th Av(rnuo are -zeroed R=12. The -residentially zoned pal z4rii devoted to single and multi--family resido-ncas and a nursing homn.' n Site Information and Property Description ihct half acre pal is fully developold with an offir,� ht.itidtr+y; pcarktnc area; and Landscaping l'he'Staff proposes t.0 irct,ludu t'll parcel with u Cpn! t --<; zone which .:-)pplioa , to the; prr;pert.tir:, h,ct r nun,lt,;ctrll, w.,, ;irini nc,rth of: McDonald '-,troot, Ac p- c- arid NPO Cominvnts the Vnyinecritu.l arid BuiIdinq Inspection Divisions NPC) it t, F,,ave r,1ri objvc_t.ior, t,q tho roquesC. rxa� .0MINIMEN M. �i Af A !;! f'c)R 4 t.('fi i tlt,i c „•`,! { / 8. FINDINt,g AND Ct)N('I-US IONS The relevant approval criturt, in this ra;c pro COMP rchErstvc• P) n Polities 2. 1. 1, 5. 1.4, and thct I_tr_ atiun tl t,rt t:,r-ia in t-hapter- 12. The Planning staff concludes that the upon the alwve criteria are satisfied based `following Findings: 1• Policy 2.1. 1 is satisfied- because the NPO has been informed arid' given an opportunity; to r_omment and notice of the public hearing has: been sent to nearby property owners , 2. Policy 5. 1.4 is mcat because the prrlpused rezoning will. not ;cause _ any encroachment upon nearby residentialcures because adequate buffering was provided during thc. dev.�lopment 'the property and the established commercialUse Will not be affected. 3. The '-Locational Criteria are satisfied because the property has R-12 zone only to the south and east, the the present use of the property will be unchanged, the site has direct Street access ,tr> McDonald which is a 'majorcollector,' public transportation is available on Pacific Highway, and the site has been property developed according to City requirements. C. RECO ENDATION Based upon the above finds and conclusions, the p Y'etAPfimends ;approval of CPA 3-8b/ZC 5--86. lanni.ny staff �f -- PREPAR rJ By:Zr „—Keith lidenAPPA�EF William A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Planning & •a Development a (2438P/dmj) a' t36//t -. �f EGOS' ( �� i. SIE � E MAP ' fay I Boo 'a McDONALD STREET �• B may' (CR2155) oi'---.��.. i0 i 3 84°IS E R� 700 600 500 103 .50140 3t .52.4C, w 3� z 00 r esus�d �-s es°�s•� � -C r e a moo, 20 3L5. olwo s��rs 3w 2.08 aG 1-- L eat' 200 Z67 AC. I i;dt IV a �s �p \ SEE MAF 400 2 a I lige ¢' 93 AC. .q 1 . 14 2Q0 Rt34' T:! ' -1400 1500 l 156 AC. 6.57 4C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85--47 (HALL/BURRNHAM LID.-PHASE III) 4EREAS1 thea Tigard City Council adopted Ordinance No. 85-47 on Dec. 16, 1985, forming a Local ;Improvement District to construct half—street improvements to SW Hall/Burnham Blvd; and WHEREAS, the total cost estimate in the Ordinance was given as $174,000 for said improvements, and the assessable costs were estimated to be $179,000; and WHEREAS, the City of .Tigard desires to contribute the sum of $40,000 for work in excess of that required for the District itself, said amount to be derived 'from the revenues of the City's Street System ;Development Fund, and said amount to be in addition to the assessment against the City as a benefited land owner within said improvement district. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLO=WS: Section 1: Section 4 of Ordinance No. 85-47 shall be amended to read as follows- Section ollows:Section 4: That all. lands situated within the boundaries described on the attached Exhibit "B" excluding Tax Map 2S1-2DA, Tax Lot #200, are determined and _a declared to be a street improvement assessment district, and it is: further declared that each x lot,. part of lot and parcel of lana within said � boundaries will be especially benefitted by said improvements and that the estimated cost is $173,000 for said improvements, the assessable : costs are estimated to be $138,000 which shall be assessed in fulls according to benefit on a front; ' footage and area basis, against all lands within said improvement district. The City of Tigard ' shall contribute the sum of x;40,000 toward Lhe cost of Lhe project. Said amount shall be derived from the City Street System Development Fund, and shall. be in addition to the assessment against the City as a benefitted land owner. r within said improvement district. E Section 2: That inasmuch as it is necessary far the peace, health, and _ safety of the people (if thct 'City of Tigard that the said improvements be constructed with the leiyst possible delay, ar emergpncy ' is hereby ,declared to exist, and t=his ordinance sha1.1 became effective upon its passage by the Counc=il and signature by the Mayor. ORr)INAlEl(,F N0. 86—CA L nage PASSED; By �►�nurv�a �a_ vote of all Council members present after By j! read by numbes� and title only, this —Ia:E day of Doreen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorca�r APPROVED, This day of 1-986- n cook,'mayor pot:bs 5 I c?F2(.}:{:tlANCE NO. 8b Pago 2 CIS OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDAS ITEM SummY 4„ AGEINDA OF May 1986 AGENDA.ITEC! 198b FRE�+I�3�55 ACTYO?d: DATE SUBMIT^aE�3: May 1� �.. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Urban Planning Area $';iEPARED By: Community Development A r�,� a1e nt with Washington County 'QUESTED �y QUE aTED EY: e L q A� , CITY ADMINISTRATOR: �xs m-x.x.s�x��.. DEPARTMENT [ CAN OK: eaxsssmrmsas��u:ss.aeevaaaa�m�em�anxe�mss®tmsam�avax�xmaugmtxsvx�ssrsatsaawmmxeamrgxea�rs� � OiICX ISSUE Should the City enter into an Urban Planning Area Agreement wit Washington ' County? IFfigUEAi kTION SAY ning Area ating Ur ,.. The City and Washington County have been negU}lA draft nUPAA awhichnWashington p,greettnt ;UPAA} for the past s roves of County prw. epared is presented for your revieIf tand�presentedPto you for the revised UPAA, a final version will be prepared your ratifi.cation., r.. semxxss�ixir�mszemave�ssYaxe.-oasxas xsss<saaxaeA�ms�xes+asss��=zazeemscasasaesaa.a�aaes��aemma:cszmea- -----mm--a--- ALTERNAT'IVES CONSIDERED ment and direct the staff to bring draft, approve the agree i, Rev iew the UPAA . back a formal copy incorporating the reviews. 2, Review the UPAA and modify the agreement. 3. Take no action. msa��,x: ,�ua��x. ---------,�v ��.x�m-d-®..m..�.�ma SUGGESTED ACTION aff recommends that the City Council review the UPAA draft and . The St ck a finanal1 ve the agreement. The Council should direct the staff to bring ba >cppy ;for Council ratification., MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council iMay 1, 1986 FROM: :^ailliam A. Monahan, Director, blull ce`,,t' Community Development SUBJECT: Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County Over the past several months, we have held several discussions with Washington e a new Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) County Planning staff to negotiat , ', purpose of the agshington County ema reement is to establish and define the relationship The Thin terms of comprehensive pinning between Tigard-and Wa coordination within the unincorporated areas of interest to Tigard.' Our discussions have resulted in a number of last minute language,` revisions which are incorporated into the complete draft agreement. ' Additions and deletions from the prior agreement can be identified in the County draft by looking for the following: ( word ) means deleted from prior draft. word means added to this draft. Page 10 - New B - The major revision is contained on page 10 as follows: ,. During the months between the signing of this agreement and August 30, 1986 Urban:Services the parties will mutually study the following topics: Rrovi-sion by the County and City, the possibility of Tigard assuming active p3-an responsibility for a portion of Metzger Progress Planning Area as shown on an area of interest in Exhibit A, and the possible removal of portions of Section IT_ B 4 d, which now requires the City to maintain plan designation for one year after the effective date of annexation. Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the parties, as data is available, as early as September 1, 1986. It allows us to reopen the agreement as new information is made available this summer. Another major change relates to the plebiscitelanguage in our original agreement. , Page 6 III B 4 c. - The language here will remain as it is, however, we will draft a letter to the County which explains our intent to honor the plebiscite through Jure of 1987. In addition, we will state our recognition that the second line of this section which spells out the rights of individual property owners to annex at any time is the operative language and has been during the prior agreements. The letter which wV will submit will supplement the record to illustrate the legislative intent which clarifies the meaning of the clause of this agreement. 3/iib WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT da of 19 d THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this _ Y , by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political. subdiviand he the State of Orean goni hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY, referred CITY OF Tt®Aa�4the "CIpY�orated municipality of the State of Oregon, .010 provides 49NEREAS, ORS 190that units of local governments may enter into ies that a agreements for the performance ofasyorr'agentall s,nhave nauthors and ityrytotperform; and party to the agreements its o WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and special al district plans and actions ons shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under QRS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requireseach jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit ti agree setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the � 'Boundary will be implemented; and Regional Urban Growth Y and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre.- WHEREAS, the COUNT hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: .- A sits=specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth y. Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; 3, policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and �- 4. A process ( a* ) to amend the Urban Planning Agreements NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Location of the Urban Planning Area ually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY The Urban Planning Area mut r includes the area designated on Exhibit `°A" to this agreement. I I. Coordination of C___amPre��ens i ve P1 ann� 2galjd Devel opmen A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation Page 2 _. 3 . Definitions ._ ement of Comprehensive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-03.0(5) means a , generalized, coor�cofinatadioca� governuse mentdthatpolicy interrelates all the governing body to the functional and natural s'�butmnotn imitedito�ssewrerand seater use of lands, including,,s educational facilities, recrela- systems, transportation systems, tional facilities, and natural resources and air and water r quality management` programs. ''Cor"r rehens3ve Plan" amendments do not include 'small tract com rehensive tan map changye_s. imolemye enting_R.e�,ulation means any local government zoning andi- nance$ land division ordinance adopted under ORSg2.Q44 or 92.046 or similar general ordile- nance establ,i shi ng standards for �irnPes not menti;+g a comprehensive plan Inn 1 emend n re >ll ati on o include small tract zonin ma amendments, conditional use pet'- snits,;indivdual 'subdvision artition?nn or planned unit devei® oorrent approval ar en r a s, annexations,var°i antes building e� rmits and similar admi ni strati ve-t e deci s i ons. t } The COUNTY shall 2• E' ri ate opportunity to Partici pate, provide the CITY with the approp review and com�r°eert on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNZY comprehensive plan or implementingianeu�p �rtunity toCp r- ' shall` provide the COUNTY with the appropriate amendments to or adop ticipate, review and comment on pop 1ndmening regulations tion of the CITY comprehensive plan or imp The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in thtpil ati on: o amend or adopt a cornprehensi ve plan or implementing eg a, The CITY or theCOUNTY, agency.shalliction �notifyver e proposal, hereinafter of the the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, ts are ini- proposed action at the time such planning rioeff�rtc the final tiated,_but in no case less than 45 days p hearing on adoption. The specific method and 'level' of Under- involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Under standing°' negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The the of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which ch the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed action, rhe responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to negotiate and sign a °`14emorandum of Understanding.'" b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recorr�ner+dati c►ns actions to the responding agency for its on any proposed review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a °'Memorandum of Understanding," the responding Page 3 r agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to { .... _ submit comi ents orally or in writing. Lack of response shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final 'recom- mendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record:on the proposed action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary; to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action 'through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi - nating `agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if ~ .. not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen- tation is available to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners E' 1. Definition Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local government which requires notifying by mail the owners of pro- perty which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small r tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or a planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions �. requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review' and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated s Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be 'followed by 'the COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of (4*peew44�g) Rr2 o� sed development actions a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by :'4 Page 4 first class 'mail a copy of the public hearing notice which' identifiestheproposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no 'less than ten (10) days prior to:the date of the scheduled public_hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive ;a notice shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the respondingasency. b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre- tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the' pubiic hearing. ►lack of written or oval response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . C. If received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall include or attachthe comments to the written staff report and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the ori,ginati"ng agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action ."_. through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY ,and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed'actions which may affect the community, but are not ciihiar_t_ to the notification and participation require- ---w- ments contained in subsections A and R above. a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen- das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest oppor® tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda Shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the publichearingagenda may respond at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written' form or an oral 'response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response` shall be considered ."no Obje�cti�n��to the ror�©sa . i ' i Page 5 i C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as-a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration the originating agency acts contrary tote position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek ( int) appeal of F the action through the appropriate appeals body and price- duces. E ill. Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area f i 1. Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unin r corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the ; CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. .The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on E.<hibit :"A". ` I 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within }} k the Active Planning Area. (zhe ,t�Y-56�a (. t } i-8+1--4lf—Wil 3. The CITY is res onsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the pub i e faci 7 ity_pl an require by AR 6 -li w7t i n the Active Planning 4, she COUNTY shall ;-at annrove land divisions within the Active rr Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, E F unless public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning . Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. G. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shalt be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY'S Active Planning Area. s III!TIRE Page 6 ,..` B. Area of Interest . Definition Area of Interest or Primary 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. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is .designated as Area; B on Exhibit "A". ?. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. �vr- �. rri iaRr s i i h 9f-I4i4e Pe ` ) 3. The COUNTY is res_pansbl� for the pre ap ration, adoption and amend- ment of the pub faci 1 ity p.an required b AR 660-1.1wit in tie Area of Interest. 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: _y> a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for level opment. 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 reprc- sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary, to the fore- going, the ore- going,''the CITY reserves all of its_ rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of interest to the CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY 'plan,designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and 'standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agreestomaintain this 'designation for one year after the effective tate of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an ammendment-mai be initiated. sh --be- enc } before the one year period.is over. , a t Page 7 Pea s - +4. �.-8 F i^c�s+�-•ry�'�.`'8i-v "QSn'rsrr6�Fry-� �' 5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an agreement on_a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing future annexatioF areas of interest. This boundary coincides exit the northern Urban Planning Rrea boundary shown on Exhibit "A". 4dashin ton Count recognizes that the future annexation area of interest oun ary ane maw c ;an9e in L1,6 future upon mutual cities agreement of both . ' E a> C. General Policies w V P 2 1 ef- �.:. g. y- =}ern=-SSL �Ue��t-e�-.y-r}}'j...e..ya_..b t+. +L:_ _.t✓ •---'. %'r�_.1'+_,t-7tt� 3^r; 1�.( ) Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY D. Special Policies 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning Organizations (CPO) "through the notice proce- dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement. 2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to � ntroduction, the CITY within five (5) dales after its i Pane 8 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate ;limitsof the CITY shall hQ mailed to the CITY Within five (5) days after its introduction. 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to *he`following stipulations >regarding the connection of f Plurra :Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to ,the intersection of Std -121st Avenue and<Gaarde 'Street: a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and ;dashington County a ree to ,amend their respec*ive comprzhensive Plans to reflect x theo WifUnCti Onal ' Gl a55]fi Gati Ofi and:deal gn . c0nsiderati0ns: f 1. Designation: Collector ) 2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major ) intersections) 3. Bike Manes Yes 4. Ri ht-of-Wa 60 feet ( i us' si ooe easements where necessary 5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum 6. Access: Limited 7. Design SPeed: 35 M.P.N. 8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet 9�Parkinc Facilities: None Drovided on street 10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec- tion may be Planned to eventually accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Uld Schoils Ferry and turraylNew Scholls Ferry intersections. 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray Boulevard connection will be deli ned with Murray Bou eya�dsa t rough street wit 135th-Avenue ) terminatin at the Murray connection with a 'T intersection. 12. The general ali nment of the Murry Boulevard connection L is illustrated in Exhibit B. b. Any changes to land use desi nations in the Murray Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that tra iG iriiP3CtS are a e?luatey an—a yze E Page 9 C. The City of Ti ard, City of Beaverton and Washin ton"County shall, support improvements _xo the regional transportation system as outlined in the ado ted Re ional Trans ortation Lan RTP .; d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between S14 121st Avenue and Pacific Highway 99w s ou d occur coincident wit t e connection of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street e. The City of Tigard and Washington C()unty with involvement by affected Property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of Murray Souievard between the I th venue wa nut Street :an 21st venue/Gaarde;Street 'intersec- >tions in 1966. 5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informail` establish administrative rocedures and deli nate�propriate personnel to receive and review notices required by>Sections II A, B and C of this Agreement,-- IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend ,the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area ' a_. Boundary: 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2 The formal request shall contain the following; a. A statement describing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a man which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date, the request is received. 4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may: approve the request, deny the request, or make' a determination that the proposed amendment warrants additional review. If it is determined that additional review is 6 Page 10 - necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved ' in the review- process as outlined in Section I11 (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a study shall commerce within (-34) 90 days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of the 'joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. _ < B. Prior to August 30, 19,,6 the 'parties will mutually study the following topics: Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility of Tigard assuming ael'ive plan responsibility for a portion of the Metzger'-Progress Planning Areqa as shown as an area of interest on Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III B".4.d. ` which now requires the City to maintain County plan' designations for one year after the effective date of annexation. Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the parties as data is available as soon as possible after September 1, 1986. C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutuallyneeded, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall F make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may _ terminate this Agreement. R-Trr�—,-rte.. -rr^vc 9 Fe �}_¢yysrtlR 9 :-rte`i-�Cvt-n n.�tamrr'"r'�r nr"i'�R'f--eemr Z - 4 6 Page 11 i 2; Ade 4 F9v`�.r=�v-e--rrc vr'c�T-'-®'rcv-i—RS `tam c'v'r�rr�t=u�'n ruC �. M �{ .,nicm�.c'icm F-�-�—v—�:ry �i c vva r 8 n SI\YT" i "T rtc'�viT�i"Ct1'P""�TT { 49.t.c4-�r t {(..-.rte_ e "r ' 1 R 9 � i �. 1QQ x•51 } a.�!•^1� �9n��..�Af •I'blG A---- --4-, 1 r�r�--bes-fr-�'�r*row.r�-� s 'gam--r`✓'--` tt ��_�r^%-i0e n nl yin 41S vs. f i}yt^hrt rte= �erl ' k V This Urban Planning Are�reement repeals and reel aces the Urban PlanningF Area Agreement dated SEptember 26, 1933, Was hin ton County Resolution and rd-&r Na. . , and City o o Tigard Resolution 84-1915. [ F This Agreementcommenceson 19 IN WITNESS 14HEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CIT`! OF TIGARD � f By Date 7ayor WASHINGTON COUNTY x DSy Date airman, Board of County Commissioners G Date ecording'Secretary ; ° } "I EI n.;is ' 1'�I'iSE�I�F1��=.\.L�I _�� r-1i- .--•� .-a� - ��a:-'i.41�. 9 r•i`� y� �,�t;r J/t_-- X.. Li!a = (t(`�'�- j i� I i _, - 11EE. �� a ^�� 1 ) x .—��d� -,�+�� "•S p;� P'u.-. � c��.(' ':L- \� � U _- I •`.w/41.�I'• �a�7 e# D��'lk 3 �,ly$1�� 1 �`�3 1``1.-77 \ � 1... �' ,' {TpPEJ1 Ill" //.j� 7Wr+-w�`- e`.�.I �fj11J• iki i('�v `tel'V'Y "\'\_iC` �''� '✓al,.,i.�{�i '� �., °" L�L'l�F i Wo•u �- d- 1ft at• ayye L- �ti— ? —', z } /{IF —7? EEMEGOOMMO= :. . z ocz ' d` w x cci �� rr tr w tu IM IAJa— & m OD LU'� ..,` t e a .�,..as... .,•::.-xe:- n. a,sw:cx ,+T.c-: ..:,. 4gd.s+« .rx:. .,,+.<,s.a.,.. ., <,.xa..�tie�r..w.. i 3 1 h v Yr4 x t 4y F ,� :ash, - 3�� t` ..� sw 3" ;'�ic� •I""&' r s:' kt �a� 4 -;i r � �r ��,•�<- ��``-;a•--`� a N e�'s- nw ��., � a ?s- CITY OF TIGARD,_OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 'SD CRY AGENDA OF: May 21, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATA SU13MITLED: May 6, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Park Board Requested This ISSUE11AGENDA TITLE: ordinance to Amendment on;April 21, 1986 Amend Title 9 of the Tigard Municipal PREPARED BY Elizabeth A. Newton Code'-Park :Reservation Fee Waivers REQUESTED BY: Park Board DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: V! � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY 'ISSUE Should the City Council modify the Tigard Municipal. Code 'to allow waiver of park fees for Tigard based non-profit organizations? INFORMATION SUMMARY +' At the April 21, 1986 City Council meeting, the Park Board requested that the City Council initiate an amendment to allow a waiver of park facility fees for Tigard' based non-profit-organizations. Attached is an ordinance which amends Section 9.04.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code setting conditions for the waiver of park fees. f SEEiSC-------------tl--LYS--S ------------ -------- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached ordinance. 2. Modify the attached ordinance and adopt with modifications. k - \,. ffii5ffiffiRSa IIf 39aFIISII3Ls'Sffi�LtRmLtffiffiE44i01lS Ei SEffiStamf MlffiRLSEt�®022IWIQm�LfE16]B'�S#1 bi-g-------FS--- ........... SUGGESTED .ACTION Adopt the attached ordinance. �• MlIUl17ES - FtfF:1-1N(, 1/16/06 PARK BOARD i 1. Present: Blaurock, Odell, Bjgtjs, Golden, Graham, Mika Schwartz, Steve_Schrei.nar- 2. Minutes from previous Meeting approved unanimously. 3. Election of Officers: Chairman: Dan Graham Vice Chairman: Stave ;labaugh Secretary: Sandra Helfrich All unanimously approved. - n. Dan Graham was given chair for mcQting and discussed future direction of Park Board in relation to its focus One idea presented by Dan 'Graham was for each Park Board Member Lo be responsible for an area of the city in regardsto the parks and greenways. Suggestion from Dan was to be responsible on how park's can rbetter serve the community, ; suggestions or maintenance, improvements. phis plan would encompass visiting assigned parks acrd/or greenways and observing, and talking to users when possible. Dan asked Board for- someones to spear-head the recreation plan --- Sandra Helfrich was suggested for responsibility, she was riot present at meeting '--- Dan will contact Sandra U) determine interest. Dan Graham asked Board' for each : member- to take responsibility for overlooking parks in their- interest area. 1 Cook Park: Bob Odell 2, Fanno Creek Park: Mike Schwartz 3. Englewood Park: Jim Blaurock 4. Woodard Park: Sandra Helfrich 5. Mary Payne (Windmill) Park: Betty Golden 6. Dec Plan -- Temporarily - Blaurock, Schreiner S Schwartz 7. Jack Park Steve Schreiner 8. Summerlake Park -- Slabaugh g. Cook Park Bridge: Bob Odell � 10, Greenways: Dan Graham 11. Drugs in Park & Latchkey: Steve. Schreiner . Dan suggested that peopls- assigned to the parks and greenways make a "Dream a' List" to share with other BOar•d members at a future meeting. Betty Golden suggested that Board members be furnished with an updated list of Board members with address and r c Joh,r:r numbers. * c{, Dan Graham ,put for th a mocivn '.o h,:.r1Je .:Jerry Mr.Nurl in present at noxt 6 months meetings to fhear sugryc,:>tir,r,•- brkluii L Furth by "cabers assigned to various Park-., and grounways �aruj runt:„n ,, or,+,•,, }j M:kc F'iw. rl,, P- y assQd unanimously Bob Odell introduced a mr-aion Lo 'ri;xvF spring -Arid summer board meetings in thv various parks, stir-Ling i•: May. Jin, t3laurork adc?ed to motion to also inre _lud �- a tour of the Parks as nno- of ths.� hoard me(� Lings Motion seconded by P%At Hiyj a tour v: l.he s. First m raLin3 „ , r1,�y nth .•.1 1 :_ inn, 1;r r31 P;:rtk, t.ho June moi2t:i:ng to be J; r, Eat= NEW Mo,4bn put forth by Dan Graham to have a letter sent to Tigard J.C. 's to thank }' f them for repairing coveredarea in Conk Park. Motion secondsed by Poke Schwartz. Motion passed unanimously. . 4 Motion set forth by Blaurock and Schreiner to invite members of various , Boards, service groups, City Council, etc. , to go «along' an the tour of the parks, Girl Scouts: Asked for refund of park user fee for Annual Centenarian Day Ceremony, May kith, 2 o'clock at Cook Park, Motion introduced by Blaurock to refund' fee for this event. Motion seconded by Pat Biggs, Passed j unanimously. Pat Biggs to represent issue to Council April 21, 1386. i' f. Motion introduced by Bob Odell to give blanket permission for- Special Service Groups; such as Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. , to have permission to use. Parks without fee. Liz Newton to look into this motion. Seconded by Golden, Passed unanimously. . Ei Liz' Newton presented plan by Waverly Construction Co. for "Dover's banding" project. Liz asked if we wanted to request an access ,Pathway to the paved hiking trail connecting the development with the hiking trail. The concern } was the developers want to put in a 30 degree slope ira � r p p 9 p path. Motion .was introduced to lieiait 15 degree slope to pathway, preferably 10 degree slope. . Motion'seconded by Blaurock, passed unanimously. Jerry McNurlin presented a request for recognition of the Pathfinder Group for Clean--up and maintenance. Motion set :forth for recognition of Pathfinder Group, seconded by Betty Golden, passed unanimously. p Park Board asked by Planning Dept. to give comments on conditional use of floodplain for mini warehouse. Jim Blaurock recommended denial of permit — �- all floodplain should be limited to greenway — no fill or• buildings. Motion i seconded by Schreiner, massed unanimously. Meeting adjourned 9:15 by Chairman Graham. r` f �' (DAS:cn/17.7) MEMORANDUM May 21 1986 ' Members ity Council TO: of the C ' F William ,A. Monahan, Director, GGS' FROM: Community Development SUBJECT: sign Code ign of April 28, 1986, the Council granted generated At the City Council meeting The sign, oriented toward code exception to Landmark Ford. n code as it amount of discussion concerning the adequacy of our sig ou that the council wishes to a large an It is my understanding t relates to freeway signs. initiate a staff review of the sign code in this area. f will initiate a review'of the Unless the Council directs otherwise, my staff sign code when time per The staff has earlier identified sections of the code requiring further scrutiny, therefore, the analysis will be part of I F a larger review. �n CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON � COU tiCIL AGENQ ITE11 SqMARY AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM ##: DATE SUEIlll7El1: 4-Z_4-c � PREVIOUS ACTION None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE, Cotswald iso. 2 Subdivision Performance Bond] accept PREPARED BY: Develop. Services 0 t. and authorize Mayor Recorder to REQUESTED BY: John Hac:gman 1 ,execute in City s behalf. S}GPARTMENT HEAD OK: ^ CITY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. "Cotswald No. 2" subdivision is located west of 135th, Avenue near S.W. Brittany Drive. The preliminary plat has been approved by the City but has not been recor-ded since the developer originally intended to complete all work prior to doing so. 2, The attached Per€ormance Bond has ncsw been submitted by the developer, as is required by the City to assure completion of installation of all public facilities within the proposed subdivision, to facilitate recording of the _ plat (prior to such installation completion). 3. Construction plans have already been issued and all required ` public } improvement fees have been paid. 4.' Work is progressing satisfactorily and, subsequently, to enable recording of the plat, ' staff recommends` that the Council accept the Bond -and . authorize the Recorder and Mayortoacknowledge same. _• ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED -SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize tate Mayorand City Recorder to acknowledge acceptance of the Performance Bond €or Cotswald No. 2 in behalf of the City. � r. a AGREEMENT WITH DEPOSITOR AND TRUSTEE ON SAVINGS) ACCOUNTS OR DEPOSITS This agreement is for the purpose of fnIfilling the requirements of Compliance Agreement dated 4-91-8 z between the City of Tigard the and and is entered into by Depositor ge11 Kruege_r �and Somers, Grove & Co., Inc Trustee. The undersigned depositor and trustee do hereby assign the right to the City;of Tigard to determine at its discretion the payment of all funds or securities held by Somers, Grove& Co., Inc. as trustee ;in the amount Of , in Account No.03-50211-1-2 or Deposit 130. or Time Deposit No. in the in accordance with and for the purpose of Bonding improvements scribed in the above stated Compliance Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the will hold such funds or securities in the amount of until an authorization or direction for payment is'received from the City of Tigard and that the City of Tigard has the right to withdraw Prinicipal'Funds with City' of Tigard signature only, in the event of Non-Performance. A.11 fund deposits shall be renewable at maturity and at rates and terms in effect at the time of renewal, and all interest shall be paid to or accrued as directed by the Depositornotwithstanding anything contained' herein- to the contrary. That the. account is to remain open until such time as all Public Improvements are completed and accepted by the City of Tigard. Signed and dated atTiQaxd , Oregon.' This [ day ofAnr i' : Z4 A6 Signature of Deposito i Address po=S1 Oregon 97201 Signature of City of Tigard Address ACCEPTANCE The undersigned hereby accepts the funds or securities deposited in the amount of $20.228.00 this 21st vday of Aoril , 19�6 , and hereby acknowledges recoipt of the the Account No.02-,� �-1-2 ; or;the Certificate for Deposit No. ; or certifies that there is no Passbook issued for this account. It is further agreed that said account will be hold for the uses and purposes above stated until authorization for disposition is granted by the City of Tigard. Authorized Signature (1444P) F A � "3s3::�..:. 1�. -� .Y^ ;* ��"""'g."�-'�• �"'& tea;.sd-n 1.-: .:- r_.� �*�a�° y as:" s t-c _s.3, ,°n;,� y a�c,��z•• r �'2'-v,�,'a' � e-,�, ..:Y �'`�Ka �� "'"a ` '"�':�v��-�re,.Y �'y�`+t. �i��t��.r�^�.Ys��;��n� js � .��" 7�„x�:�::r'�m'E��`�`ss�• .r;�l�,��!��r�,;,,r`� alp � x Y �� 1lt6`l i ham. s.,.-.: .. u' . i-i y#"", r..,�5 � ,y..}rte �s Kie'�-.'�; T. '.:Cc;.4'� K' F `. '�v�' •L �� `t, � �.-^.r*nxF .�. r,.,m$ A,r ..':{u k'tgr."`•., .4.,K,:, �-`"x,a�.',�. r. l� �.��_�s'C F� �.> .„;rpt• x < -t, �r �5��, � A?��.Y�`'^= s5 "` �� r'`�• �-�`'r.� `��N "fix ..� TIGARD POLICE DEPA.RIME P FEBRUARY Monthly Report '. 1986 1. Calls for Service: This Msonth 1,253 Year to Date. 2,398 A. Obligated Time 2.140.8 B. Non-Obligates Tim 336.7 11. PART I CRIMES NO. Cly Arrests A. Hanicide _ H. Ram 2 C. Robbery 2 D. Aggravated Assault 1 E. Burglary 17 4 5 Residence 4 12) Non-Residence { 5) Iareeny 99 23 24 G. Auto Theft 12 6 _ 2 H. Arson 1 TAY 134 33 31 PART I CMARAME RATE: 24.6%; III. , PART II CRIN`"S No. Cleared Arrests .: A. Simple Assault 14 9 9 S. Forgery 1. C. Fraud _ 2 1 l D. Ehbezzlewen len F. Varadali 19 2 s G. Weapons H. Prostitution I. Other Crimes 6 l 3. Drug Abuse 3 3 _ 3 X. Gambling L. Criims Against Family M. D.U.I.I. 7 7 7 N. Liquor Laws 2 2 1_ O. Disorderly Conduct 5 3 l - P. Yddnap - - Q, All Other 16 13 2 - R. Curfew__ 4 4 - 3 S. - R=4Va - 3 4L - - - _ 4 _ - - - 82 44 -3-3 - -PART TI CT2AF2: -jWE: 59.8-% IV. TOTAL PERS CHARGM-. 64 A. Fault ale 35 C. Juveli i.le Male 19 . B. Adult Female- - 5 - �, . 3uvenile;Fe .le- 5—- - Februar�,__1�986.— V .WARR1WIS .SERA: 8 VI. 'TOTAL PROPEITY TSS: $ 42.396 TMA PR€3PER`YY RECCr : 5 6,165 VII. TRAFFIC: A. Accidents Investigated "29 Injury Accidents 10 Fatal 1 B. citations: VBR (Speeding) 128 Yield Right of Uby l0 Follmdmg ibo Close 3 Red dight 40 Stop Sign 14 3 IMroper Tum 8 P.eckless Driving l Careless Driving 9 riving tinder -Tnf juence 5 Driving TAhile Susp-nded 17 other Hazardous 28 n-Hazatdcus 190 °T+otal. Hazard_s 263 C. Enforceflpnt Index: 23.90 D. Traffic Enforcarmnt Totals Citations: This Manth This Yea' 453 Year to Date 791 This Month Inst near 473 Last, `Lear to ate 923 4 Warnings This VbInth This Year 407 year to Date 884 'This Month last Year 369 _ Last-Year,to fate 778 r ` ^ r �._ CITY OF TICARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY t�ia 12; 1986 AGENDA ITEM `/ n AGE4� A OF: �� .. ., e DATE SUI)MITTED: 24ay 5, 1985 --- PREVYOUS`ACTION: Council Discussion on ISSUE AGENDA TITLE: Final order April 21, 1986 Non Conforming Use Determination - PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan Lee Cunningham REQUESTED BY: aEI's &Tt3E2dT HEAD OIC, CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY •:' The Council discussed the status of'property at 12528 S.W. ,Scholls Ferry Rd. with the owner, Lee Cunningham, on April 21, 1986. The City Council. determined that the property had obtained non-conforming use status and the existing retail:use can continue' as long as Section 18.132.040 of the Community Development Code-is complied with. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution. 2. Revise the attached resolution, �= a®m�am�.aeo�fsexx�utae�xesaanaae��assarremwamesmma®assmmec¢:v®mm��uxmnam�ee xsmmmv--s-mm............... SUGGESTED ACTION J TheStaff recommends that the City.Council approve the attached resolution. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA°4P: Mai 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #;; a DATE SUBMITTED. , May 5, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Discussion on ISsUVAGEkWA TITLE: Adopt Findings April 21, 1986 Tektronics Parking Resolution PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan REQUESTED BY: 3?BPAFTHE T Off: / � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _._,.. i aancsar�acaecaa��m��m�m�ssuasaaaamsamcsa�ae�aacffi�m�m��-=rs�as�sa mmsrs��axc�zcaaa�aa�aouercaea ia�gyaxw�saea�� POLICY ISSUE ---------------------- I O%.IATION SUMMARY on April 21, 1986, the City Council discussed with Tektronics the status of a gravel parking area constructed for Tektronics use in 1982. The Council determined that a 7,000 square foot area had obtained non-conforming status under `Chapter '18.132. All gravel on the site beyond the 7,000 square foot area, to be determined by theapplicantand City Engineer, must be removed. ---------- -------- ------------a -----------ami, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the resolution as written. ; 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution. ........... ------------- .................. SUGGESTED ACTION The staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution as written. a CT1�l �F TIGARD OREGM COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SWMARY 4 . AGENDA OF: May 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM ": a w DATE SUBMITTED Mal 2.2_1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: NA ISSU1/ E140A -- - ,TiRard �— g SaEet,3r Town — June 20 1986 PREPARED BY: through Juiy 18, 1985 Doris Hartig REgUESTED BY _ . DorisHarti�'"4 POLICY ISSUE The City has allowed special non—profit groups to be named on their liability policy for specific community events. INFORMATION SWWRY A request has been received from Patt Sharp, Coordinator of Tigard Safety Town event, for liability insurance coverage to be added to the City's policy to cover, the Safety Ton Activit les`to be held June 20, 1986 through July 18, 1986. The activities are similar to past years in that it -pnnvides instruction for children ages 4-6 years, in all aspects of safety. Tigard Safety,Tovm will pay for the additional premium. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 Approve request 2. Deny request = p SUGGESTED ACTIOP Council Action: Motion to approve the addition of a liability rider to the City's poli-ey and Tigard Safety Town Committee to pay the premium. Y CITY OF TIOARD, OREGON' r COUs"�II,'A#xEIi'IDA ITEM SUM Y' AGENDA OF: Kiat• 12, 1386 'AGENDA ITEM m DATE SUDH TTED; May 1, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION.- Acceptance of Subdivision ISSUEIAGEN DA. TITLE. Acceptance Compliance Agreement of Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement PREPARED BY: Pandy Ciarno From`KrueQer Development Co. REQUESTFX BY; Engineering Svc. & Developer (Cotswald Meadows No,'2) 3DEPARIWENT, HEAD SDR; ��r CITY ,ADMINISTRATOR* savasz�rasasmmmiaes:a¢sa$aas�a��ramxmsacsm aeaaaeae�ffimtg�aaru�aeaa:!¢mamaasSesra�z��sasosx��:acraxs a zxe¢xxaJaa asrmaamrffimm POLICY ISSUE; ` ax�mssx�ecssa¢----xasc---- ------ ----------- INFOR-MATION SUMMARY Krueger Development Co. is the developer of a 21 lot subdivision (Cotswald Meadows No. 2) , located on the west side of S.W. 121st Avenue (see attached map.) To facilitate public sanitary sewer service, it is necessary that Krueger Development Co. convey a permanent sanitary sewer easement. Attached are the required executed documents for your acceptance. s" xasea�x.-sxaax �axcas=xzxssa------------rnas----oa:-------cscarsam--samesmaaw>$--------a --- ALLTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve .as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. t ;� -iLaRStOMIIYRIIRS53?PSSCSpOSSflatSlmlB iC 57t1m IWt6 Rss tevm[SiMm ------------------- -------tII#a eC..... SUGGESTED ACTION The Engineering; Division recommends 't hat Council. accept .this permanent sanitary sewer easement from Krueger Development Company and direct the City,Recorder , to have said document recorded at Washington County. �s F K } � 15 W �Yy 4 Gxn�,aiE r � �e a� �t ,.� ` `r.�-��,� M�"'+� CITE OF TIGARD, OREGON d i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY t�GER6 ?s ��: May 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: BATE SU$MITTED: May 5, 1956 PREVIOUS ACTION. None ISSUEAGENDA TITLE: Permanent Sanitary Sewer .Easement Conveyance to Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) For Lower SchollsPREPARED BY: Randy Clarno Trunk Sewer REQUESTED BY: USA and Engineering DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE -------- INFORMATION SUMMARY ,= In March of 1985,;the City conveyed a Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement to Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) to accomTodate the construction of the "I.,ower Scholls° trunk sewer. This easement is located just south of S.W. Dawn's Ct. which is off S.W. 113th Place (See attached map) . Construction of the trunk sewer is now complete and minor modifications of its routing were required. Charges in the prior easement areas are now needed as a result of the routing changes. USA has submitted new easement forms with the corrected legal descriptions (attached) The City Attorney has also reviewed these documents (attached) and is recommending approval. -amsxcas�cc>m�sesmxe.=see=saa��s=axssmamsam��aaaa�m�arasarasa�xea smmsa.rsx®.�msmmmaeiemr�-riav es msaasn ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached routing changes requested by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) . 2. Do nothing. i - js .a��.��. ��.ffiffim.��mza�.�m��m.,��..�.��.� . .a-..m--a H�......Q.ffiaR:$......®-®wawa... SUGGESTED ACTION Engineering recommends that City Council convey these permanent sanitary sewer easements to Unified Sewerage" Agency. DATE March 25, 1986. O`bONNELL, RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW I ATTORNEYS AT LAW I TO City of Tigard - Administration file 1727 N,NV. HOYT STREET �-- PORTLAND. OREGON 97203 FRONT Ken Fox ` t 5031 222-4402 r RE Standard. Corporate Sewer Easement -Forms This memorandum memorializes my telephone conversation Of March 10, 19858 with Randy Clarno of the City of Tigard. In our conversation, I advised Mr. Clarno that I had reviewed and compared the City Of Tigard°s _"Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement" with the proposed "Cor- porate Sewer Easement" that was submitted to the City by the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. 114y review of the two easement forms revealed them to be substantially the same. However, the easement 'forms do differ in the following respects: 1. The USA Corporate Sewer Easement expressly provides that . r it shall run with the land. In contrast, the City of Tigard Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement provides ;that it is °perpetual" and states: "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above- described and bove~described`>and ,granted premises unto said Grantee, its suc- b cessors and assigns forever. " a t The Tigard Easement does not expressly state that it runs with the land. However, by its language, the easement is �1 his successors and assigns forever. binding on the grantee, 1 conclude that the practical effect is essentially ;the � . same as with the USA Easement. r 2. The USA Corporate Sexier Easement provides that no structure shall be erected upon the easement without the written K consent of the USA. In contrast, the Tigard Easement provides that it does not convey and right, title or interest to the City except those expressly stated in the Easement, nor otherwise prevents grantors from the full use and dominion thereover. However, such use shall not interfere with the uses and purposes of the easement. As a practical matter, any structure built upon an easement would "interfere with the use and purposes of the easement. " Thus, the Tigard Easement would also require a property owner to obtain City approval before a structure could be erected. 3. The USA Easement allows each individual easement form to contain additional special conditions. No such provision is made in the Tigard Easement. The particular USA easement submitted to us for review has attached a set of special conditions. See Exhibit "B". Whi°le -I conclude that these special conditions raise no concerns from a legal standpoint, they may raise engineering questions. Accordingly, I recommend that the Tigard City Engineer review and approve these special conditions prior Page 1 E �y DATE March 25, 3986 O'DONNELL, RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW To City of Tigard - Administration file ATTORNEYS AT LAW 972.7 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 FROM Ken Fox (503) 222-4+402 ' I RE Standard' Sewer Easement Forms Corporate to granting approval to the USA Easement as it is now written. Based on any review as discussed thevsame as thedCityaoftTigard'sorporate Sewer' Easement is subs tang Y there Permanent Sanitary 'ewer Easement. I fore recommend that the city may approve and sign the USA 'EasemennedrQn1E:chibivided t eg �y Engineer approves of the special conditions cc: Randy Clarno, City of Tigard 4 k _ KE F.:mch 3/25/86 Page 2 r CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF': April 28. 1986 AGENDA ITEM hr: �• DATE SUBMITTED: April 23, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION Aril 3 1985 review ' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revenue Budget Committee r� Manual and Fees and Charges PREPARED BY: Joy Martin ?resolution REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE —- — In 1984 sCity Council adopted the policy of setting rates for fees and charges �.. at 80'% of the average cost. Council reviews all rates annually for the purpose of budgeting and for adopting the majority of changes. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a resolution proposing the changes for the planning related fees. This is followed by a list of the proposed changes showing ;cur-rent and proposed rates. A summary of all fees and charges showing average :costs preceeds ' the Revenue Manual. All of these documents are based upon the cost< estifilates for a' "normal" process as calculated on the worksheets which are in i the 'back of the Revenue Manual , s The attached resolution includes most of the changes. The Business Tax and 31 Streets SDC both require ordinances and are scheduled on the next agenda, The 1� sewer user service gee was discussed by the Budget Committee and will be n_ presented;by the Finance Officer according to their direction, g ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREE -- - 1. Council adopt the attached resolution revising planning related fees to be at 80% of current average costs. 2. Council revise their policy of charging 80% of current average costs, to <, 10076 of current average costs. SUGGESTED ACTION A motion to adopt the iAtt.ached resolution, ,revising plunniny' r-elated fees, to be effective June 1, 1986." t SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES Adopted Proposed Business Tax (TMC 5.04.040) No. of employees per firm: Small: 0--10 $40/year; $50/year medium: -11-50 $75/year $100/year Urge: 51--over $150/year $200/year Sign Permit (TMC 16.12.030) Sign Area: O- 25 sq ft $10 26-100 sq ft $25 each added 100 sq ft or portion thereof $25+ Maximum Permit $100 Re-inspection $10 Temporary Sign $10 Planning Comm. Review Fee $25 $15 First Sign _ $ 7.50 Cost per sign more than one - Sian Code Exception (Res. 004-71) $220 Fee $200 Joint Application Planning Fee Policy (new) 100 ` `K highest planning fee Plus % of all additional planning +10% fees on proposal —` Comprehensive Plan Processing (Res #84-13A) $a50 Text only $450 A Map only $650 $650 Both Text and Map $1000 $650 Zone Change Processing (Res 084-19A) Two acres or less $350 Two - Ten acres $750 Each acre over 2, add $50/acre-$1000 Less than ten acres --- $500 Ten or more acres $1250+$75/acre $600 Zone Change Annexation (Res #84-71) Fee $675 - Less than ten acres $500 $600 Ten or more acres Zone Ordinance Amendment (Res #84-71) 300 Fee- $320 $ Planned Development Processing (Res. #84-19A600 Conceptual Plan Review - Detailed Plan Review $400 $700 Conceptual and Detailed Plan Review Adopted Proposed Conditional Use Processing (Res 184-71) Conditional Use Review $300 $350 Variance - Subdivision (CDC 18.134) Fee $300 NOTE: Included in Subdivision Preliminary Plat Process Sensitive Lands Administrative Fee $150 $300 Minor Land Partition - Residential (Res #84-I9A) Fee $150 see below minorLand Partition Non--Residential ;(Res #84-19A) Fee $300 see below Major Land Partition (Res ##84-19A) Preliminary Plat $250+$5/Lot see below FinalPlat $100+$1/Lot see below Land Partition - Residential (nese title) -- $225 Fey Land Partition Non-Residential (news title) Fee $225 Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Res 084-19A) Preliminary Plat $ 250+$5/Lot --- Fee $400+$5/Lot Subdivision Variance if needed $300 $100 Subdivision Partition - Final Plat (Fres #84-19A) Final Plat $100+$1/Lot - NOTE. Included in Subdivision Public Improvement Permit Appeal of Director's Decision to Planning Commission (Res #t84--19A) Fee $240 $225 Street/Land Dedication (Res #84-19A) s Fed (does not include filing fee) $100 repeal Flexible Setback Standards - Developed Lots (Res ;#84-71) Fee $200 $100 Tree Removal Permit (Res #84-71) Fee $4U �- Accessory Uses/Accessory Structures (Res #04-71) Fee $112 $75 Zero Lot Line Setback Standards (Res #84-71) Fee $220 $-0- Lot Line Adjustment (Res #84-71) t Fee WO $200 4 s'Y' 71 Adopted Proposed Systems Development Charge — Streets (TMC 3.20.030) Single Family Residence $500 $600 Multi—Family Residence/per unit $310 $360 Mobile Home Court/space $187.50 $240 Commercial, Industrial/parking ;space $67.50 $90 Sewer users Service Charge Residential Rates/quarter $34.50 $36.75 City Sewer Maintenance $ 2.25 $ --0-- U.S.A. Share, 70% remaining $22.58 $22.58 City Share, 30% remaining $ 9.67 $ 9.67 Non—Residential rate: Based on number of plumbing fixtures (JM-bsll69p) f, 3 _ FEES AND CHARGES PROPOSAL SUMMARY �.- (April 1, 1986) ' Average Average Proposed Revenue Rate ext A 009; �.., 'FAXES Property. Tax $790,725, Business Tax $40—$150/yr $50-200/yr YNTERCOVERWENTAL SHARED REVENUES These revenges are based on formulas set by other agencies. Please refer to the Revenue Manual and the current Budget for rate schedules and ' anticipated revenues. .i LICENSES A% ;PERMITS Building Permit (BP) $10—$2683+ Adopted U.B.C. - - U.B.C. Bldg. Plan Check, :Fee r55`� of BP Adopted Fire District Surcharge 45% of BP — City receives 5% State Surcharge 4% of BP Adopted U.B.C. Other Insp. Fees $20—$40/nr. — Adopted U.B.C. ' Ply Fee $10/hr. — Adopted U.B.C, Mechanical Permit (MP) $4:50-$11,00/unit Adopted U.B,C, � Mech. Plan Check Fee 25% of MP Adopted U.8.C. - State Surcharge 4% of NSP — Adopted U.B.C. Plumbing Permit (PP $7,50430/uni.t — Adopted State State Surcharge 4% of PP — Adopted State Fill (Grading) Permit (FP) $10—$375+ — Adopted U.B.C. Plan Check Fee $0-$170+ Adopted U.B.C. Other B1dg.Inspection & Fees $15/hr. — — I� Sewer Permit -(SP) ` !, SP Connection Fee (SDC) $ $875 — SP Inspection Fee $35-$75 — — } SP - in lieu of assess $3000+ Being examined j Street 'Opening Permit $4-4% 107 ,4-4% Public Improvement Permits (PIP) Subdivision PIP 4% of const. 3-6% 4£ of const. Storm Drian & S't.Sewer PIP 4`76 of const. 3-6% 4% of const. s. PI Street Lighting Fee Varies (no change) PI Traffic Signing & Marking Fee x (no change) 1. u. . . X See Manual for Formula Actual costs using worksheet 1; Average Average Proposed Revenue Current Rate Cost -9-8-0% Liquor License $25/yr $25/yr Bicycle License $-0- - $-0- Sign Permit $104100 $19 $15+7.501 Sign Code Exception $200 $277 $220 Park Reservation $0-$70 - $0--$70 Alarm Permit $15-$25 $29 $15-25 Blasting Permit Fee $220 $115:` CHARGES FOR SERVICES Joint Appl.Planning Fee Policy - - 100%+10%@ Comprehensive flan Processing $450-$1000 $792-$841 $650 Zone Change Processing $350-$2000 $599+ $500-600 Zone Change Annexation $575 $871 $500-600 Zone Ordinance 'Amendment $320 $380, $300 Planned Dev. Processing $400-$600 $290-$980 ' $700 Conditional Use Processing $300 $442 $350 Temporary Use Processing $75-$150 $126=2.00 $75-$150 Variance-Administrative $200 $2.24 $200 Variance-Subdivision $300 $418 $-07-* Sensitive Lands-Floodplain $500 $646 $500 Sensitive Lands--Admin $150 $359_ $300 Site Dev. Review Processing $75-$500+ $481 avg. $75-$5004- Minor Land Part.-Residential $150 $334 -0- Minor Ladd Part.-ikon Res. $300 $334 $300 Major Land Partition $350+ $334 -0- Land Partition-Residential - $225 Land Partition-Eton-Residential - - $225 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $250+ $567 $400s Subdivision Part.-Final Plat $100+ $168 - ApPeal Dir. Dec. to P1an,Comm $240 $282 $225 Appeal of Plan.CommfHO to CC $300+ $245 $300+ Vacations/St.-St Public Access Actual varies actual Street/Land Dedication $100+ minimal repeal Flexible Setback Std.-Dev.Lots $200 $129 $100 Historic Overlay District $75 $307 $75 -Tree Removal Permit' $40 $18 $-0- Accessory Uses/Structures $lit $98 $75 Interpr.of COC by Comm Dev. $50 $62 $50 Zero Lot Line Setback Std. $220 _ $286 $_O_. Lot Line Adjustment $220 $207 $200 Home Occupation Permit $75 $83 $75 Home Occupation Permit Renewal $20 $18 $20 X'See Subdivision Partition Fee t. 01510 Average Average Proposed t�evmnuu Currant Rate est JL SO% SYSTEM DEVEI PHEN CHARGES '$67.50-500+ - $90-,--$600+ Streets SDC $75+--$150+ Parks SOC $75 /ERU - - $250IERU storm Drainage SOC $2501ERU $36.75/qtr Serer Users,Service Charges $34.50/qtr. Storm Drainage Users Fee $.7.5/ESU/mo. - $ 75/ESU 3.5 revenues - 3.5% Electricity 3% Natural Gas'< 3% revenues - 3 Telephone (General Telephone) 3% revenues 3% Telephone (Pacific MW Bell) 3% revenues 3% Solid Waste Disposal 3% revenues - Cable;TU 3% revenues - 3% EINESAND FORFEITURES Overdue Fines $.50-$5.00 $9.38 - Lost Materials Charge $14.93 Lost/Mutilated Library Card $.50 _ Out-of-County User Card $10.00 $6.25 1.99' - Micrcfiche,Copier $.15 $ .., Photocopier-Library $.- 0 $.56 - Miscellaneous Replace Charge $•50 Municipal Court _Indigent Defense 391CSCELLANEOUS REVENUES Sale of Comp. Plan Documents $3-$25 $3-$25 Police Report Copies $5.00+ $7.67 $5.00+ Police Photographs Copies $2.00 $9.27 $5.00 Fingerprints $5.00 - $100.00 $100.00 Plan Deposit Public Trac. 6 Info Mapping $.50-$2.00 varies $5-$150+ Planimetric Baps $5-$150+ - Sale of photocopied Doc. $.25 $1.01 Sale of TPC $75 - actual casts Transcripts actual costs $28.09avy aa Returned Check Fee $10.00 $16 Recording of Documents - $55.01+ - Recovered Expenditures LID Administrative Costs 2% - — LID Engineering Cost Actual Costs — Witness Fees $`+ — See Appendix i SM:bs201' 3 3 y„ r- 77 CITY OF TIGARD 0RErx:N CGUNCIL 'AGENDA'ITEM S"ARY. AGENDA OF• May 21, 1986 ACFNGA ITEM A'• ��; DATE Sue ml"m• May 7, '1986 PREM S'AC-'L • NA ISSUVAGENDA 1i rru: Tigard Area , Gnambei r of Commer^e, Inc. Lease PREPARED BY: Doris Hartig Agreement - 12420 94 Main St. REgUESTEt8 BY: Auris Hartig Tigand, OR DEPART EW H,5AO CPQ; GgiY ADMINISTRATOR: ' POLICY ISSUE Leasing of city property to non-profit agency ]INFORMATION SL ARY Draft copies of the Tease agreement, as prepared by the City Attorney's . office, has been submitted to the Chamber of Commerce for review and signing. The agreement would lease 1000 square feet to the Chamber of Commerce commencing May 1 1986 and end June 30, '1987 for a rental of $4200.00 annually. _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 . Approve lease 2. Disapprove lease 3. Modify proposed lease SUf"GESTED ACTIO Mlotion to: <iplprove l as. ;ind authc) J N.layor to sir!n on behalf of City. E CITY OF TIGARD,`ORECO WJNCIL AGENDA IITEM 5U�€ARY .. AGENDA OF: May 21 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: + DATE,SUBMITTED: Ma 1986PREVIOUS ACTION: NA ISSUEd' NDA TITLE: TCYS Lease s �reement .- 9020 SW 'Burnham PREPARED Sof: Doris HarUia Tigard, OR REQUESTED BY: Doris Hartig DEPARTMENT'HEAD OK: CITY A4?t9IFAISTRATOR - POLICY ISSUE Leasing of city property to non-profit agency INFORMATION GUMAPY Draft copiesof lease agreement as prepared by City Attorney's office p`. has been submitted to TCYS for review and signing. The proposed lease will commence May 1, 1986 and end June 30, 1987 fora rental of $1.00.` ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve proposed lease 2. Disapprove lease 3. Modify proposed lease SUGGESTED ACTION 1 ; ;Motion to: approve lease and authorize Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. 3 LEASE ., 'TI.GAa"2-I?_Ct?LYF°IF°IiTidITY'_YOUTH INC TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ITEM 1 (1 ) Lessee's Acceptance of Lease 1 (2) Use of Premises; 2 (3}', Utilities 2 (4) property Taxes 2 (5j Repairs and Improvements 3 (g) Lessor's Right of Entry 3 (7,) Right of ,Assignment 3 (g) Termination of Lease 4 ; { (c ) Liens l � 4 ( 20) ice, Snow, Debris 4 ( 21) overloading of Floors a 4 ' ( 12) Advertising Signs X23) Liability and Property Insurance 5 5 (14) Fi tures 5 ( 15) Light and Air ( ].6} 5 Damage by Fire or Other Casualty 5 € 1?) Waiver of Subrogation Rights 6 ( 18) Eminent Domain 6 (19} For Sale and For Rent Signs >"e rt3 �nWn, z 1 - 3 N11EX - 7'3--�s+t r) C(7P�h5t)r3 'zY YOLY1`11 SI:Ftl1ICN..�, INC. fl f (20) Delivering Up Premises on Termination 6 (?_1 ) Attachment, Bankrupt, Default 6 (22;) holding Over (23) Attorney Fees and Court Costs 8 (24) Waives 8 (25) Notices 8 (26) Heirs and Assigns 8 (27 ) Yds® of Language in Lease 8 t 2 - INDEX - `PIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC . f LEASE THIS LEASE, made and entered into this `t 1986 b y ��___day _, y and between, the Cit of Tigard, a municipal corpor,at , hereinafter called the Lessor,; and .Tigard Community Youth Services, Inc. , a private, non=profit Oregon corporati the Lessee, on, hereinafter called WITNESSETH In consideration of the covenants, agreements and Stipulations herein contained on thepart of the Lessee to be paid, kept and faithfully performed, the Lessor does hereby lease', demise an unto said Lessee 'those, certain premises, as is, situated in the ..lcy of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; known and described as follows: 9020 S.W. Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon. To Have and Hold the said described premises unto the .said Lessee for a period of time commencing with the 1st day of May, 138 , and ending at midnight on the 30th day of June, 1987, at and for a rental of $1.00 for the whole of the said term payable in lawful money of the United States at the Tigard Civic Center, i31.?_5 S.W. Hall Boulevard, City of Tigard, State of Oregon 97223, at any time prior to May 1, 1986. In consideration of the leasing of said premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, each party hereto does hereby expressly covenant and agree to andwiththe other, as follows: . r (1) L SSEE'S_ACCEPTANCEOF LEASE. The Lessee accepts said letting and agrees to pay to the order of the Lessor the rental above stated for the full term of this lease, in the manner aforesaid. (2) USE OF PREMISES. The Lessee shall use said demised premises during the term of this lease for the conduct of the following business: provision of social services to youth and families and for no other 'purpose whatsoever without the Lessor's written consent. The Lessee will not make any unlawful , improper or offensive use of said premises, he will not suffer strip or waste thereof; he will not permit any objectionable noise or odor to escape or to be admitted from said premises or do anything or permit anything to be done upon or about said premises in any way tending to create a nuisance; he will not sell or permit to be sold any alcoholic beverage-_ nr- or about _ �... __ �.. _.c..vv+n c..:_S�t 1'l3, pL"CIRISE'S.`:. The Lessee will not allow the leased premises at any time to fall into such a state of repair or disorder as to increase the. Page 1 LEASE - TIGARD CtJMMIJNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. he shall not install any power machinery on fire hazard thereon; supervision and W r writtenihighly combustt said premises except under the sup ` �_- asoline or other highly of the Lessor, he sYzall-�ePnises atanytime; he.will not use said ible materials on said p- dor such a. purpose that the fire insur- premises in such a way or rc in which said premises are located is encs rate on the building_ revent the Lessor from taking thereby increased or that 'mould agency of the state in which said advantage of any rulings of `any g which would allow leased premises are situated or its successors,for lease essor to obtain reduced premium rates for long term fire ° insurance policies. 1 at Lessee's own expense with all ' laws The Lessee shall comply county, state, federal or other and regulations of any municipal, of said premises. public authority respecting the use The Lessee shall regularly occupy and use the demised premises far the conduct of Lessee's business, and shall not abandon or � vacate the premises for more than ten ( 1O) days without written approval of Lessor. (3) GTZLZTIES. and a for all heat, light, water, power, The Lessee shall pay remises other services or utilities used in ..the above demised p the `term of this lease. during _ (4) PR®FERTY T�tES_. , a for any property taxes assessed during The Lessee shall pay Lessee qualifies for and receives an the term of this lease, erty taxes. If the Lessee of prop responsible exemption from the payment tion, the Lessee is solely obtains a property tax exemption, for retaining such status. (5) REL kjLjS AND ILA ROVEME_2dTS altera- re airs, The Lessor shall not be required to make any p or on said premises during additions or l those hereinafter specifically tions, e�;Cept only said the term of this lease, zees to maintain, and kee�'heating, provided for; the Lessee her agrees remises including all interior and exterior and vendool leatilating and cooling systems, tank, in rgood or air tic tank, good order and rep drain pipes to sewers or septic or damaged the entire term of this lease at Lessee's own cost and during be broken and to replace all lass shand doors of said premises expense, Lessee during the term hereof and quality as that now in use; with glass of as good or better no alterations, additions or �r2rther agrees- that he will make ill premises withr�ut tYxe written consent impro.%empnts to rs ttbei g obtained. l of the Lessor first being Page LEASE - TIGARD t;Ot/MUN TY YOiJ1'II S�ftV1CIS, INC. The Lessor agrees to maintain in good order and repair during the term of this lease the exterior walls, roof, _gutters, down spouts and foundations of the building ,in which the demised mremi`ses are situated and the sidewalks thereabouts. It is under- stood and agreed that the Lessor reserves and at any and all tines shall have the right to alter-, repair or improve the building of which said demised premises are a part, or to add thereto and for that purpose at any time may erect scaffolding and all other necessary structures about and upon the demised premises and Lessor and Lessor's representatives contractors and workmen for that purpose may enter in or 'about the said demised premises with such materials as Lessor may deem necessary therefor„and Lessee waives any claim to damages resulting therefrom. (5) LESSOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY. It shall be lawfulfor the Lessor, his agents and representa- tives, at any reasonable time to enter into or upon said demised premises for the purpose of examining into the condition thereof or any other lawful purpose'. (7) RIGI4T OF ASSIGNMENT. The Lessee will not assign, transfer, pledge, surrender or dispose of this lease, or any interest herein, sublet or permit any other person or persons whomsoever to occupy the demised premises without the written consent of the Lessor being first obtained in writing this lease is personal to said lessee; Lessee's interest, T in whole or in part, cannot be sold, assigned, transferred, seized or taken by operation at law, or under or by virtue of any execu- tion or legal process, attachment or proceedings instituted against the Lessee, or under or by virtue of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings had in regard to the Lessee, or in any other manner, except as above mentioned. Said lease is specific to Lessee for beneficial community and charitable purposes. _(8) TERMINATION OF LEASE. If at any time during the term of this lease the Lessee shall use the premisesforother than the intended purposes as outlined in paragraph (2) above, the Lessor may, upon ten (10) days notice to the Lessee, terminate the lease and require that the Lessee vacate the premises. Lessee shall have the right to appeal any adverse decision by the city Administrator to the city council by filing a written request with the City Recorder, describing with particularity the decision of the City Administrator from which the Lessee appeals. The decision of the council , as determined by a majority of the members voting, shall be final . t. Page- 3 - i,17ASE - 1':LGfiIt;.7: COMMUNITY YOUTH �7Ls}ZVIf:LS, INC. (9) LIENS. The Lessee will not permit any lien of any kind, type or description to be placed or imposed upon the building in which said leased premises are situated, or any part thereof, or the real estate on which it stands. (10) ICE, SNObi, DEBRIS'. If. the premises herein leased are located at street level, then at all times Lessee shall keep the sidewalks in front of the despised premises free and clear of ice, snow, rubbish, debris and obstruction; and :he will not permit rubbish, debris, ice or snow to accumulate on the .rood of said building so as to stop up or obstruct gutters or down spouts or cause damage to said roof, and will save harmless and protect the Lessor against any injury whether to Lessor or to Lessor's property or to any other person or property caused by his failure in that regard. (11) OVERLOADI;iG_OF' FLOORS. The Lessee will not overload the floors of said premises in such a way_ as to cause any undue or serious stress or strain' upon' the building in which said demised premises are located, or any part thereof, and the Lessor shall have the right, at any time, to call upon any competent engineer or architect whom the Lessor may, choose, to decide whether or not the floors of said premises, or any part thereof, are being overloaded so as to cause any undue or serious stress or strain on said building, or any part thereof, and the decision of said engineer or architect shall be final and binding upon the Lessee; and in the event that the engineer or architect so called upon shall decide that in his opinion the stress or strain is such as to endanger orinjuresaid building, or any part thereof, then and in that event the Lessee agrees immediately to relieve said stress or strain either by reinforcing the building or by lightening the load which causes such stress or strain in a manner satisfactory to the Lessor. _(12) ADVERTISING SIGNS G The lessee will not use the outside walls of said premises, or allow signs or devices of any kind to be attached thereto or sus pended therefrom, for advertising or displaying the name or busi- ness of the Lessee or for any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the Lessor; however, the Lessee may make use of the windows of said leased premises to display Lessee' s name and business when the workmanship of such signs shall be of gond quality and permanent nature provided further that the Lessee may not suspend or. ' place within said windows or paint thereon any banners, signs, sign-boards or other devices in violation of the intent and meaning ,of this section. OUTIt SERVICES, INC . page 4 -- LEASE TIGARD CoMMUNZTY Y r77 r ( 13) LI:ISZLZTy AND PRUPERTy_I—NSURANCE. The Lessee further agrees at all times during the term hereof, at his 'own expense, to maintain, ,keep in effect, furnish and deliver to the Lessor insurance policies in form and with an insurer satisfactory to the Lessor, insuring both the Lessor and the 'Lessee against all liability for damages to person or property in or about said leased premises and for property damage arising out of or related to Lessee's use of the premises and/or the Lessee's covenants herein contained; the amount of said liability I insurance shall not be less :than $100,000 for injury to one person,` 300,000' for injuries arising out of any one accident and not less than $100,000 for property damage, and the amount of said property � insurance shall be not 'less than $50,000. Lessee agrees and shall (, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless against any and all claims and demands arising from the negligence of the Lessee, rids officers, k agents, invitees and/or employees, as well as those arising from Lessee's failure to comply with any covenant of this lease on his pant to be performed, and shall at his own; expense defend the or actions arising out of said Lessor against any and all suits a negligence, actual or alleged, and all appeals therefrom and "shall gment which may be awarded against satisfy and discharge any jud Lessor in any such suit or action. i ( 14') r_2XTURES. All Dartitions, plumbing, electrical wiring, additions to or improvements upon said leased premises, whether installed by the ding as Lessor or Lessee, shall be and become a part ®orunless the lotherwise soon as installed and the property of the Less herein provided. (15) I,IGHT_4I1 _AIR. This lease does not grant any rights of access to light and air over the property. ^ FLRE OR OTHER_CASUALTY. (16) In the event of any damage to the building in` which said leased premises are located by fire or other casualty, either party hereto may terminate this lease as of the date of said fire or casualty. ( 17) F7AIV�R UE _SliBROGATIOri RIGHTS. Neither the Lessor nor the Lessee shall be liable to the other for Toss arising out of damage to or destruction of the leased premises, or the building or improvement of which the leased premi-- ses are a part or with which they are connected, or the contents of .;% s caused by; any of the perils which any thereof , when s�:ch loss i are or could be included within or insured against by a standard Pilgr-_ 5 LEASE TIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SI:ItViCi-S, TCd(; 31 kl form of fire insurance with extended coverage, including sprinkler leakage insurance, if any. All such claims for any and all loss, � however caused, hereby are waived. Such absence of liability shall exist whether or not the damage or destruction is caused by the negligence of either Lessor or Lessee or by any of their respective agents, servants or employees. It is the intention and agreement { , of the Lessor and the Lessee' that< the 'rentals reserved by this lease have been fixed in contemplation that each party shall fully provide his own insurance protection at his own expense, and that each party shall look to his respective insurance carriers for reimbursement of any such loss , and further, that the insurance � carriers involved shall riot be entitled to subrogation under any y. circumstances against any party to this lease. Neither the Lessor € nor the Lessee shall have any interest or claim in the other's ; insurance policy or policies, or the proceeds thereof, unless specifically covered therein as a joint assured. E : (1 S) EMINENT DOMAIN. In case of the condemnation or purchase of ;all or any substan- tial ubstan tial part of the said demised premises by any public or private ) . corporation with the power of condemnation this lease may, be termi- nated, effective on the date possession is ;taken, by either party hereto on written notice to the other. Lessee shall not be entitled to and hereby expressly waives any right to any part of the condemnation award or purchase price. (19) FOR SALE AND^FOR_RENT SIGNS. � During the term of this lease the Lessor herein may post on 4 said premises or in the windows thereof signs of moderate size s notifying the public that the premises are "for .sale" or "for lease (20) DELIVERING UP PREMISES ON TERMINATION. At the expiration of said term or upon any sooner termination, the Lessee will quit and deliver up said leased premises and all future erections or additions to or upon the same to the Lessor or those having Lessor's estate in the premises, peaceably, quietly, and in as good order and condition, reasonable use and wear there- of, 'damage byfire, unavoidable casualty and the elements alone excepted, as the same are now in or hereafter may be put in by the Lessor. €, 3 (2 1 ) ATTACHMFNTL BAI KKtlI'T DEFAULT. PROVIDED, ALWAYS, and these presents are upon these condi- tions, that (1) if the lessee shall be in arrears in the payment of { said react for a period of ten ( 10) days after the same becomes due, or ( 2) if the lessee shall fail or neglect to do, keep, perform or observe any of the covenants and agreements contained herein on f- Page 6 - LEASE - TIGAKD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC . !. gum I ( t Lessee's; performed and observed and such part to be done, kept, default shall continue for ten (10) clays or more after written notice of such failure :or neglect shall be given to Lessee, or (3) if the Lessee shall be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or (4) if any assignment of Lessee's property shall be made for the benefit of creditors, or (5) if on the expiration of this lease Lessee fails to surrender possession of said leased premises w- then and in either or any of said cases or events, the Lessor: or those having Lessor's estate in the premises, may terminate this lease and, lawfully, at his or 'their option immediately or at any time thereafter, without demand or notice, may 'enter into and upon { said demised pr6mises and every part thereof and repossess the same as of Lessor's former 'estate, and expel said Lessee and those: claiming by, ,through and under Lessee and remove Lessee'e effects at Lessee's expense, forcibly if necessary and stare the same, all c without being deemed guilty of .trespass and without prejudice to any remedy which otherwise might be used for arrears of rent or preceding breach of covenant. Neither the termination of this lease by forfeiture nor ,the taking or recovery of possession of the premises shall deprive Lessor of any other action, right, or remedy against Lessee for , possession, rent or damages, nor shall any omission by Lessor to enforce any forfeiture, right or remedy to which Lessor may be entitled be deemed a waiver by Lessor of the right to enforce the performance of all terms and conditions of this lease by Lessee. In the event of any re-entry by Lessor, Lessor may lease or relet the premises in whole or in part to any tenant or tenants who may be satisfactory to Lessor, for any duration, and for the :gest rent, terms and conditions as Lessor may reasonably obtain. Any property which Lessee leaves on the premises after abandonment or expiration of the lease, or for more than ten (10) days after any termination of the lease by landlord, shall be deemed to have been abandoned, and Lessor may remove and sell said property at public or private sale as Lessor sees fit, without being liable fox- any prosecution therefor or for damages by reason thereof, and the net proceeds of said sale ,shall be applied toward the expenses of landlord and rent as aforesaid, and the balance of such amounts if any, shall be held for and paid, to the Lessee. (22)'`j!QLDING_OVER. In the event the Lessee for any reason shall hold over after the expiration of this lease such .holding over shall not be deemed to operate as a renewal or extension of this lease, but shall only create a tenancy from month to month which may be terminated at will at any time by the Lessor. Page 7 - LEASE - TIGARD COMMUNITY y0(1TH SERVICES, INC 71 (23), L-TTORNEY FEES AND 'COURT COSTS. In case any action is instituted to enforce compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this lease, the losing party agrees to pay such sum as the, trial court may adjudge reason- able as attorney's fees to be allowed the prevailing party in such action and in the event any appeal is taken from any judgment in such action, the losing party agrees to pay such further sum as the appellate court shall adjudge reasonable as prevailing party's attorney's fees on such appeal . The Lessee agrees to pay and discharge all Lessor's costs and expenses, including Lessor's reasonable attorney's fees that shall arise from enforcing any provision or covenants of this lease even though no action is instituted. (24) WAIVER. Any waiver by the Lessor of any breach of any covenant herein contained to be kept and performed by ,the Lessee shall not be deemed or considered as a continuing waiver, and shall not operate to bar or'prevent the Lessor from declaring a forfeiture for any succeeding breach, either of the same condition or covenant or otherwise. 4 (25) NOTICES. Any notice required by the terms of this lease to be given by one party hereto to the other or desired so to be given, shall be sufficient if in writing contained in a sealed envelope, deposited in the U. S. Registered Mails with postage fully prepaid, and if intended for the Lessor herein then if addressed to said Lessor at Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall, Tigard, Oregon 97223 and if intended for the Lessee, then if addressed to the Lessee at 9020 S.W. Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Any such notice shall be deemed conclusively to have been delivered to the addressee thereof forty-eight (48) hours after the deposit thereof in said U. S. Registered hails. (26) HEIRS_AND ASSIGNS. All rights, remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto shall extend to, inure to the benefit of and bind, as the circumstances may require, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and, so far as this lease is assignable by the term hereof, to the assigns of such parties. (27) USE OF LANGUAGE IN LEASE In construing this lease, it is understood that the Lessor or the Lessee may be more than one person; than if the context so requires, the singular pronoun shall be taken to mean and include Page 8 - LEASE - TIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. r t " the plural, the masculine, the feminine and the neuter, and that generally all grammatical changes shall be made, assumed and implied to make the provisionshereof apply equally to corporations and to 'individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have execrated this instrument in duplicate on this, the day and year first hereinabove written, any corporation signature )/zeing by authority of its Board of Directors. Lessor: CITY OF `TIGARD Lessee. TIGARD COMMUNITY, YOUTH 'SERVICES INC. y. �- y- - - - by:____ — John E. Cook Margie Kessler _ f � - MaVoryJ_ _ President _ x Page 9 - LEASE TIGARD COMMUNITY YouTH SERVICES, INC. CITY OF TIGARDA 03EG 3N COUNCIL, AGENDA ITEM SUKHARY � AGE ND OF: May 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DAA SUBMITTED: May '9, 1986 PUVIOUS ACTION: City Council Held A ISSI7-f A TIVX: White/Wilhelm Public Hearing on this item 4/28/86 CPA 2-86, ZC 2-86 PREPARED By: Elizabeth A. Newton REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT READ DK: CITYADMINISTRATOR: �. �'�0�ffi�fla�TSS6fIXJ0�Sab�l.�S: �5:�ffi SdWY�icLaSt�au�BDLaau3em®tffi��®a9®l�aa6��ssg�tffiN14enavice s�musvLMmeamux�a�tntt:® POLICY ISSN � Should the Council adopt the following resolution to adopt findings fer denial of CPA 2-86 and ZC 4-86? (White/Wilhelm) s Ii OPMATION SUNRLVIARY _- on. April 28, 1986, the City Council held a public hearing on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 2-86) and a:Zone Change (ZC 4-86) The request was made by Tom Fisher and Michael Wilhelm to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low and Medium Density to Neighborhood Commercial, and n i located at ' to change the zoning from R-4.5 and R-12 to C-N. The property s 11730, 11780, 11782 and 11.784 S.W. Greenburg Road. At the April 20, 1986 Council meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to uphold the Planning' Commission's recommendation of denial for this application. Attached is a resolution supporting Council's' motion. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution to uphold the Planning Commission's ` denial of CPA 2-86 and ZC 4-86. 2. Modify the attached resolution. 3. Deny the attached resolution. ------------------- SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution to uphold the 'Planning Commission's denial of CPA 2-86 and ZC 4-86. t g.T-TY S3F TTGf [)3 IOREGIIII f Fti �lE�fA n,EH SWMARY + & OF: � �t XT1M 0: A OAS $SUCH �` : Uay 5, 1986 R '+dIOl :a WTZ - XSSUEMMOA T E` G nza�a C eet earin - Call Ibr REP�sl±D BY: _ a RE ESTED BY: Donald-Pollock OK* CXTY.AOMMSM- ATOR, POLICY ISSUE Council initiated Street vacation request - consistent with Council policy as adopted by Resolution No. 85-30. IINFORK14 T�StMAIIY Mr. Donal. Pollock, of Donald E. Pollock investments, has requested vacation of a portion of Gouzaga Street ;between SW 68th & 69th Avenues. The request will allow final financing; for an office building constructed to ;.the south of said street. Since the vacation was not requested by the developer prior to construction _._ of the building, he has requested Council initiate the vacation process so that final financing can be obtained at the earliest date possible. _3r the attached resolution is approved, the public hearing *mould be scheduled for June 23, 1981 CONSTLOEREO ALTERNATIVE DESLUL"I 1 Approve resolution and hold hearing on 6/23,/86 2. 'Fake no action at this time 3. Require developer to circulate petition to initiate process. M'� ION 3 ` Staff recoar�rgends alteanateive ;t 1, 't motion to approve resolution.' CITY OF TIGARD1:'OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY r 7 AGENDA OF: May 12, 7.966 AGENDA ITEM'#: DATE SUBMITTED: '5/12/86 'PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE; Special Council MeetPREPARED BY: William A. Monahan Workshop REQUESTED BY: _ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: `Z —CITY ADMINISTRATOR-. POLICY ISSUE - - INFORMATION SUK-IARY� The City Council and Planning Commission will hole{ a workshop Saturday, June 21, 1986 at the CivicCenter. A meeting from 8 AM to h PM is scheduled. An agenda has riot be set, however, a list Of topics of interest has been developed shown on the attached demo to' Planning Commission. t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. The Council should call a Special Council Meeting for the purpose of holding a workshop with the Planning Commission on June 21, 1986. 2. Take no action.- ff z . s SUGGESTED ACTIORt µ� The Council should call a Special Council Meeting for the purpose of holding a workshop with the Planning Commission on June 21, 1986. (WAM:br/2526P) i - MEm6RANDUM r . TO: Members of the Planning Commission May 7, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Workshop With the City Council Based on the input which I received from six commissioners and the City Administrator, I have the following preferences to report concerning our June 21 workshop with the City Council: 1. If` a full day or a half-day Saturday workshop is held, the format should be entirely discussion with no guest, speakers. 2. Discussion Topics were rated as follows, in the order of greatest preference: 1) Planned Development Section of the Code. 2) Sign Code Exception 3) Density Transition 4) Transportation Pian Issues 5) PlanningCommission jurisdiction 6)' Established/Devloping Areas (7 7) LCDC Post Acknowledgement Process ' 8) NPO fee waiver procedures ?) wetlands Issues Items which received some support as topics were: 1) P,eservation of. one ,position on the Commission for an attorney. 2) Meeting schedule discussion - should two monthly meetings be set? New topics suggested by Commission members and staff are: 1) Long Range Plan Discussion 2) Communication between the Commission and the Council, particularly feedback or, decisions and reversals. 3) Definition and intent of" the City request for. "Neighborhood Input". 4) Uses allowed ic, Industrial and Commercial zones, should they be revised 5) Nor.-remonstrances ayrcemernts whrnri are they acceptable? I will meet with Bob Jean and J,, sigil all -agenda with these suggestions i.n mind. we will then send ;you final agenda irl advance of the Jun 21 workshoo. ys /br cc: Bob Jean, t Ml i CITY t3 TICQ�Ro, ORE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY' z Nap/ AGMIDA OF: iay .12, 1986 AGEejoA ITEM 9: ' DATE SUCH : M21 9, 1986 � PREVIOUS ACTION: t ISSUEAGENDA TITLE: Prepayment a. waiver of fees -on temporary sign PREPARED BY: Chief Lehr �rmits REQUESTED BY: Mary; Rose Medzelews ki # ( CITY ADMINISTRATOR: £PA a HEAD POLICY ISSUE The current fee procedure provides for prepayments of fees for temporary sign permits`. Waivers for fees may be granted by the Council after payment has already beer made, therefore requiring reimbursement. 1, t NFORMA TLON Sb ARY ity chairperson for an All-night Tigard High Mrs. 14odzelewski is the public School, Altohbl-free, Graduation Party. The Tigard Police Department supports wholeheartedly this worthwhile endeavor from. a safety standpoint. Mrs. lltodzelewski is requesting a waiver of fees for ,5 signs to be ' temporarily located throughout the community publicizing and inviting graduating seniors to the party. Mrs. Modzelewski has stated that funds are not currently available from the sponsoring group for payment of the nization is not for profit (tax number 3173)• fees. Mrs. Modzelewski's orga As a not for profit organization, the Police Department thinks it is appropriate to waive the fees. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. ' The Police Department become the applicant for purposes of waiving the fee. 2. Mrs. Modzelewski°s organization be required to pay the fees and then petition for reimbursement. L3.' The Council authorize a prepayment waiver. $ET pi£II & Motion to authorize a prepayment waiver. X CITY OF TIGARDOREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMY AGENDAS OF: March 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0: DAA ':€J�HITTED: March 9, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUEJAGENDA TITLE: Land Use Decisions' MLP 2-86 Wes Larson, and PREPARED Eel. Community Development V 10-86 Qualico, `Inc. REQUESTED BY, DEPARTMENT HEAD, 4K: CITY ADNINISTEATCR: , r maam.eem:aras.:�aemss®masTmisae �an,�sas ssmues®ia�¢seas*mav�ss�avm�sa.®aaexcvw8�amxaes�sa�wasr�caevc�®mn�smsWam� k.,., .. a ,POLICY ISSUE �a swama�raea�ss,ammmm��ss�wusau� �remmwo mss�aes�mius�ma�a�wr�caeamsaaior��m�.,saasa.a�®.a�xsmmaaaan¢+ss¢vsmm�w�a�mwma� INFORMATION SUMMY Attached are the Notices of Decisions for: 1. MLP 2-86, approval of a request by Wes Larson to divide a 3.44 acre parcel into 3 parcels of 1.44, 1.00 and 1.00 acres each on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) , located at 1.1405 S.W. Walnut Street. 2. V 10-86, approval of a request by Qualico, Inc. for a variance to allow an 18 foot front yard setback 'for_the garage where 20 feet is required on property zoned R--25 (Residential 25 units/cre) and located at 13643 S.W. Ashbury Lane. acs m-R-----1dmLYL[---------m-- --- - ------------------------ ---------------- --SS..----HF-----------------------3�t8RRlffiIDt 61 3®mLGO41i-tltW e• 'AL,T'EMNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. --------- -- SUGGESTED ACTION Apiprove as tNrit4 en. CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION , MINOR LAND PARTITION - MMP 2-86 s, APPLICATI)N A request by Wes Larson {owner. Sven Kvarnstrors) to divide a 3.44 acre parcel into 3 parcels of 1.44, 1.00 and1.00 acres each on property zones! R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) Iocated at 11405 SW, Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 3AB, Lot 500), DECISION: is hereby givers that the Planning Director for the City of Dand has APPROVED the above application sub;ect;to certain conditions. The findings;and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted" below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department for this property. 2. Vicinity Information east south and west are in Wash= Properties immediately to the , ington County. Properties to the north and northwest are in Tigard and are zoned Ra4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre)•T,Osmall alProperty zonedto the east with frontage on Walnut Stre.e.. is in zgardandso R-4.5. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description A 1720 square foot residence is located on the southeast corner of the property. A 275 square foot temporary barn is located on the western edge of the property. The parcel has 38 feet of frontage an Walnut s to establish three lots of 1.44, 1.00 and Street. The applicant propose 1.00 acres in size, with the largest of the three farthest from the street. An approximately 854,foot accessway will wind from Walnut Street along the western edge of the property. Access and driveway width will be 38 feet in the beginning and then 25 feet servicing the two rear lots. The access drive will be shared by all three lots. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Tualatin Rural Fire District has the following comments: A turnaround area will be required at the end ofthe ieway feet "hammerhead" arrangement with each end being approximately long is acceptable. The Engineering Division has the following comments: NOTICE OF DECISIONS - PAGE 1 a. A;public sanitary sewer line and easement are present along the t western feet of the fr�a northern 4213 _ _ property lines A public easeent should be provided south of_the southern manhole in order to provide access to the sewer system for the southern lot ,(Lot ). b. It should be 'confirmed that the drainfi.eld serving the. property to the south (Tax Lot '600) 'does not encroach upon the subject property. c. Walnut Street is designated as<a major collector route that:requires a -_10 foot right-of-way width from centerline. d. A non-remonstrance agreement,all,ould be signed regarding any future local improvement district for 'street and storm `sewer`work that may be needed along Walnut Street. No other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS .AND CONCLUSION The proposed partitioning is consistent with the minimum lot size of the R-4.5 zone (7,500, square feet) as wi!11 as other requirements of the'Communi.ty Development Code. The division will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, C RECISION The Planning Director approves MLP 2-86 subject to the following conditions: r 1. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be met prior to recording the. partition with Washington County. 2. The partition survey and legal descriptions shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The city shall record the necessary documents after approval unless other arrangements are made with the Director. 3. Sanitary sewer connection plan-profile details for each lot shall be provided as part of the building improvement plans. The existing build- ing shall be connected to the public sanitary sewerage systetr. 4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 1002 Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction conn- pliance agreement shall, occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCk1FYZUY,ES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. NOTICE OF DECISION - PAGE 2 5. Additional right-of-way'shall he dedicated to the Public along the - S.W. _Wala?ut`St;eet Froa�tage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to theexisting right-of-tip*ay centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved bythe Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS,ARE ENCLOSED. 6. All lots shall utilize a common driveway access to Walnut Street. A joint use and intenan e 'agreement for the common driveway shall be recorded with the partitioning map and a copy o8 the recorded document(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Director. 7. 'Prior to occupancy of any, residences on Lots 2' and 3`, the driveway shall required width is 24 €eet be paved, The requirawithin the 38 ,foot tide access strip, 20 feet up to Lot 2 and 10 'feet up to the residence in Lot 3. 8. A non-remonstrance agreementshall be signed regarding any -future local improvement- district for street and storm sewer work that affects the proposed lots (FORMS ENCLOSED). g, This 'approval is valid if executed with one year of the final approval date',noted below. ..._ D. PROCEDURE 1, Notice. Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall �.- and mailed to. XX The applicant & own Prs XX � Owners of record,within the required c.astance XY The affected Neighborhood Manning Organization Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision THE DECISION SHALL 73E FINAL ON May 139 1986 Ud1LESS AN APPEAL IS >FILED. 3 Appeal: Any'party;tp the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) _and Section 18,32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CIT RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 PM May 19, 19S6 140TICE OF DECISION - PACE 3 21IR +,.' ue�ation I:C you have any questions, please call the Cita of Ti- rd Planning Departnt, Tigard City F.a3!, 13fl5 S Miall Boulevard, PO Sox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-417). �� AVa �- P — D BY: Deborah A. Stuart, DATE ffiDirector ATE AFF OVEiI ' A. ;bona.fin, Carra>un�.ty DeLelop�:ent .stli-e Yffi.8Y4 16T ) � T T-r— � 0JUNIOR2 s.a :i rraa. VLWOOL t *cr I sr.. Aaaa.auY sc o A � M NOTICE OF DECISION e Page 4 t CITY OF 'TICAL , NOTICE 4QS' MECISION VARIANC1; 'v 10-86' AP ,?C sTlOtda Request .by 'Qualico Inc.. for -a variance ito .allow ,:an 118 foot frs�nt yard setback for the Zaraage rwhere :20 feet is required on ;property .coned iR425 (Res.'Idential' 25 mnits/acre) and located at 13643 .STAT .Asnbury cLane (Wadh.''Co. 7a$ Map :,M1 33C15, `.Tax 'Lot 31W),. DFC1S0Na Notice is "her6by gicien that the Planning .;)irector fog• 'the !C'ity :of 1, �i and has APPROVED the above rde cried applica ionsubject to =certa'in <esanctztzons.' 'The Findings annd conclusions an which :the 'Director based 'phis :aeci slon .are >as noted :below. A. -FJ DF FACT 1.. Back-ground The property .is une of the lots created iby 'Cotswald "Subdivision -which x was ,approved by :the =City in l98'S (S 3-85). 2. Vicinity :Information 'The aurroundin land is also zoned R=25 .and-:contains a :'combination ;of develgpeid rand vacant lots. 3 site Information -arise ,Proposal -Description The lot contains •a 'home ,that is lunder construction. Milen <the .footings :were inspected 'by .the =contxartor, it :appeared ithat .the 'ahouse Thad a 20 foot setback in the .front :yard:. 'T�'caen .a survey :check was :Hone later, it was discovered 'that the ;arage ,only :has a 18 foot :setback. 4.. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division and Building Inspect.aon Office have ;no objection to :the request... B. ANALYSIS .AY4 CCi3CLLTSION, The followinger.iteri'a in the 'Coamaunity Development 'Code :apply 'to variance requests 1. 'The proposed variance will not '-he :materially detrimental to '_the pur:.poses of this 'Code,, be in conflictwith :the ;policies of :the Comprehensive Plan, -to any :other ;applicable -policies and :standards:; .and to ,other properties in :the same zoning district cor vicinity; 2.. There are .special circumstances ithat texi.st which are :peculiar :to the lot .sire or shape, ;topography for Lothar :circumstances ;over ,which the applicant 'has :aro control,, ;and which are not applicable to ,ot'hex properties in the same zoning Ziatrict; 140TICE OF DECISION - VIO-86 - PAGE _:1 r iS �V S Sx The ruse proposeil will ;the be >s se as_permitted.unsder `this Code _and .standards .sril'1 be maintained_;,to the greatest extent that .is ; reeseza�il+ly:posgitile, resile,.per6itting some economic use4f .tree '.!'and; Z4;. iRjiseing phyaical. and.natural .systems, -such-as but not -lsnaited .to .traffic,, .ilrninage, dranaelc l and forrms•or ,parks .dill;not -a be dversely affected any more :than.,would occur if .the .develope�e�=t°were ;loaded {: as >spe6a:fied yin =the `Cc d and � 5, The hariislaip is ;nat self=imposed and ;the -variance requested is =the ;m inimum',,variance,whidh would:illetiiate the ihardship. ; The°;pritrry purpose .o£ the setback -standards for the:R-25 zone is to allow for adequatepaeisxg .air, light, and .privac'y for ^:residential structa�res, :The mariance ;,wil'1 :not `have san"appreciable effect:upon°.Che _e;c scing,or t= proposed :res'idences iin,the;area. The :!3 ,foot :distance;between 'the,garage and ,front;praperty lane uii11 ,provide_adequate =space :for sparking �aehieles � on =the =diiiveway without?fi�l:ocking; the .public-sidewalk. The'lot -is :relatively.smdll .,and ",if all•setback�xequirements 'from the property+lines:and ;the,house were enforced, ;the pplicant would have :to ,moue .the F.bssi jding or ad just the property 'line. "Tice Gity'has=no olij coon :to °the ;}8 'foot ,-setback.. -DECISION ,i The,F.lanning=Director approves'.b' 10-86. D. -TISOCEDURE was ,published ;in the newspaper, ;posted.at eity.Ha_ll T. Notice:: Plot ice and mailed aa: The ;'applicant & owners • { Qsnxexs .of record .1:ithin the required,distance nXlt The affected'Neighboshood"Planning'-Organization XX -'Affected government il :agencies 2.. T-Inal Decision. THE ;DECISJON SHALL BE FINAL'ON May l 9, _1936 UNLESS"AN APPEAL .,IS �F;I12D, -3;, meal: i'Any ,party :to !:the•decision--may appeal :this decision in accordance aaiCh "Section 'I8.32;:29(ICA) and Section I8,32:"370.-of:the Community Development Ccsile which ylarovides :that -a written appeal:must,be zileu with the`C;ITY RECORI3ER Mitt in .!0 days:after,:notice <is ,,given-arid sena. ' 'The .deadline ;for filing of an appeal >is '4:39 l' ti, May °19, 1886 i 'NOTICE M 1I)E�GISION - p l0-86 _ FAGE2 t 11t Of 1_1GARD, OREGON _.- cU�1PJt Ll AGENDA I1FM tiUPHNARY At,i NO(I Of May,12.._$986„ :_ ftGEND) 11"EM #t M)11- ;1)HMl1i,[:t?: ?'!ey_9_:_1,58b_- PREVIOUS ACiTON: Public Hearing before CPA 3 86:and City Council, April 28, 1986 ZC`5-86 CITY:;OF TIGARD PREP11RE_D BY: Fly aabeth'14ecaton __ Ri ttUl-Sl'k_I) fiY: Keith Elden 'IMfiHEM) OK CITY ADMINISTRATOR:1F 'Avr POLICY `ISSUE ~_INFORMATION Slla' ARY 4., AC tached.are'Ordinance °and =exhibits to a,dopt:.Ceriprehensive.Plan Amendment.'CPA3-86 and .Zone_`Change..5-86 .fror:'Iiediuin.�Densi.ty`Residential+ (R-12) to General•. Commercial (C-C}.,,on grope ty "located Gt 10580 S[I 21cDonal.d 'St. =ALTERMAT"YVES 'COI SIDEF3ED Approve,Ordinance, s. submitted. 2, `Modify !.the'Oirdinance .submitted. 3. 'Deny the:.Ordinance as •submitted :.SIlr:E�EST D ACTION ,r +1. :Agprove:Ordianance-as.submitted. d F� y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM T0: 'Honorable'Maycr and: City ;Counc' '*,;ay 12, 1985 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SL'�3JECT: ' SmokingsArea Designations at Civic Center Based on''ORS provisions affecting public assembly areas and employee Anput in office areas, staff recommends Council approval of the following desig- nations TOWN,HALL/LOBBYJPUBLIC REST ROOMS. - A` No Smoking area per. ORS. LIBRARY - A No Smoking area,. Smoking permitted outside under canopy or in courtyard. CITY'HALL - A.No Smoking area, except for the loft area in the employee lunch room. POLICE - A No ,Smoking area, except as follows: o The Dispatch Break Room (between Dispatch and Dispatch Rest Room), for on'duty Dispatchers only. o The forward Public office area and Anterv.Jew rooms with the consent of ':the Officer. o Private off-ices with the consent of all present. o Smoking allowed outside or in City Hall lunch room loft. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL-AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY f � try ( AGENDA O:: Flay 12, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DA'T'E SUBMITTED-. Maw Y2. 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION. City Council held-a ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: First public hear i.ny on this item on 4/ZS/£36 Intersta.-te SDR 6—€36 V5—£36 PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton _ ) _ REQUESTED BY: Cit ,ouncil DEPARTi�9E 11' HEAD OK: 4AA1 -s�G�I CITY ADMINISTRATOR:ti POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution adopting findings and conclusions to ciphold the -Planning Director's: approval of a Site Design Review and 'variance request with conditions. — — INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 28, 19136, the City Council- held a public hearing to review the Planning Director's approval of a Site Design Review and Variance request for property located at the northwest corner of Pacific `Highway and Greenburq 'Road, The Council voted unaminously :to, uphold the Directors' approval with v moaiifications to the; required conditions. A resolution is . attached for Council review and. adoption. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. -Approve the attached resolution 'which upholds the Planning Director's approval with modifications to required conditions. 2. . Modify the attached resolution. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve 'the attached resoltuion<which;upholds -the Planning Director 's approval with codifications to required conditions. EAN:bs7l 9. SITE,DESIGN REVIEW SDR 6-66 VARIANCE V 5-SG FIRST INTERSTATE TRUST - NPO i02 # request by the City Council to review the Community Development Director's to dc3eisiarr to approve with conditions a request to develop''a 6St}0 square foot rotaildauto service building°and aan auto=tive car wear and d Variance to delete a ,portion of public 'sidewalk along Center Streaat and to allow a landscaped area of. 13.5%,where 15% is required. The property is zoned C-s�a tCcs€ aercial General) and is located at 'the nortnwast corner of Pacific efiig sasay acrd fsreenburg Road :(WCTM 251 2AA lots 000, 1001`, and 11030): a. �Public,Hearing Opened. b. Senior Planner Keith Liden synopsized staff report noting modificat'ians to meet staff's conditions. The original F'r, th Directar's decision restricted access onto ' Gre�enburg9 ` however, the engineering staff has revised the plan to include`a right turn only onto Greenburg'Road. C. Ed Sullivan, 53 SW yamhill, Portland, questioned the vapidity, of the Council's ability to have the item pulled from the consent agenda. d. Legal.Counsel reviewed the procedural issues regarding the Council's interpretation of resolution, motion,.and filing. e. Et was conssenGus of the Council that the hearing 'proceed. 'f. Public Testimony. Proponents a Ed Sullivan, 5? SW Yamhill, Portland, representi4tg t4ae applicant, reviewed the site plan. He discussed the traffic ,< circulation on Greenberg Road, - Pacific Highway, and within the development, o Gary Katsion, traffic engineer, Wilsey and Ham, 521 SW 11th, Portland, discussed in detail the two major concern trip generation and operation at the intersections and driveways. The kite plan has been developed closely with staff and ODOT. o erties, 520 SW Yamhill,' Por tland, Tom Wri-ghtsan, Wrightson Prop spoke in favor of the proposal. Tha4ra 8rsllivAn, attorney, 12105 SCJ 72, Tigard, had a prior on about traffic but is no satisfied that his c'otIcerrts have been met. o Tom 8arghausEr, civil engineer, Sarghau'ser Consulting Engineers, Inc. , answered que=stions regarding the guardrail. z Fagg 7 GflUNGIL MINUTUS - APPIL 190,f, .y , F r ,� City Administrator requestaad clar4flcation of the Director's docision regarding specific +items 'which have been revised sinc«, the Director's approval. h: ..Discussion followed on various, traffic situations and options; for handling such problems. i. Ed Sullivan aithdrow his objection of the Council's jurisdiction to reopen the public hearing. j. Public bearing Closed. k. Mot ion,'by Council. Edwards, seconded by Council President Brian to approve; proposal striking Punning Director's Condition 12 ' and allowing the ingress as shown on the drawing; adding Condition 22 requiring a non-remonstrance agreement for the sidewalk :on Center Street and filed with the record for approval by City ;Attorney. Motion approved by 'unanimous vote of Council pr*%ont. 10. URBAN AREA PLANNING AGREEMENT a Community Development Directordistributed a portion of the agreement. The entire agree-rent will be reviewed by the Council at the May 5, 1986 meeting.; 11. "CONSENT AG1?sit These items are considered to be routine and ma be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion tog 11.1 Approve Council Minutes - April 14, 1985 11.2 Receive- and File. a Ci unity Development Land Use Decisions b Monthly Departmental Reports - March, 1986 11.3 Award Bid - Hall:Blvd/Bu!rnham LID 085-01 - $103,713.00 - Bill Page Const. 11.4 Approve Revenue Manual & Fees be Charges Resolution No. 86-52 11.5 Approve Computer Purchases & Authorize Contract Signatures 11.6 Approve' LILCC'Lir_ense application - Now Outlet - summit Restaur-ant, r 12180 Sid Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard, R Application 11.7 Approve Conditional Acceptance Heaver Balt Street & Sewer Improv�mant�. - Resolution Flo. 88-51 a, City AdministYator'`presentead revisions to 10.4. b. City Administrator requested 10.3 be amended to include an award of the bid and to appropriate authorization for ; the $40,000 FCt. contribution. c City Administrator added the following items: i 10.8 TAG/Court `lard Paving 10.9 Medical C+overacle - Chief Leiir 'f Page e COUNCIL r INUTE5 APRIL .210 198 i ORANDUM TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FROM GRAMORE, INC. SUBjECTs SDR 6-66- AND V 5--86 The above matters were called up for Council Review by notion at the Council's ;March 24, 1986 meeting. The Council has the Director's action and there were indications of individual` Council members as to concerns they had. It is the purpose of this memorandum to set forth the concerns we have heard expressed and our response to 'those natters. We concur with the staff's conclusion that the proposed development is "basically consistent with the relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community Development Code.' We believe the City staff did an excellent job working with the applicant and other public agencies ,and;request that the approval be affirmed by Council. The Use -Issue One of the matters which is not at issue concerns the uses permitted: on the site. Such uses are permitted by the zoning ordinance and nay be made of the property until the zoning ordinance is changed. At one point in the approval stage, a convenience store was discussed with staff. The applicant has no intention of placing such a store ,on this site. If such a store were ever considered r TIOARD CITY COUNCIL - 1 e in the future, it would probably require remodeling and, therefore, a new site development review approval. x Tra��ic_Safety f The applicant has been working with the City planning and transportation staffs and the staff of the Oregon Department of � Transportation (ODOT) for the last several months to provide the safest and most efficient access to this irregularly shaped site, in view of the fact that the proposed uses were not generating �. new traffic trips, but Frere trips "dropping in" from the existing traffic strews near the site. At the request of ODOT, the applicant prepared a Traffic Impact Study, which formed the basis (" of several additional requirements, including the right tuna lane at Greenburg and pacific Highway and the single curb cut" along pacific Highway, planning staff originally had some concerns over the s The pl � � Greenburg Road curb cut from site design (i.e. there would be no limitation on turning movements from and to the site) and traffic (absence of a traffic impactstudy) perspectives. The applicant secured a traffic study and agreed to limit traffic4 ` movements at the Greenburg Rd. curb out and provide the right turn island at Pacific Highway and the staff then agreed to the curb cut on Greenburg. The applicant has limited site access to a driveway along Center .. TIGARD CITE' COUNCIL m 2 r ` St. , one curb cut on Pacific 'Highway and one curb cut along � ` Pad. The configuration of the access patterns was Greenburg the -stack4ng" limitations of the surroundingdictated by intersections and traffic safety considerations. For example, the intersection of Center and Greenbua does not ,allow for many cars to be waiting for accecs into the site. Further, the s traffic a�n Greenbur'g does no allow far. an exit from the ;site. :. there be a "right turn only" exit � Finally, GDOT recommended that3 on Pacific Highway so that all traffic exiling goes south. ether to Calan the �.. The applicant and public agency staff worked t®g y onsite in viewof the limited access points so as to provide for parking and on site Istacki.ng!° in excess of City 'adequatep re irersaerats. See Tigard comm. Dev. ' Code; sec. 1�.1�6.000. The ` traffic professionals from the City and ODOT agree that the t., te is safe and convenient safety and access of the mifor the permitted uses Farther, the applicant and staff agreed to rearrange the structures and uses on the site so as not to preclude the commercial St. exit proposed for Pacific Highway. Pro osad Structures The applicant has submitted its plans for structures proposed for the site and received approval.. The proposed structures are a vast imPovement over the present uses and of such guslity 'that TIGARD CITY CoUNCITa 3 MIMI, r f C ll be pleased wit Tigard residents wah the sate. s Thevariances The Director granted two varlances in granting appro,,.ral the d e7.etion of the sidewalk on 'Center St. and the lowering of the irector's decision was landscaping equiremera of is The D supported by findings which are, in turn, consistent with the 3-4 of the letter accompanying applicant's justification at PP, s = the application. The sidewalk varrance was granted beause the Property to the currentlywest is unlikely t® be developed for Pedestrian use, can ext of the �aCific Highway emban ant, in the area of the being P propos- propose retaixaing waZZ, and in the area ;xss�op®sad to be, used or omaerc�a l dA St. sidewalk at -chat poi an exit ramp to Cnt �s e:�cpensi a and of little use to pedestrians, pur�ther, its presence would encourage mid-block crossings of Center St There P °dewalks resent and future si . .are no sidewalks on Center St. at P ~ where there would. be better placed on the NOrti, side of Center, are existing residences and businesses. landscaping variance is now considerably less than the 1,5% The applicant and sted originally as the app (Fi3'7 ,sq. ft.) deviation requ Ie.. advisable around the staff agreed that additional landscaping was lesson the possibility of unsightly retaining wall, so as to rraff tie in- addition, the applicant has agreed to .maintain r` TIGARD CITY CoUjjC'13a ,F landscaping in the public right-of-way of Pacific HighwraY in an amount of .$300 S9. ft. , which is not "counted" in the landscaping � r6crArements. ThG reason for the variance rwvaly®a around theVIIM Dant of .landscaping provided the rest of the site, els: to its 18 ; vhy frontags, and the extensive dedication irregular shape, leng and improvement requirements (i.e. right 'urn island at Greenberg � and Pacific Highway, the dedication and improvement rec �xa�exnents on Greenbzrg and elsewhere and the limiting of site access.) L 97 clusi or, The applicant requests that council affirm the decision ,of the t. Planning Di ectbr in this matter. t ' � T11GARD CITY GGMCIL E SOUTHWEST OFFICE SUPPLY F 12245-S;W.MainStreet l�or�la�►o,Oregon 97223 Ph.639-3179 April 23 1986 Mr. `oAa Brian z Tovin Co. � 8 8 S.W. Center Ct. bagard, OR 972213 Dear Tom, 1t has core to our attention that there are some concerns . on the part of the City 'Council regarding the proposed automotive care center that is to be built at the corner of �. Greenburg and Pacific Highway. It is my understanding that � staff, has approved recommended approvalof the project and that the area is zoned for such a business. Having seen the site plan and noting the considerable` � Improvements that would occur (particularly to Creenburg Rd. ) the members of the Tigard Economic Development Committee feel I that a positive vote on this project would be in order for the i mprovement c,f that section of 'Tigard. It should be noted that Dennis Thompson°s facility on Main Street is "always kept neat and clean and 1 an sure this ac ?ity ou1d be maintained in the same manner.` A real €, amproyenen_ over what is currently occupying the site.. :Further, there would be a number of joss created that: will generate aided revenues for surrounding merchants. The city 6 Mav.every be ,able to collect the business tax from su:.11 a stable �u ia�ess. As far as T can see this is a -vyin-win .situation for all of . he Tigard community. h It ;is our belief that this is just the type of development we need and that the council .should be looking for ways to encourage rather -ha discourage this :t:ype of investment in Tigard.'s future. .; cerely, ohn C. Savory hairZan Tigard Economi Development Committee cc. Mayor John Cook Councilman Jerry Edwards Councilwoman Valerie Johnson' Councilwoman Carolyn Eadon Mr. Dennis Thompson e_ Mr. Tom Sullivan "WE SPE-CIALIZE IN SERVICE' a =, CITY OF TICARO ORC ON COUNCIL AGENDA TM4 I.Q10-°iADy AGENDA OF: 4/28/86 " - ACeE13113A I'e'E1t1 #• /1 DATE SUB3i£TTED: 4/24/86 PREVICAJS ACTION: Planning Director ISSUE/AGENDiA ,TITLE SDR 6-86J Approval 3f14f86 V 5-85 First Interstate Trust PREPARED BY: Keith Liden � RE(,VJESTEuBY: DEPAR1 T HEAD OX: � , CITY At3d'4XNI.�aT12ATOR: TLJ IssUE Should the Director's decision for a highway oriented use at the corner of Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway be affirmed by the City Council. I6SFDfRia'BTI 'Sil:°i1RY On March 14, 1985, the Planning;Director approved an application for a Commercial Center on the 'corner of. Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway subject to conditions. On, March 24, 1985, the Council called this ;item up for 'review and re-affirmed its l position' on April 14, 1986. A hearing is scheduled for April 28, ;1985. Attached a are copies of ;the Director's Decision', the applicant's original narrative, a traffic shady by Wilsey and `Ham, a revised set of plans which are intended to address tine conditions of approval noted in the 'Director's Decision, and a memo regarding a prior approval for the property, CU 4-82 for Jim Settlemire. i ALTERNA11 VES CONSIDERED Uphold the Director's Decision incorporatingthe conditions imposed by the staff`. 2. Approve the request with modifications to the<conditions. 3. Deny the x_equest by overturning the Director' Decision. e SUME STED ACTION Rcview the pertitent information and uphold the Dir.ecr_csr's Derision or modify the app rova l.. Mt Mol"ANDOM C t;CTY i)4 1 iGARI), olti GoN �kk t' April 9. 1986 TO: City Council FROM Keith Liden, Senior Planner ? SUBJECT. CO 4--82 Sin, Settiemi re #?s noted on floe staff report. Conditional Use approval was granted to allow a flower shop on the subject property. The conditions of approval where finalized in Resolution No. 02-26 whichimposed the following conditions: 1 . All curb cuts onto Pacific 14ighway shall conform to City of Tigard street improvement standards. A standard curb shall be constructed to align with the existing curb along Pacific highway. 3. Construction plans for the 'curb improvements shai:l be •submitted to and 'approved by the City, of Tigard Engineering Division. Site -- drainage plans shall be submitted with the curb improvements plans to insure adequate on-site drainage. 4 The parking spaces in front of the existing building shall. be restr'iped to indicate head-in parking rather than angle parking. 5. Potholes in the existing parking area shall be patched with asphalt. 2450P/d:n] 6 Vi u , i V a CITY OF TIGARD e NOTICE OF DECISION SITE: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 6-06 g VARIANCE V 5-96 s I APPLICATION: Request by First Interstate Trust to develop a 6800 sq. r tail0 au service building and an automatic car wash. •A Variance is also requested for deletion of a portion of public sidewalk along Center Street and to llo+� 'a la:sdscaped area, of 13.5% where 15% is required. The property is i. zoned �- (Co vercial General) and is located at the Northwest corner of Pacific Highway and Greenburg Road (blCTi°i 2S1 2AA lots IC�a34, 1441, and 1100) , DECISION'. Notice is hereby given that the planning Director for the City of Tigard hasAPPROVED; the :above described applications subject to certain , conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his ---decision are as noted below. s-. A., FINDING 4F FACT i. Background The City has reviewed several land use applications for the property, �. the mist recent being a Conditional Use (CU 4-82) to approve a flower shop. 2. Vicinity Information Greenburg Road, sand The property is surrounded by Pacific �igF y. � Center Street. The zoning on the south sideof Pacific: Highway is COD (Central Business Di.sfrict). The properties east of Greenburg Riad are zoned C-G (Commercial General) and the parcels north of Centerr Street are zoned C-P (Commercial Professional). E 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject property consists of three tau lots which contain a comstercial building a single fancily residence. Driveway access is presently available from Pacific Highway, Greenburg Road and Center Street. =? The applicant proposes to remove the existing building and construct a car ugh in the western portion of the property and a retaillautosnotive service building near Greenburg Road. One driveway entrance is intended for each of the, three streets 'abutting the property. The property will be filled to more closely resemble the grade of Pacific" Highway. This will require a retaining wall which is as high as 10 ,feet near the western end of the parcel. A 20 foot high 100 square foot sign has also been presented for approval Variances are also requested to reduce the required amount of landscaped area from 15% to approximately 13.5` and to allow the j deletion of a sidewalk ,.!on- malt of the Center Street frontage ly °11Kf:(',T0R `DFt;i`'10N SDI? F Fib J V;5 9ti Pac}� 1 4. Agency and NFO Comments The Engineering Division hall the following comments: � a. R sanitary sever connection permit for any new additions. t ri ht—of—way will b., AL1 work performed within the Pacific Highway g require a permit from the State Highway Division. C. Visual clearance must be maintained at intersections and t driveways. d. Wheelchair ramps must be installed at all corners and on the proposed traffic signal island. € e. A; traffic control ;pavement marking plan must be submitted for City and State approval, prior installation by the applicant. ¢. The proposed driveway on Greenburg Road should not be installed because of the existing congestion at the Pacific Highway intersection,' the `difficulty ipts n prohibiting Lwhicheft ucallsrn emfor onto the property. and the City policy minimizing the number of access points on arterial and collector street-s. 2 g. The storm drain catch basin and line proposed to be installed at s. ;Road and Center street the intersection of Greenburyneeds to be } .. rerouted to avoid crossing private property. It is suggested that the ca.tchbasin be connected directly to the manhole at the tt intersection. f k h. The guardrail along Pacific Highway snail be relocated not t removed. i. The proposed retaining wall near Center Street is a potential . Care eyesore, particularly if it becomes a target for o chgrwillzactto should- be taken to provide landscaping .. minimize the problem. is j No objection to the variance requests. ivision wind Tigard Water District have no The Building Inspection D objection to the request. The State Highway Division states that a traffic impart report is necessary to evaluate the impact of access alternatives, A Road approach Permit is required and the necessary street improvements b� shalt determined after the report is completed. PGE :notes that several utility poles will need to be moved No other comtAents have been. received. 8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed commercial development is basically ;consistent with the relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community Development Code. However, several aspects of the proposal including the variance reque!;b warrant further discussion. E. Access The Creenburg Road driveway is not appropriate for the reasons noted by the Engineering Division. This driveway should be removed and it is recommended ,that a pedestrian link; between the public sidewalk and the project be provided in its place. 2. Visual Clearance Chapter 18.102 of the Code required that objects taller than three feet in height cannot be within 30 feet of intersections and driveways. This portion of the Code is particularly important near busy intersections. It is recomatended that the two fled maples that are shown closest to the Pacific Highway and Center Street driveways be eliminated. Also, the mature height of all anther landscaping material should not exceed three feet. 3 Landscaping -_ The proposed landscaping plan' generally conforms with Code requirements with the exception of -visual' clearance (discussed above), lot coverage (noted below under the variance review), street trees, and the treatment of the proposed retaining wall. The Center Street frontage does not include street trees as required by the Cade, presumably because of the proposed retaining wall. The deletion of street trees appears to be justified, however, the landscaping treatment in this area needs revision. The majority of the 255 foot long retaining wall will be over six feet in height and potentially could have a detrimental visual" impact. No vegetation is proposed to soften or screen the wall. A revised landscaping pian should be prepared by a landscape architect for the retaining wall- area The plan should contain a justification for the proposed height of the wall, plant materials that will screen all or most of the retaining wall, an elevation drawing illustrating the wall and proposed -landscaping, and landscaping treatment of the right-of-way-area between the retaining wall and the curb: 4, Variances As mentioned' earlier, two variance requests have been made to reduce the landscaping coverage to '13.5% and to eliminate a sidewalk from the Center �I Street dravew`ay to tnv wz�s terrs corner ofthcproperty. section 18. 134.050 of thrt Cr,rtist ront.ains iho followin3 approval critctria for granting a vear:anco Elil2rr ,7�, nn-TSlorl rir, t r, lr Ir;�t�r 5 oil= { a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the r„ purposes of this Code, :be in conflict with the policies of the { ComprehensivePlan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circum3tances over which;the applicant has no control, and which a.re' not 'applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonable possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; d Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to _.. . traffic,` drainage, dramatic land forms- or parks wil•1 not be adversely '. affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and e. The hardship ;is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The proposed variance to the landscaping coverage requirement is minor and it will be difficult to notice a difference between the required minimum (6,317 ; square feet) and wheat is proposed (5,680 square feet). The property is fang and irregular in shake with street frontage on,virtually the entire perimeter which has presented unique problems related to r .. improvements, ' grad internal circulation. right-of-spay dedication, street The proposed uses are permitted in the 'C-G ,zone and the request will not adversely affect physical or natural systems. Finally, the hardship is not self-imposed because the primary reason for the variance is due to the irregular parcel configuration. The request appears to be the minimum necessary and also, the required modifications to the site and landscaping plans will cause a slight increase in the amount of landscaped area. The proposed sidewalk variance also appears to be justified for the following reasons: ' State Hi.ghw,ay right-of--way and the embankment for Pacific Highway dies to the west of the property along Center Street and the potential for any extension' of the sidewalk is minimal. Because of the large amount of frontage, the applicant is responsible for a substantial quantity of street improvements and this portion of sidewalk would b(a of minimal value and it could actually cause problems by encouraging'pedestrians to cross the: street, in Y.hr middies of the blor,I i 3'31 1 ' !aM" gib lrr� .i' a 'r till .1 The applicant is providing all other half street improvements" as required by City Code and the development will be able to adequately accommodate pedestrian and vehicular 'traffic on the perimeter of the site. 5. Signage The applicant is proposing to install one 20 Toot tall, 100 square foot sign and the standard Code requirement's allow for signs 20 feet in height and 70 square feet in area. However, during the Site Development Review process Section 18.114.130 (g) (3) allows up to an additional 50% increase in sign copy area for developments which have multiple tenants. The project will have four businessesand the proposed sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with City standards. Pacific Highway Off-ramp to Commercial Street As part of a long range plan to alleviate traffic circulation problems in the downtown area ,and on Pacific Highway, an exit ramp has been proposed from Pacific Highway adjacent to the subject property'. to Center Street and then on to Commercial Street. The Engineering Division recommends that the 'development`` of this site does not preclude the eventual construction' of this exit. C. DECISION The Planning Director. approves SDR 6-86/V 5-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL, CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 2. Standard half-street improvements, including sidewalk, curb, wheelchair ramps, driveway apron, storm drainage, guard rail (partial frontage) and utility signalization relocation shall be installed along the SW Pacific Hwy. frontage. Said improvements along SW Pacific Highway shall be built to Major Arterial standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the State Highway Division permit. 3 Standard half-street improvements including sidewalk, curb, pavement markings,- wheelchair ramps, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SW Greenburg Road frontage. Said improvements along SW Greenuurg Road shall be built to Major Collector standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the City's Street Opening Permit 4 : Standard half-Street improvements including (part:ial frontage)) sidewalk, curb, retaining wall driveway apron, storm drainage anti Utility relocation 'shall be installed along the SW Center Street frontage, Said improvements SW Center Street shall be built to Local Street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and' condi:t.ions of tho Cit.y, s Street Opening Permit 1 CSlf.f i':1't)R OF'11;Tf)N 5, Five (5) sets of .plan—profile public improvement construction plains ared (1) ;itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professi©nal Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public rcprov�+mPnts shall be submitted to the Engineering. Section for approval. E, 5. Sanitary sewer connection details shall be pr�avided as part of the fr public improvement plans. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until issued approved public improvements after the Engineering Section has � will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, plans. The Section the payment of a permit fee and ,a sign installation fee. Also, the execution of 'a street opening permit shall occur prior, to, or concurrently with the issuance -of approved public improvement plans. SEE THS ENCi�C1SED }�f�RIDOU_T GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. 6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public at the Pacific Highway Greenburg :Road intersection to provide for a turning lane .onto Pacific Highway' from Greenburcd Road. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by Washington County. The >dedication document shah be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORkS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. s, A permit shall be obtained by. the applicant. for work proposed to be . dome within SW Pacific Highway from the State Highway Division. A #. copy of said permit shall be' provided to the City. i 1O. Visual clearance at driveways and at intersections shalt be provided i for in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 18.102. 11. A traffic and pedestrian control pavement marking, signal and signing plan prepared by a registered civil engineer, detailing a proposed marking,' signal and signing improvements shall be submitted to the �. Engineering Section for approval and to the State Highway Division for approval 12. Direct ' vehicular ingress-egress at Greenburg Road shall not be permitted. 13. Concrete sidewalk shall be installed from the proposed driveway apron I on Pacific Highway, along Pacific Highway,_ along "Greenburg -Road, r Street. along Center Street, to the proposed driveway apron on Cente tk Relocation of any existing utilities, poles, pipes, wires, signals, , signal loops, or any such equipment shall be at the expense of tho ,, , a applicant 4 p- ()IR E-TOR (7E[,1111 1N `_,DO n Ot, V `_ -tlh pagf, h G s 15 A revised site plan shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval which deletes ' the proposed driveway on ireenburg " Road and illustrates the location of the proposed free standing sign. 15: P, revised landscaping plan shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval which is consistent with Chapter 19.102 Visual Clearance. Specifically, the two Red maple trees adjacent to the Center Street and Pacific Highway driveways shall be deleted and verificationshall be provided that the mature height of other landscaping material's will be ,less than three feet. Also, the landscaped area shall- not be reduced to less than 13.5% of the total lot area. li.' A landscaping ,plan, prepared by a landscape architect, shall be submitted for -Community Development Director apps-oval which deals with the retaining wall including the following: a. Landscaping materials to screen all or most of the wall. b. Elevation drawing of the proposed retaining wall and plant materials. C. Landscaping material between the retaining wall and the curb. d. Reduction,of wall height as much as practical. 19. Maintenance of the landscaping within the Center Street right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the applicant/property owner. 19.' The one free standing sign shall not exceed 100 sq. Jeet per side or a total of 200 square feet. t 20. Taff lots 1000, 1001, and 1100 shall be combined into one parcel. 21. This approval is valid , if exercised within one year of the ,final decision date noted below. D PROCEDURE i 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON March 25, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL. IS FILED. €l1RF'(`TOR of.-Ci`joiv 411 Ft t, 6b ! -V' t 06 F'agp 7 3. Appeal: X -. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accardance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community' DevelopmentCode which provides that a written appeal mast be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 clays after notice is given and sent. i The deadline for 'filing of an appeal is 2:30 P.M. March 25. 1986` . 4. Couesti_ons: if you have any questions. please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall., 1.2755 SW Ash, Pt's Soh 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639--4174 . 5 PREP? E BY: Keith idenenior Planner ®ATE William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development OATS APPROVED (KSL.2418pfdmj) N r. 0 �. 01Kr-j0F1 D(-CJ ;ION :;fifd 6-06 % u 5-06 NA H `' l t R USE ONSULTIN I , INC. '. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" January 31, 1986 f t� Mr. Keith S. Liden �. Senior Planner t City of Tigard m Community Development Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 h R Site Developn',ent Review Application for 60-Minute Tune/Detail Development for Gramore, Inc., at the Northwest Corner of , Highway 99W and S.W. Greenberg Road Our Job No. 1898 .' Dear.Mr. Liden; g Pursuant to our pre-application conference held on Thursday, our office January 3Op 1986, i grant to take this opportunity to supply y , with the followingdocumentation and requesfi a forma! revie�I In accordance with the City of Tigard site development review process for thisproject. pon the application Information This information has been compiled based u brochure provided by your office, together with the Standard Site Develop- mVnt Review application. 1. One (11 original yellow copy of the Site Development Review application with the information appropriately provided and the signature of the owner and/or agent indicated. You should be advised that this office is acting as the repre- sentative for the applicant, and we should receive copies of all documentation and any notices Issued by your ,office. This Information should be submitted to our Seattle office at the following address, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6625 South. 190th, Suite 102 a . hent, Washington 98032 ;i` 3 , ,;62.'t ;i�Hiif7 i�tnth r, 1 ft;> 0 Kefit,bV,1;;11in(11041 59titY.�:' � t:'C)ti)111:' :'%' 3r. Keith S. Liden Senior Planner January 31 , 1986 Community Development Department -2- 2. One (1) check made payable to the City of Tigard In the amount of $300 for the processing of the site development review package. 3 Five (5) copies of the site development plan for the project at the scale of I'" = 201 providing all of the appropriate site development details for the proposed project. architectural elevation plans pro 4. Five (5) copies ofviding _ basic information concerning the "architectural look" for the buildings on the site. 5, One (37 copy of the Washington County Assessor's map for the property with the parcel outlined in red, b, One (I) list of the names and address of all persons owning property within 100 feet of the subject site. 7, One (i) copy of a title transfer instrument/deed to the site r verifying the legal description and the current ownership. g. Five (5) copies of a site grading/drainage and utility plan for the project providing information regarding storm drainage improvements, site grades, and sanitary sew er service for the project. 9. Five (5) copies of a site survey, worksheet completed for the property providing existing topographic a �emenand ts. location of all existing public and private impra 10. Five (5) copies of a preliminary landscaping plan providing the required information incorporated within the application Pequicements `Five (5) copies of a proposed sign application, together with ng the justification for the pole sign providing advert for the proposed project. The sign being req uesisd is larger than that which is allowed under the standard provisions of the code, but is within the 50 percent increase limits allow- ' able under administrative review by your office. 12. One (1 ) copy of the vaclance application supporting the requested reduction in the landscaping area on the site as � . set forth in -the site pian. NOR=MENM IBE Kill U - = f p, Mr. Reith So i_iden Senior Planner -3- January 31, 1986 Ccvwunity Development Department � K Would you p,tcase begin the processing of this Site Development 'plication and forward to this office your written response and Review a p e application documents incorporate the approval as soon as possible. Th eo;±tirenis that were made by your staff at both of our prev oursa meetings and, hopoful lyp the pr-oject as It is designed# i i u �iragip®rmit review, ;and we are zlso aware of your requirements ,or d at the same scale, which will be prepare ` w111 be sure that our final plans, i, will ba complete in the necessary detesrrcomb�inedlwith othe large r that the unique configuration of the property, . for several amouna of street frontage around the site, has created a need _ variances fram the ex cods reguiatianswewhich believeneed the designrof'the n the site review process. At the same timerf -the use 0 Project has hopefully resu�ticdcommentscreative shouldabertakenoach tinto�consideration in site. The following specific x, your review. roximately to grade t . We will be bringing the entire project plies to the'westerly with 9914. This particularlywhih apP i portion of the siresui;tCinrtheneedtforyacslope easementron 1 �;. of the site will he used# from the adjoining property to t <t)regon Department of ning wall along the north property Transportation, and a retai boundary adjacent in°heightrfrom at. This minimum ©ft2ifeet towall a will be variable 9will be maximum of approximately i2 feet. 1 t,guardrail sphal# andthe design provided along the edge of the aro posed construc— dra�eis provide a cross section of the p tion, As agreed, the wall wilt be constructed on the Inside of I property line with the landscaping strip lyi ca'�culations and a ng wall on the site itself. Spdesign repar•t from a certified soils engineer will be provided with the building permit plans for this part of the project. in ted ccordance 2. The filling an the a�te will be recommendo ionscomplefor -theawith placement of standard geotechnic structural fill: Once again, a report and recommendation will to al fill . provided with a building permit for this part of the project, and continuous reports fo! compaction will be avaltable during the of the work in filling process. Al { this regard will be completed under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical consultanr, -ty has 3. The amount of siresiterImtaovemer,ion hbeing pre€iuired forthe in a level of off s p deveioprnent ;�hich far exceeds that which is reasonably A The developer expected for normal commercial development . Mr. Keith S. liden Senior Planner Community Development Department -4- January 31, 1986 is proposing to complete these improvements and dedicate the additional right-of-way;necessary to accommodate the street improvements In accordance with the requirements of the City of Tigard and the'Oregon Department of Transportation. At thn Umss_time. th''is reld= a'ha _Q-on the dw l irant to j�nr�ove t�� extent of street fr r#a�a i�i t i s eneri;i i v con sIdss Iry xS�4yive for this_t :L'C2$ Y sVii."� 1 SY i n ttl � � ty rear . 'The property boundaries are quite irregular, and present unique problems for developing a usable layout for the site. Due to the unusual conflgura� tion, accessibility to buildings and placement,of structures in parking areas becomes more difficult with respect to existing city codes. We have:been able to meet ail of the requirements of the City of Tigard Zoning Code to this regard, with the exception of the landscaping requirement. ; The required amount of landscaping for this project is 15 percept. The gross site area encompasses 42,115 square feet, and the required landscaping area would therefore be 6,317 square feet.' We are proposing to provide 5,680 square feet, which represents 13.5 percent of the gross site area. We are therefore requesting an administrative variance of this landscaping requirement in accordance with the attached variance application. We are providing more intensive landscaping within the areas on the site than is required by code, and we will also be landscaping some property within the existing right--of-way, which increases the gross area being landscaped as apart of this proiect. We assume that these points will be taken into consideration in;the review of the variance application.- 4. During the pre--development, application conference, we discussed the requirement to install sidewalks along the property frontage for the length of Center Street. The site plan that we have submitted proposes that sidewalks be extended along Highway 991.1 from the proposed curb access to this state highway, and then extending east and north around through the intersection with S.W. Greenberg Road. The side- walks would extend continuously along S.W. Greenberg Road, around the intersection with Center Street, and up to the curb cut into the project on Center Street itself. Beyond the curb cut, we would propose to simply widen the street to a distance 17 feet from the centerline,,and :then install curb and gutter. This would leave a strip of land 7 112 feet in 'of „ f he back S R curb width within the right u� .ar, from t.. b �k o: 1.h ;,c� b to ti the property line, to allow for the future construction of I v Mr. Keiii) S. Liden Son lo• 0fanti er ComrnunIty Development Department -5- January 31, 1986 sidewalks in this area. Our reasoning not to install the sidewalks at ''this time Includes the following points. s. As indicated ear I I er I n th 1 s t otter,, the developer Is already being .required to participate in an excessive I amount of public improvements due to the configuration` of the site and the extensive frontage. if it Is not absoi uteI y necessary foe- the pub l is heal th, safety and: - r, welfare to i r;sta l l :a sidewalk along Center 'Street, then we would propose to delay this construction. This would provide some r'eIIef` for the developer in re- cognition, of the unique configuration of the property and the:hardship that it presents, which is not appiio - able to other, parcels in the area. b. We are .proposing a retaining wall along Center Street for most of the property, as shown on the site plan. � There will therefore be no access from the site onto Center Street for vehicular or pedestrian traffic until , near the intersection with S.W. Greenbera Road. There- fore, pedestrian movement will not be encouraged on , this side of the street. This would reduce the need for a sidewalk at this location. . C. Sidewalks do not exist saes` of the subject site on � Center Street on either side, and there are no side- P.r walks on the north side of Center Street adjacent to the property. - All of the businesses and houses which, exist along Center Street lie to the north of Center Street across frim the subject property, and the appropriate place to Install sidewalks in the future would be along the north side of the street. If side- walks were installed only on the south side of the street adjacent;to the subject site, this'would' encour- age pedestrians to potentially cross in the middle of . the block on Center Street to reach the sidewalk, which would not be in the best interests of the City of Tigard. - f d. Traffic on Center Street is not considered significant, ' since it Es' a relatively minor access stroet compared with S.W. Greenberg Road and Highway 99W. Therefore, the need for a sidewalk along S.W. Center Street would be limited to provide for adequate pedestrian safety. Mr. Keith S. Lidex Senior Planner Community Deveiopment Department -6- January 31, 1986 Please review this reasoning and the Information provided, and determine whether or not the requirement for sidewalks along Center 'Street can be waived for this project westerly of the curb cut near the northeast corner of the site. A 5. Another Issue of concern during the "pre-development review conference related to the proposed "right in/right out" curb access to S.W_ Greenberg--Road near the southeast corner of the property. This curb access location is considered quite critical to the successful operation on the site and to Fimit traffic congestion, once again, within the site itself and at the other two access locations. We understand your concerns regarding potential left-hand turning movement for traffic trying to turn left into the site northbound on S.W. Creenbera Rood. We would therefore propose to install a limited length of "Cor curbing delineating the northbound and southbound lanes on S.W. Greenberg Road for a limited distance north from the intersection. The curbing would not prohibit access Into and out of the bank parking lot east of ._•' the property, but wouldprevent left-hand turning movement Into and out of the subject project. At the saine time, it would allow for the movement of southbound traffic on S.W. Greenberg Road Into the property to avoid additional vehicu- lar movement through the intersection with Highway 99W. It would also allow cars entering the subject site off of Highway 99W to park in front of the retail spaces and then exit the property at one of the two locations, thus giving an option to the customer, rather than requiring all of the traffic to enter and exit the site at the same location. Once again, the configuration of the property severely limits the layouts that are possible for development of the site, and curb access onto the adjoining streets is critical for the successful development of the project. If the center curbing proposed on S.W. Greenberg Road would elimin- ate the majority of the concern of your Transportation Department for traffic movement on S.W. Greenberg Road, then we would hope that the curb access would be approved as shown. l 6. finally, the application includes a .request for a larger sign than is normally allowed under the zoning _code, encom- passing 105 square feet. The reason for the request is two-fold. First of all, heavy traffic volumes at the inter- section and the relatively high speed allowed on Highway f 991 tends 1.0 limit the perception time for motorists near the i -i fS f' Mr. Keith S. I_iden Senior Planner January 31, 1986 Community Development Department -7- � site to become aware of the project, and due to the channeli zat'ion and intersection centro! at S.W. Greenberg Road, the potential customers of the:property's businesses may not realize that the business exists until they are past the property. it is therefore necessary to obtain as much advertising as possible to allow people ample time to com- Pietp their lane changes and enter the property. Secondly, there are a number of businesses built close to the street on , - Highway 931 , and 'there area myriad of poles and other isibility along this street obstructions which limit v . ' Once again, in order to obtain reasonable exposure, it will be necessary to achieve a larger sign area to the extent allowable within the administrative guidelines of the City of Tigard. f hope this provides you with a' complete, package of Information necessary to review this project. if you haveanyquestions or Irish to discuss it in further detail,' please do not hesitate to contact me at $2063 072- �� at your convenience.' I certainly appreciate the;assistance ~that your s#-aff has provided to us in the pre-design effort on this project, and I ''look forward -to a successful development approval within the next 30 days. Thank you. 4 Respectfui.�y, Thomas A. Barghausen, P.E. President TAB/sm C152.06 enc. As Noted CCS Mr. Barry Cain, Gramore, Inc. (w/enc.) Mr. Bob' Beaupre', Gramore, Inc. (w/enc.) Mr. Dennis J. Donovan, Barghausen Consulting Engineer Inc. ATTACHMENT TO GRAMORE, INC., LANOSCAP1NG VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA This attachment provides the summary arguments for the request for a landscape variance for the above-referenced ;project to reduce the required landscaping area by 4.5 percent. The required landscaping for this particular project within the zone classification is 15 "percent, or approxi- mately 5,=317 square feet. The requested reduction" amounis to approximately 10.1 percent of the gross required landscaping area, which is the limit of the requested variance. 'The specific ;approvai criteria for a variance, Identified as-Section "All through "E,11are summarized below. The actual amount of on-site area provided is equal to 5,530 square feet, which is 637 square feet less than required. A. The proposed reduction will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the code or in conflict with: any comprehensive plan pokey. The landscaping that has been provided is reasonably close to the required landscaping, and with the supplemental landscaping proposed within the excess right-of-way along Highway 99w, which amounts to an additional 4,300 square feet of area, we would exceed the required landscaping percentage on the site itself. There are no surrounding uses of a residential nature .,, which would necessitate more significant landscaping standards or buffer areas, and for this particular project which Is completly bounded by public streets, the primary purpose of the landscaping is to develop a more aesthetically pleasing project in accordance with general development principals. The specific percentages are not necessary to buffer the project from surrounding properties. B. This particular parcel Is unique to all other properties in the area since it is bounded on all sides by public right-of-way. The;parcel itself is approximately one acre in size and not only has over 800 feet of street frontage, but it also has_a long narrow configuration which requires an excessive amount of perimeter landscaping, coupled with an excessiveextentof off- site improvements. The applicant has no control over the property boundaries, which also makes it extremely difficult to place buildings and improvements on the subject site within the code regulations. As the property becomes more narrow toward to Bouin, it ,is necessary to increase the asphalt area in order to gain access to proposed structures. it is clear that other properties in the immediate vicinity are not affected in the same manner as this parcel and this parcel must be considered unique. 1878.02 -1- �s The uses ro osed are identical to the uses allowed within the C. Th P P code, and no variance s are being requestedeforvthe`surround- improvements are being provided by the applicant Ing street system, and this presents a signif;ean� economic burden .41-o this particular applicant based on ,the property con- figust{on. To the greatest extent reasonably possible, City standards have been met, while permitting the economic use of the land. The requested -variance in the landscaping area is therefore being justified to offset the extensive public Improvements being required. ed one D. Existing physical and natural systems gill non ectimpacand,�therefore, t` away or the other by the landscaping on the pr_j the subject variance will have no impact ora these systems- A ua ; E. The hardship that would be created by requiring the applicant to meed the code requirement is not self imposed and is due specif{- catty to ;tFe fact that the unique configuration of the property necessitates careful review of development alternatives;. {n order to meet other applicable City standards. These other standards t ays arkln requirements, and other restric- include ccess'drivew , P 9 tions, The variance being' requasted, °adhich amounts to tq percent of the gross amount of the required landscaping area on the site, , is the gminimum'variance that would alleviate the hardship and mould probably not be noted lay any surrounding property caner or :•.'. Person in the area. In addition, the extra landscaping which will be provided by the applicant within the right-of-gray w311 help to rorrrpensate for this loss of area. 1898.02 -Z € ; %ell, BARRY A Ckfh t RE INC- , / 2,aEgAE'f7C? i Q One lincoln_Gemer.md70 10300 5.W Gmenburg Rd ' portf.,,nd. OR 97223 15 31 245-1976 4 s TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR btu m�IPIUTE TUNE DEVELOPMENT � S.W. PACIFIC G1i SAY (99W)AND GREENEURG ROAD e, TIGARD, OREGON . Prepared for Gramare, Inc. March, 1986 14 1988 LQpQ dW tr,, { INTRODUCTION' Scope of Study his study was undertaken to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development of the 60 Minute Tune retail project located at the northwest corner of S.W. Pacific Highway (99W) and S.W. Greerburg Road in Tigard, Oregon. figure I shows the general location of the project site. Specific issues discussed in this report include: o Trip characteristics expected from the site for the proposed development. Site access location and operations. Traffic impacts to adjacent streets. Internal site circulation. This study was prepared following the guidelines set forth in the Oregon State Highway Division "Minimum 'Requirements for'Traffic Reports -- Proposed -Development" and discussions with City of Tigard planning department. Project Thus proposed project consists of two separate structures containing 9,100 square feet of retail space. Twenty-five (25) ;parking spaces will be >provided on the site. Three access/drive wav(s) have been originally proposed for the site and will be discussed later in this report. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the property. The developer is in the process of securing leases for the floor space designated Retail/Service 'A' and V. Possible tenants include other automotive-related retail operators to compliment the 60 Minute Tune and carwash facilities. The commercial zoning does allow other retail uses', so for the purposes of this report a "worst case" condition in terms of site generated traffic, will be analyzed. The "worst case" condition included 4,350 square feet of convenience store/specialty retail use, 2,450 square feet of the 60 Minute Tune retail space and 2,300 square feet of the carwa.sh facility, E,CI~STING CONDITIONS Adjacent Land Uses The project site presently contains a copy shop, a radio and television repair shop, a small furniture shop and a vacant retail space. A single-farnily home is located at the northeast portion of the site. Northerly across Center Street is a dress shop in a two story residence. Easterly across S.W. Greenburg_Road is a branch of the Oregon Funk with two drive-thru exits. Southerly across Highway 99W is a small piece of landscaped land. Adjacent Street Network S.W. Greenburg Road is a two way north-south local collector linking portions of Tigard, southwest Portland, Metzger and Progress to Main Street in Tigard. Intersecting Highway + 99W at the site under consideration, Greenberg Road is a two-way street consisting of an exclusive right turn. large and a through traffic/left turn lane in both directions. Highway y 99W is a two-way east-west state highway consistingof five designated lanes west of the intersection with Greenburg Road and six lanes on the east of the Greenburg intersection. Highway 99W has four lanes approaching the intersection from the east with exclusive right turn and left turn lanes and two through lanes. This side of the street is separated by a one foot wide concrete median. The Highway 99W approach from west has an exclusive left turn lane with two lanes for straight through and right turn movements. This street has a posted 0 mile per hour speed limit and parking is not permitted adjacent to the ;site. The described intersection is currently controlled by actuated signals. The five-phase signal operation has an approximate 120 second cycle. -Fire pre-emption controlled signal heads are located'on the Highway -9966 approaches. The traffic and pedestrian signal heads are mounted on mast arm supports. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations v 3 To obtain existing traffic count data on the adjacent streets, Wilsey & Hain conducted peak hour turn movement counts at the Highway 99/Greenburg,Road intersection on Thursday, March 6, 1986. Driveway usage count data at the ;present site during the rush hour was collected on Monday March !0, I9A6 during the p.m. peak hour. Figure 3 shows the existing p rn. peak hour traffic movements at the Highway ;99W/Greenberg Road and Greenburg Road/Center'Street intersections. From the traffic count data it was determined that the p.m. peak hour (4:25 to ,5:25) would be typically the period of highest volumes on the streets adjacent to the project site. The intersection capacity analyses to be performed'in the study will examine traffic operations only during the p.m. peak hour. The current level ofservice of p.m. peak hour traffic operations was calculated at the two key intersections adjacent to the site. The signalized Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection was analyzed utilizing the operations and design critical movement technique described in the Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. The stop sign controlled Greenburg Road/Center`Street intersection operations were analyzed using the CAPCALC microcomputer software developed by Roger Creighton Associates,Inc. The existing p.m. peak hour level of service at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection is 'D', with a corresponding volume to capacity ratio of 0.81. The north and south approaches of Greenburg Road currently operates at level of service 'A', while the Center Street approaches operate at level of service "D' during the p.m. peak hour. (Capacity analysis worksheets are included at the back of this report.) Level of services for a particular roadway or intersection is a qualitative measure of various factors which influence traffic operations. The factor which influence the traffic operations include speed, travel time, traffic interuptions, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort, safety and vehicle operating costs. Six levels of service have been established and are designated to>the letters A through F, providing the best to worst service in terms of driver satisfaction. For signalized intersections, the level of service is generally evaluated in terms of an equivalent range of a quantitative measure, the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. The level of service D, with a corresponding v/c ratio range of 0.8`- o.9, is the desired level of service for design by ODOT and the City of Tigard. For unsignalized intersections, the level of service is 'evaluated in terms of reserved capacity at each approach to the intersection. The level of service E, with a corresponding reserve capacity 0 to 10 vehicles is acceptable for the minor street approaches, if signal warrant conditions are not met. i ig 4 Transit, Tri-Met busline numbers 5 and 77 serve the site every 15-30 minutes during weekdays. These Tines provide transportation to downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. FUTORE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Due to the existing intensity of development'in the, vicinity of the project site, no major changes in the traffic characteristics along Highway 99`.� and Greenburg Road is anticipated. Historically, traffic volumes on highway 99V1 has grown annually at a rate of abaci 2 percent. The proposed project is scheduled to be completed by early summer of this year and the existing businesses will be closed as soon as construction begins. Far the sting peak hour volumes will be used as the base' case Purposes of this report, tice exi volurnes. Site-Generated Traffic Foreca_,ts The Institute dTransportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Third Edition code f numbers 814 (Specialty Retail Center), 846 (Car Wash) and 851 (Convenience Market) were used to estimate the average weekday peak hour trip-ends'to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation characteristics for the 60 Minute Tune facility were not on tarps used in this report are based on count available from the ITE report, so the generati data from an existing 60 Minute 'rune facility in Vancouver, Washington. Table 1 shows the gross number ®f p.m, peak hour trips that are expected to be generated by two development mixes of possible tenants. As previously discussed, this study will examine a "'worst case" condition in terms of the site-generated traffic volumes. The development mix'A' will be utilized during the remainder of this study since the convenience market use is expected to generate about ten (10) times as many trips as a specialty retail or automotive retail store. Table 1 also shows the significant amount of the site generated traffic that would be attracted from the existing traffic flows passing the site. According to the ITE Report 45% of She convenience market trips and 58% of the car wash trips would be comprised of motorists already on Highway 99W and Greenburg Road. �+1-,1't°0. i IAN i ¢ TABLE 1 t 60 tY11NElfE TURN13E'�ELOI''IiRLNT -TIGARD TMP GENERATION, " E 1' Pm PEAK HOU4t TRIPS NET. GROSS DIVERTED LA1�1D USE SiZE(uSI IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT DEVELOPMENT-MIX` A - 3 3 t 1,210, 3 3 23 23 1 , 1vlinute Tune 55 55 32 32 2. Car thrash 2,100 52 23` 23 29 29 3. Convenience ivlarket 2,250' 52 5 5 2.100 = — _ — 4. Specialty Retail —5 5 T115 55 55 60 60 Total 7,650 115 DEVELOP MEN T MIX (3 3 3 1 ,210 3 3 23 23 t 1. 60 �dinute Tune 55 32 32 2. Car /ash 12 2,1(JO 12 3 3 9 12 — — — — 3.; Specialty,Retail 4,350 .____ Total 7,660 70 70 35 35 35 35 i Notes: 1, GS1 _ Gross square feet of building 2. Source: ITE Trip Generation Report, Third Edition ted to the surrounding area using the following general The site generated trips were distribu directional distribution: North 30% South —2095 East - 34°ro i \Vest - _16oe \4C 1 RO and the This directional distribution is based on population estimates developed by percentage of passing traffic volumes on the adjacent street system. Alternative Site Access Plans Two alternative site access plans have been examined to identify traffic impacts of the proposed a, developrzient. Access Plan I consists of the driveway locations and turn movements allowed as shown in Figure-2. Observations of the turn movements into and out of the existing;site development,,which closely matctt the movements allowed in Access Plan 1, indicate the following: Na left turns were made out of the 1-iighway9y\\r or Greenbu-S Road driveways during -the p.m. peak period due to the high volume of opposing traffic and ' 11IT11 Lcd ga i)s. MMMUMMMEMMM NVIi;`,1a to 9IAN I f About ten (10) vehicles used the site as a by-pass to the left tum ratovernent at t=_^ the Highway 99WIGrcenbur; intersection. Only one vehicle exited the site from the Greenburg Road access driveway. No vehicles turned left into the site from Greenburg Road. Due to these existing motorist tendencies, Access'Plan 2'was developed to improve potential conflict areas. Access Plan 2 has the same driveway,,locations and configurations on the Center Street and Highway 99W sides as Access Plan 1. However, the Greenburg Road only driveway. Aright turn in driveway on driveway has been modified to be a right turn In Greenburg Road allows customers to enter at the front of the buildings with having to 90 through the Highway 99W/Greenburg intersection. The site generated trips were assigned to the site driveways (Access Plan 2) and the e 4. Figure 5 illustrates the total traffic volumes at adjacent intersections as shown in Figur the adjacent intersections with the proposed development. Traffic Operations Analysis T; e p.m. peak hour operations, with the 'total traffic volumes, at the Highway 9g''! zeenbcurg Read and Greenburg Road/Center Street intersections were analysed using the intersection capacity techniques previously discussed. The Highway 99W/Greenburg road intersection would continue to operate at a level of service `D' with a corresponding v/c of 0.88. The Greenburg Road/Center'Streett intersection is expected r to operate at level of service °A' for the north and south approaches, ID' for the west approach and °E' for the _ east approach.'' The weighted average level of-service for the intersection would remain at °A`. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for this intersection, but current plus site--generated traffic volumes do not meet the minimum volume requirements to warrant signulization. Review of Site Man and On-Site Circulation Access Plan 1, the original" site plan, was examined to identify potential traffic impacts. The visual barrier of the retail space/60 Minute Tune building will minimize the number of by-pass tripscurrently using the existing site. Motorists coming from the east and south will continue to use, almost exclusively, the Highway 99W driveway. The two existing drive-mays will be consolidated into a single driveway about 200 feet west tGreenburg Road. This'driveway will be used by motorists coming from the west. The existing eft turn storage bay striping will provide storage for the vehicles entering the site from the west. (About one vehicle every two minutes.) The Center Street driveway will be relocated easterly to about 40 feet west of Greenburg Road.' The light amount of traffic on Center Street should not impact 'the left turn movements into the site. The relocation also minimizes the impacts to tl-ie site grading ~ limitations to the site. The proposed curbing shown in Greenburg Road to prohibit left turn movements into and out of the site is not a desirable solution. This type of median barrier curb would probably becorne more of a traffic hazard than safety feature for the following reasons: The narrowness of this curb is not a typical median installation. , viii i lits o f Also, visi not expect a small curb to be in the middle of the street. bility of such a'small obstacle at night may,be a hazard. W1 { f q tea{' The curb restricts bus and large truck turning movements onto Greenburg Road. To eliminate the potential hazard created by the median curb in Greenburg (toad and to minimize turn movement"conflicts at the Greenburg Road access driveway, Access Plan 2 $ was developed. Access flan 2 differs from the original site plan in its modification to the Greenburg.Road access driveway. This driveway;;would be designed as aright turn in driveway. Figure 6 illustrates the geometric design of the proposed Greenburg Road access Also, modifications to the driveway ,io' accommodate only right' turn in movements. ,proposed concrete island surrounding the existing traffic Signa! span wire pole are shown on Figure 6, IF, 1 CONCLUSIONS The ttaifiC generated by the proposed 60 Minute Tune "development will not adversely impact the traffic operations of the adjacent' street system. By 'consolidating the existing twc highway 99W drivevrays into a single driveway, eliminating the turn movements out of the site atorig Greenburg Load and minimizing the convenience of using the site as an illegal z y "leftturn'° by-pass;route, the redevelop of the site will reduce vehicle conflicts in the area. The p.m. peek hear operations at full development"worst case" conditions is expected i to be within the acceptable level of service limits at both the Pacific Highway (OW)/Greenburg Road and Greenburg/Center Street intersections. i, i ' l , n- r .Y iz—4; 7.t�/�a j! .,�'-ta� -! �4r i 9 .•'w.l[7 . C L`I�� l >r eo.bi El � U at '1 `7 t9 fi � �yr £y � � 0 CKS8ae9b ` � eErxts Si rR •+ r I a TAY EN aias S saa��-� AAAN.¢ws£ ' ,p`te QrfAa,•�.r O m lR Kart � �e�5'.i°'� •' era a e .. i,= ft tae `.. (" sr is3C�u m IAAfL sv su a aaa� IFEErFit- .. t .. "'` vk t•r \' ors:; OAK ewE ST xs <E 0 TA i ffi sPj aJ A <• AFLEctE.un^� at isvmaEK .w. Q l\ ! fua m TIC 1 1sccrs �s O \ eK t ssa .. mmmm ;«.W.7Nfaw k XV PROJECT SITE oc � ii- Q -� '�' `� ..ffla:4 K A , ST AiLSA4t fl a ! uAlOf<' A. U u .�- Ayq i v '•! dl>t. /{'E. l' "a Igar I�M.ES fr r aK•f" �•. � , es�es f _ 'Ii1K4��• ka(tEiE 'fes .p} r� 4 t((' a1 err l� •�, - EK Sd� a •(.a �� s tixn sg rY Bull Mtn 4�ta38 K +tipFl! >A.'4. YVb cT ill. S7 c+ - rDONA ,kRDLD ST . E 1 0 �roun � y 80Nf 7 A cl I� .d 4(9b.CCA R �r g imc W a ! J ['• W [r L_1 Rji )s" ..c.am 4 —T—T,ttl hm /�._._ I Fs ®4'Ei.ISi '-i IIAN I i -4'�t ap K-4 p YiV I' al 1. $-� i tib •-- '`-- -. a• Sl� a cn am s r Ir- .L-�'-'/ If eec +S{gE%f-S'e�i. / j � E '• i, C i { a59'. E3al9t¢PI _ CilAA C i`f w StiE 6sv£Lwn�rM R.nw A<vu..C—..Ta eo wn.TuwE rKTAn.maxci P.yl, alts g Engi!lee!? In r. r oxn sw r.+* 1+ �� FI -URE 2. SITE: PLAN N. I -7o ►o .40 CENTER ST. 'o 10 n rn rn C C) � 240 285 FiWY. 99 W. 1-70-70 830 _ w a ° 10 FiGUF3, X4STiNG TRAFFIC °,/C��_p WES (IN ��,�ssE��F� CAP, EQUIVALENTS) N. w CENTER S i. i c� Est -7S� m Z w C CJ ul 0 11) ` 8 65 � HWY. 99 W. 0 k P J t iN� v4 T -M.N r1G FIGURE 4. SITE GENERATED IRA1 FIC VOLUMES, N= -7Q O o 10 f0 p� CENTER ST. 20 co O O ' cn C; ' rn m Z . A 210 4 i2Z3 HWY. 99 W. 30 1?� ----------------- 10 —tO FIGURE S. T'RAFF1C VOLUMES W/DEVELOPMENT (CONVENIENT naaRKLT) WI lIN 1 i.:i1 < s f��Tcad A.C. PAXIII. y ' J 1 rs 2 5 0.2 Rp J/r r cCP W � 9 �j 16.' \ r 37' TRAFF 1 SIC?' CON-.. W;ll:;n �� \- _ � STD sGURE 6. REC(5—t1f �4FNL)F_ -) SITF PLAN MODIFICAI"101 S S V LJ L V e Vr 1 V CalculationForm 2 Design our ?'.�t.7'EAy _ f_ �S0b1 Staterraen Sfgp 1, Identify Lane Geometry, Step S. Develop Passearger Car Step 8. Step Sax. Wi Vr Approach.3 Volumes (PC Y) in pch C�kulate � Approach 3 Lane on (P �- RT- z(a Adjusted Volumes Volumes a 9 �y _ (2ocy foul Adjusted ' No. PCV tf'AraFtG !i `Z•' Ual (R-- m TH,- Mote PCV PCV of per -,L - Iev t- 2 t•- LT:= ?-95 merit (Step7) U W (U-W-PCV) Lancs -Lsne 2 CL tat 3t5 I ilS 0 NO Q n Aa A2 f335 2 668 a a _ 1.10 toTs� B3� I ISO Approach A LT- _TH _�_ 1r46n1>�-v` COd� or AT Step 2. Idenfify a7url v WofumesRT. to }� 'iPF 6' fx LEST 1fm3 Pv � Approach 4 (AApproach,�Q 3 RT z 2E15 4 jfor THom step 9b. Volume Signal Overlap sfs� CacclaEe Period Volumes � siLT s (PV) in pch Posble volume Adjusted rt "� Approach 5 PHF= 0.q0Probable Critical Carryover Criticalp O EA Pilau Volume to next Volume T= �u m o i rT�Ln� 1 AT- '� in pch phase in pch L�=_ T=.�. ..o. a . . w TH= �.. B4B2. l`lo 315 4 ¢ La p 2 r� LT- y 81 125 CPA,, im�fl 1' (r<Z) tZS oa_�._.� 545 o T s. r1 _ N LT 1 c A l AsL veJ IAZ� o Tri o oS L f� g 295 n a ZIG R7• ID # i ° ?3 FA` pproach 4 .a.r-..� < 8 1S &A Z!, �bCJ _ Sr-!P 3. lydexatify Phasing S'Ib PHF_ m.20 d pp Ty, Q Step 11}. Sum of Critical 62-�A4 C RT pproach a YolurrHes �� hf�2 ; .��, i✓4 Its e1,-as'"t A�$t aA$ step 7. 7"Urrx.Adjustments L2 _ s2,S B4 - 1:35 h Step 4. Left Turn Check Approach seep 11. Intersection.Level of Approach Mowment Service a.Number of t 2 3 �. Turn (compare Step.10 with Tabl^_6) _ehaage interals Turn volume p.,lOe.3- OPP(�Scp V�L= C-> DE ��ecrrhour tPgBP."C�. pgt, (PV from Step 6) b:lrft turn interval. Opposing vol.in. - in fhnate interval, v h from'.Ste 2 is role P�?rJ-CiPE'O`'E..b P P r.c/c fled:vol/hour Step 12. Recalculate RAU0 (',E—v wR)aS PCE LT from tP6-�.SEt�TLe,7t E..Oppteting volume .Table l '=seamttris:.t:hange -at vph [nr �l ...Left turn A` `�-r ��L.�. LT vol.in Pch `:ou"b A"T .Signal.Change pacier PCF RT RT from rmn,in*ph Fou,.)b 'Akk+5 Table 4 p��pPCC�T �'Volume.Change :prcity in vph RT vol.in pch b a G) 1)Y1t.�v�.L'=\ow : TH vel.in pch. Comments _ cir.turs,valuoee from Step.6 in vph 7oul PCV in—h - h,levalume >capac- itY(3)f)Y — `-WILSEY H;'all -- PO=TLi,NP,.. pF: EXISTING CONDITIONS GRN1/8/86 6 6b SfiEENfjtIRG RO:Lr G1'EE;li±FG ROAD '!1 I CENTER':STREET CENTER STREET AVERAGE WEEKDAY Pm PEAK 1486 VOLUME ALLOCATION TO :LANE- TF.'AFFIC ::LANE 1 LANE LANE - LANE 4 FROM L :. 5 R L $ F Lr• L' $ R --------- _------ --- --- a NORTH lir 1, 5tr it } it Yr it i {, EASTZCr 10 74-: it (r <, i, it i it Cr Ci ' SOUTH`' 10 460 6(1 4 O it cr `ir i� :ir fr. fr WEST it) 5 10 it fr it it i i) Q` (r LENS IGNAL I ZEE• TRAFFIC LANE I LANE " LANE LANE ,4 `'• NORTH' RESERVE CAPACITY 625 - --- LEVEL OF SERVICE A �lE1Gtt'CE.D :� E LOS<...a EAST RESERVE CAPACITY I«4 l 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE D t0� e(i3�tz0/+1 (1lzbo SOUTH RESERVE CAPACITY 67' Z9S +` 1p t Z11 + 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE F WEST RESERVE CAPACITY 1-4 LEVEL OF SERVICE D ' -f4AJOR STREET -.NORTH/SOUTH ILI iW a1 '1 e1vr v1/1 .:111 ! \1 tA1x' :71J. `J! i t tI \ t 1V1 x.�J ! st'v—, Calculation Farm "4WAS (19w) -RDAT-- Design Hour ',a►.P t� -?'roblem Statement w to P?-O Step 1. enfify Lane Geometry Step 5.1 ,develop Passenger Carr Step $ Calculate �. Approach 3 Volumes (PCs) in pch K— Approach 3 :: rLLY m —F-- RT- 2t0 A djusted Volumes Volumes � L IZ25A®jusscd wa Pcv � TH= 5 Mas- PCV PCV of per ?I _ __i Lancs Unc LT - — meht t5acp 7) U V! (U•Y!•PC4 m J 1 3115 O 190 1 aqo < a � A 9Z3 S Z. 46 < 21- 630 t Approach R LT;= 110 N�L)0� A3 B4,� 3$Q 1 350 TH= 30 v n Step 2, ldenty Ttoury,B olffrnes (b A3 Sas t t`i5 RT=—_ ?V) in Vph App—oac� "j ra Es AT t s1 ttss RTQtz � Appr�al-I.3 ,� ?T= 2GS _ A 9 TH, ;��Sy (Step . Calculate Period Vofcarracs SI ep �'b. Volume Adju tment for L& L�w7= � (PV) in pela Multiphase fume l OverLap J 0.90 Possible Volume Adlustcd Approach 3 PHF=—_ Probable Critical Carryover Critical Phase Volume to next Volume T.2.� -+{ �-�— -FIT X35 in 11h phase in pch rr\ ✓ 1-6 © T= o ti 4 " TH= 11�b0 l3 tyzj 365-tRf9(Tit) 1`tC3 E'Ii S2 CL AZa 80-tl5(Az) {ZS Y 5�y a� SS5 IVa T> T-14 ff $ _ C3 �1ZS(A�7 LB-� _ IL7 0. n _ a p ` �< A3&4 3g 3B Step 3, Identify Phasing S$ �PHF_0.90 a o '0 PA Ss 195 €9D of SII .'tr' CA Est !� �f"7 At....A3� LT= " ® TY-1 9?5 x rStep 1O.'Sum of Critical , '* }.l ex. �� a�A4 A2—A4 , RT- 110 P ro®ut.K. a ~. 'Volumes e.f–an 315 SSS . 360 . 1`15 Atijt 11�-� b3 Step T. burn Adjustments r3z ea�- = 14�G Pch Step 9, Left Turn Check Approach Stepll. Intersection Level of Approach Mosmcat Service t N.h'u=berof - Y .2 3 Turn .Q Aff•KCE .(compare Step 114,aith Tabic 6) chaogr intcrvatt Turn volume b.Lef Mrr hour �(PV from Step 6) NON-OPP05`eD y Mt turn eb pacify SE1�fSt2Aic t>a Opposing vol.in /(i` �' % to vcptM,ngrinterval, : :. vph from.Step c.Gr G.sGt.S-OPf'n:, L� Iled.vollhour c � .Step lZ. Recalculate sF.atiaPCE LT from d.C nposing ra11ume (,r.',•� iJt»S �. Table 1 QQ.ES�'t Gcometrie.Change.. invpb c. rft turn LT vol.in pch Signal Change petity on �?. .IST 1..-`� pC_RT from 1"',U ub A� rrzn,1n vph : Table a Volume Change �.--• tenor �s'�:..9" - C a'tt,i�j x:15 E)JjeoeF tOeJ Apacity in vph !a7 vol.In pch - ' +ei lJCi;^..S TIOI t TH vol.to pati Comments'n vph _ - '1, f;iurw.valun>c 1 (rom.Suptr _ ____ h•lt.. rix Sapap- Total PCV in:pch ci s x i s J April 22, '1986 To: Tigard City Council 'Members Re: Site Development Review (SDR 6-86) Variance V 5-86 Dear S `r/Madam: 1 'am a property owner of the above mentionedsite and wish the sale to igo, through according to our agreement with 'Gramore. DW husband served on the Lake Oswego City Council for 8 years and I appreciate your position in trying to 'do what is right for Tigard. As you may know, we have owned the site in guestionfor. approximately 30 years. In your deliberations, please consider the following: i) Gramore has already accepted the require- ments you have directed. r> 2) The use of the site is within C--G zoning. 3) We have lost tenants during the proceedings at a severe economic loss to our small partnership. The tenants left after your apparent approval upon` Gramore's acceptance of your terms. 4) We are unable to sell the property under any normal circumstances if you don't allow this transaction to be completed under terms set by Tigard that were ,accepted by Gramore. 5) If you determine that it is still necessary to turn the transaction down, then we believe we" have suffered a de-facto condemnation under eminent domain and Tigard should purchase the property. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, Laurie Goodell 'I'erguson 2061 Chandler Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 lgfj a Roil �CI'dd �S•13 I i I ILL 6 rd(SDFs\ 6-S6 V5 -sb) e d A lrN(rPrI°la(ria'rta(ttr ryr(ryt rll(rlr 1it]sp 1jTi1TT T� rlTft�r-� � II I e t r r•r ° 2 I 3 � � 0 �� °]. I Is_i ( °.� I�ri°l°IIIrIT�ir(al°j°ttlalrl°hlJfa)°Is;al°�a1°(al�rla(°I°�str(rraf°Iririr�r��(at° NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN 8 0 THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. O£ 62 9Z- LZ _.._ _ __ aaaa Z 9Z SZ bZ _£Z ZZ iZ OZ 6r Bt� LI 91 Sf' br EI Zt 11 O! 6 ® N°HIWMItI aar rm uu ualuu 9 910R __ A H , ..- - INDEX OF DRAWINGS •nalppnf b�•. r •Iwa,.... I . cp.plwe0lm.w orw lip r«••en.va.•e a1n•Irwrl m or" - + n•pAnA. 7 Sfte w n I wad.. Shaat< PLOT ...PL AN2. Au alwulan.KrM, wn Ir pw lnp r.ha bc.pr f IK.oA eeMrH•euro'«.Idw•In. All dl..n•Imw w:ro I M KI^el y II of 6 Plot Plan' -..'. - .. - r•.•w.m m»w•f•e.or eoncr.e•<welnp,aw•/ I ding . /2 of 6�.Grading and Drainage Plan crnl,q m wr.0 dl.•n.ion. ' .► '� r r 1 h /3 of 6 Street Prof l leS s. Alf•Nlelnp utlllq•Iw 11-..nd I.e•t Ion.•n•u w r•n n.d prior pot fi Sita Octal Is I. rn.Inl«ruon�etwn Is ewd pn nnr wnl.el• t 6 13 of 6 Landdeepe Plan pwlic r.e«d.. he.•I.-.I.lay v.rr• #6 of 6 Traffic Control/Pavement Marking Plan .nen m » e•rKred to mIn.n n.c.•.ry prat.for m• E+ I 4_1 •. coatr.crr r pl \ eoMwplel•d I1Mw an.. Onr.n•II eniY e• •• little}« n \ C n prw'Idlnp m•Bul ldf Pr.lt"to tn.epMr.ct«prior IV,'Ar hlf r I A Structure ea-f _ •Itn cpn•rru 1.. O : 1 /1 of 8 First Floor Plans, Schedules and Nates s. co-rrxrr encu e•per.,f«mor I.nK uvecrlvnlr+ttn •.�t. p.' ap•nln end omr,mmn acr«,rApjr•Inrpl+W+Itn 1 L }. ' p,• /2 of 8 Elevat Ions ). ,xtcr. cs mu +n.«=jM*o•Iso-r«,.mrn wol.rl of con.trYcrlon:rlrnl.•. L /3 of 8 Building Sections, Structural Detells end Schedules �• RIM=194.05 /4 of 8 Foundation end Roof Fraaing Plan end Structural Notes LE.=185.22 (6"G9> •/S of 8 Foundet Ion and Root Framing Pian, Structural Notes and Detail 11. Q.� Ary LE.-185.06 (8"NE) e, qnc P eiplArili co'�Krh i i•co'a•n.a d.ptnte"rvnan Y' t `� p�` - ' f• 16 of 6 60-illnute Tune Pit Details `� m / LE.- 184,85 (8"Nd) r«A nH+bl,crx w.rnw co.P-.to Met uprlw(T-,BUIL V of 8 x,60-Ninute Tune Foundation Details and Structural Details T. ul wll,rinq.r.vcnn•,pw.•.nr.wd Mn•.I ►8 of 8 Reflected Cell Ing endEleetr ictal PI eq and Sehedlae N wrn.e.nn.n roe. O • �, -\ E A ;,.� 93 r�r•e prl«ro OKlnn In 1ra ata L/' k, Henna ar M ch Ch fe \ ga d..F«•pMKnnle.l Inr••r lgsticn"Itn rK«•wnderl.n•r par,IN rwnd•- F_a^ r` rT ,1'__- ;_-_ /� _ \ on•M artA«h a......tns mnrrKt«,Fel mr.m end nw. �-, '� r Iy -• 11 of 2 Slab Pian and Setticn -- CENfERL INl'ERSECTION Im.1»•mpv or a r.p«t rr•p•rw , STA. X1401+00 (BOTH CENTER Sr. 12 of 2 Sections TNQ &GR RG RD.) L.P.Squ Nr Asim lero Inc. E' < tM 1 1 �lY • int• yi pH .25fdM Pldp•Pond VICINITYS . / L�?I0=l9 970M MAP F � - NEW 5' CU C. SID / 8"SS w rn lr wncq :'. aN AT PROPERTY L I.�All+orwIIln•+ork.e 1,ena'mn•rrucr Ian•MLI mn}«u to \ ,N BB 1M Bulw.P<rn end Pepin etlom f«Ntr$•rvlu•or tn.Tlprd - ver«al•t,lot. 2. All rtr xnice hrs fro tt•wtr 10 eM IKIudIB m.pr.•I s•. O .Ar to a In.r•I led pr m.mnwKt«. NF#r'CONC WiLEELCTIFfl)I RAAP S. All.•M s•rvip Im•'.nell M polYwn•yl•m pl rrlc.K 1160 p.,.l.. °j a0 1^ '�j «.ase•r1 a«n«•Inp to ILslpl Dma. 0 W � iy 7 \ w [EEILYAT'c_D ca 1. AI +Mr wrvha J Ims wst 0•Inid la IlicM.a..p mid IoM I ® I � \ 9 � �_,pr7.Y 1 \ •rtm rvw+wt.rel.•r«w•Imgn. SM•healrn r.pul Nl a.•quire 1nN.nw 1 1/2•En D n•G I } ♦ \0 NEW LONCR.•TE aIN / o - .. 1 \cd6 n. IY w IMre1I W m tna atr swi IIB fx 1.c«.e,n. Tn• 20, %W7 L AUONG P INE Wi�H jR / / «.rrW Ic.tlm I.Inald. M eutldlrg. ro HANDRAIL VARIABLE NKW�C. 0 0 B SEE G PLAN - 6 e'S ' ,N S / I /A9 a Am a.,a•Imre G 55yy T !/ ON •10 SAN s5p,-S C � a ( ' at Afd7PPERT' LI E7+I.LC I.Y All gnitrl,a.r pipe:nail or mrrvl r.Yl cn ..R•c(SDo-331, ror:ny'+o en.rKvlr »a<ASTwmo3.,.lm rmpr p•s+•t �9p0I Z .:.� � � � 41R8 TYPE 'C lolnl.. W r CUPB � It.':- A 1 ��..,'y'`'"' r�� 5 22, t / �yR 2. A•In lar gree•or 2 wr •wr o•,wlrteitid an rn..Im,ww. .,, TYPE/)'C m DEDICATION TO BE � Q 11J o /0 /__ - Q _ ��'� r r 3zi ,J;' •' e B��: ROVIDED TO CITY OF TIGARD 1` L N. NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL � .0 't,. Y ;.• / ALONG PROPERTY L},A�•.��WITH - HANDRAIL (HEIGH'L VARLFS- / '( ♦ ,1, ' / •� �rn l r4.+* '+� 1 -NEW LA1dD�APE AREA GRADING PLAN) g'>�-" : y' ..`-.an.; ` V "0 PER �'+ a• /TAPS AND/OR SERVICE LINES TO .; . - '+ METER BY TIGARD WATER DISTRICT slnc OFi EXI EXISTING DIa PF''rAIN / v -�OY�W t�E .` k yK / 6 MSN 6j 9 W m5 5� 1 , -y: l E IWJOCATm 7' To EY TIGARXETRDD WWA""&R 6 Q y T 5• .: r ' -i - A. 'gyp NEW 1 id+.T'ER ME1ER AND h]ETER BOX INSTALLED NEW FIRE HYD.ASSY. -- . �. I � WA DIST DISTRICT - oPPosIT'E wE;T•PRIPERT^• \ -.-.. "' _ B � GARS TeR Rlcr (9 C5 R ' CORt4ER(BY TIGARD WATER / / � '.+ Y s'„1lSdts B wlffe.131a,Ix RA]P - a i /�� / _ / µg� •- •� 1„ F / .. �' t '„2,�,- t- '_ -1 NaZv 6"CONC.APRON W/6'CODs=.CURB ON HfTiA SIDES POWER POLE �l-`I /'N 1X�''% • _ - �"Pj - I 4't� F'' •eaf^.X4 4 '- f .. �^ { 1'"+it7"�„ X S I I („•''FMURG ROADAS SHOM. . TO RE FLUSH WITH GRADE ON S.W. L TO REMAIN / / / 'k:fi". - F �,. 3txt t � J•5 r '" .•+. t ,a,.-`''ry"y- a �y4 {OL Y>EIF.E[L13?SR RAMP INSTALL GUARDRAIL I�/ Olyk"ch,. t b - RAre ,.r5 i ^'•{•• F. ' u t�,J; -.r "` .. It'`T`Cc-yq - aw LANDSCAPE AREA - - } TOP OF SLORD AILING N ,' / )" 20'n I T - 0.+C`fes. i,.: d „7.t `T .R 14= ,p 3'*jf• rrt / ( _ c PROP.LINE To SW'iR3- ,� .I ~ ..� ...18.5 �k .Wi ^yc Q .. j�. !. "*! L .y�. w °. ._k .,,a - - - z EAST PLOP. COR4ER Sr ./,�. ` �i s w "�, y "�. •`S ? h ti i AS SHaN. �.� dr `_ - /CAR W FI - '>✓B'mSr a '' 'y r> w „- s °� „,�M' ` 1 RIGHT HA*S TGRN LANE PER O.D.O.T. a . +y�- q/ / N n @ I _ 'kR ;r`s'3iv+' S X. e N (• p,. NZq ? A SIDS.WTT,3 R/W CATION AS SHCAN _EXTRUD Lam. / _--_- _-.- -I--- / ^�`�'+ ''-. *. ,`•tj„ � LANDSCAPE AREA / CONC.CU BIDID" lig SEE SP-c _NOT; n P� 185_ HYDRANT 3 _ PUL. 190 -. -�� H3a-L -�_ DTT'-- i`II•Y7 5•CONC.W.°.LS(6•CDAB. / U�< TO RF_M40195 . - .. •-•x• T _ � � /W. ..�.CURB'C' GJAFD FAIL TITER TYPE INSTALNL EW3 A[vTiCFFrfPAHV TR:RAI+P 5 AT ISLAND PER O.D.O.T. `.p - CENTERLINE DSPER=_IO*1 O 6"RAISED SOLID EDD LUDIC.WALK AT / �y SIDS.AS SHOWNSTP,-��+R rr:rnsNm FG RB�� V _ CONCRETE ISLAM DRLVExWY ENTFANCE. m Z =STA 20f00 ( W) PA E%'1F'ND CORE `+ HWY. 99• n E%LSTING EDGE OF / C!)P�n.10 NEW TRAFFIC 15IAVD PER - AS SHOWN r O.D.O.T. (RETAIN _ 198 Zx as IL o - INSTALL NEW eTARED END SECTIa\' GUARDRAIL, APPROX. 145'OF NEW FREESPANaIryG SITED \ AT GJP_RORAIL TERMINAL - GIARDRAIL.Dig IDNGER AFlOTI]PED \ GN-20'NIC;Ff, 100 S.F. (SEE sPECIAL NOTE 71 \C_ IMAN./FACE) \ \\ •. 3 FOG LICE \.. G].ARD RAIL - � \ � C � s . y� p /� /�'�� SPECIAL MTES - Q Tn. �® CODE.INFORMATION 1. CONTRAC OR SHALL PROTECT'EXISTING SIGNAL MIST AND POWER POLE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO 29ZIOU • \ SIGNAL � -� _ TD ANY DA1HlGE FROM CDNSTPDCTICN ACTIVITIES AND 4FIIlICULAR TRAFFIC. •• ® .5 .,'• ZOt/1TG: ` G^.GENERAL.CONERCIAL ;LOT AREA. 42.115.5 5 F.: - \ \ 2 B.4.SERYJLE:SWIG --• LANDSCAPING REQUIRED::; 1% -. 2. NEW"FLARED-ENC-GUARDRAIL SECTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE OF STD.DETAIL PROVIDED BY O.D.O.T. A SILCPER PaTHE C SHALL 8E N PORT(ANTED BY THE SIGNAL O CA�SSWASI2\ O M0fl! O 8.2 RETAIL/CAR MASE kANOSCAPING PROVIDED: 14.4% AND ATIIKIIEDD TO THE O.D.O.T. PERMIT. FIELD CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING GUARDRAIL TO BE DE.raLOPER TO THE CITY FOR RH7VV POISSON COt157AUCTl9t1 TYPE: VN LOT COYERR' 21.Dj','. z COOADII•1ATID W/O.D.O.T.FIELD E75PECJOR AS TO EXACT DETAIL OF THE INSTALLATION ASID TRANSITION OF THE WALK ALONG S.W.GREENBURG ROAD B PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS: - ;PARKING REQUIRED: To THE E%IsmNG GUARDRAIL SECTION. LYIIvG WITHIN THE SUBJECT SITE I9 \\ 1.1:.J. e .60-MINUTE UK 2.454 S.F. .60-M11%ITE,TIYE 3.STALL (1/500 S.F.)' 71EJAIL SERI'10E-Aw 2,100 5 F.' RETAIL/SEMICE it STALLS(1/400 S.F.): RETAIL/SERVICE"Be 2"250 5 F. - CAR MASH b OFFICE 3 STMLS(WIDO S.F.) - CAR NASH d OFFICE 2.040.S.F. -r TOTAL 211 STALLS .- LEGAL DESCR��-/-.s-�,A.� .. co TOTAL 8,644 S.F. ':. YGVvrV•IPT ilvl� _ PARKIHAIDIOVIDED .(H.C.J•' ^:• `{ ID15 1 2 3.-0.5.6.7.28,29,30c:3L,RD 32, AT7.4N,HiDESC 1 iCI10.S1CH.IIt 1ST tJ 717(OP 41 \ 1 SJAtLS ,.,.;140.�RpG1W ADII7 STM£OP$+&SDp1. R 1:7HAA.'P(8@.10b1.DE•SAID PJGI4ISFS 9IIk�"1D Rim •; �I 23,taa' E j STANDARD =17''S7ALL5 'STARE OE O�TBY AmO 186l:OCi!'215 TtIC;Ewr IQi BY tlOLV1W71Y 17f�S'.1Q31olIDCA AUGOSIT'9 1". '_I / \/ge A ` x��. STI!"S '07192,PAGE 341'%®R60B0�'SF [34. 1919 BOCaC;:181 PHL°E61,-2-,R 1 �Y r� va Tcra 21 ssJcks srAry I , i + __ _.... - -. _- •NDIE: ti ixss MLWFIIAd?o �IIIIPIpPpIIIrIIp Plrl��gr11 P�INP u�,Nuil�ifl 1(TJTf1L 111 rrJlu)r�gl•Ilnnngl I "::•:11'^:':•:ii:^i7•ri•lil r I p r JN 1,,I r 1 I I 1 1 1 r I I 1 I 1 I I I r I fp •ate l ---- -...- _-. .. -. '••-�•.•••m'••- •" - ( 9 1 ! I , 1 , 11 .( •Iii I Irl 1. II) III11 �III+II I�III�III�III�II ,. 2 3 4 - 5 6 7 B 9 0 it IVL Aff DRAv1Nc IS IESS CIEAR THAN 1x35 wit M.R IS DUE TO TK QUALM OF TIE OPIGINAL OE 62 92 112 92 52 0.2 52 ZZ IZ 02 e1-81 LI 01 Lf all EI 21 II OI 8 9 L B S b C 2 lye' In rm�llll�llllltllllll l�l INIINIIIIIIWIIIIII - _ ___ tlllyl�uU�aB1NH�tll MARCH 17 x11990 - l . CITY OF TIGA.a OREGON COUNCIL A2ENDA ITS SUI Y` OF': 12, AGENDA ITE BATE S€1 NITTTED: 198Fi �'�VIOUS ACTION: Formation Ordinance ISSUE/AGE Hm A TITLE: all 'BurnhaLID Edo ted December 16 1985 FormationQedinance PREPARED BY: Duane Rooerts REQUESTED RY: D$I't TPS t�"T PdEtd) C'r.: CITY ADHINI511��1t�1�: DEFAxaTaaa+ 1' ULM)axs.msasssssm:m�sam n2a�a;�masxsaxsa��as��m+san----ss.ssaoax:aa---assrsa�rsssmrcaffima��sa®ss�+�� POLICY ISSUE Shall the City contribute $40,000 to the Hall/Burnham LID? C mx�raaac�sxxsx�ffia.�aQmasassssess��m.w�xs�m�ssa��starenssacm;a.�ax��m�arsau�msarzaxnsffiazmac�aam:vcsuiaaazsmtassassamrsas�aaaaace asm NF Atta^ra is' a proposed ordinance authorizing a $40,000 City streets SDC contribution to'the ^"Hall/Burnham LID in payment for the extra-capacity vement width. This amount is benefits of a bus turn-out and additional pa in excess of the assessment against the City as a landowner within the LID. The ordinance 'forming the LID dial not address how'much the City would contr.;.r}ute toward the cost of this additional work. At its, Reg Meting of May 5, 1986, Council decided that the Citywillcontribute $40,000. SGS-------03----ffi.'Stffi-----lC�a7ffiffiS�Ra•C5CA4�R[SFC��SLtffinCS3fE�Y.Lf��ftS�3R98t�.—..SY9i1S R5@IIRAtB ii Mls-6t sale3 ALTERNA11VE5 ';QR3$IBEitca dinance and authorize Mayor and Deputy City 1, Approve-the proposed or Recorder to sign. 2. Take no action. E ravma.zu.ana.anmsammsms r . '\, :• �ucwoaessa9nsnssm.yam�sae�ai�s��asx�ncremxaame:an ssm�marasmmzassaaaaaaesysmax as aamwawia®ssm®mom SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the proposed ordinance. r� VMS IF (0�. CITY OF T IGARD., :OREGON COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF: i�ayV 1?, 1986 AGENDA ITEM .. e� DATE SUSP:I'T"TEi12 ` 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: City l h Councield a ISSUESAGEWDA TITLE; tsinal Order public hearing on this rtatter 4/28/85 for Landmark Ford Sian Code _ PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton REQUESTED BY: City Council � DEPARTMENT HEAD OK; �� ' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution to approve SCS 2-86? INFORMATION SU!yVARY A5 the April 28, 1316 City of Tigard ;City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed upon appeal a Planning commission denial of a Sian Code Exception request. The City Council voted unanimously -to `reverse the Planning Comimissipn denial and approve the Sign Code Exception with conditions. A' �i. resolution is attached for Council review and adoption. ALTER"NATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution reversing the Planning commission denial and approving the sign Code Exception with conditions, 2. 9odifg� the at resolution. SUGGESTED `ACTION Adapt the attached resolution reversing the Planning Commission denial avid approving the Sign Coda Exception with conditions. EAN bs7 S IM t/ r ;�yfiit►'v{fllir ftfifif rtfli`r Itflrtf air Ita {ii 1�7 1 1 f 1 T r 1 1 1 1 1 i fd<__: �, � �._ � � l I l ._ � TT4Tr�mT�t iP.i r i l►��.t l i T7 C i d ter{Ijiillfl��Pilitl�firlftf{°11Jill(ItTlftf1rtfllt'JfE'�IIIfOfllllll�fiflrlr�rtrlFys NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILFD DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' - THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO r.,. THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OFFE 6Z 8Z 'a 9z SZ t --EZ ZZ IZ 02 6t 81 t0 91 51bl 6i_ Zi !i 01—6 8 -g 5 b..__.e_ .--2 i C Yiti1811l01111111lIIIIIIIIItIfIJ�itf'U�III� ._ rMARCn Tl J.9-1990 v IL-�I mrmmlig'' II �IFru��lEi�l �1I �4MIND a Ihf, _s.-.:. . . <s?,�.•�I I MOI ISI®I®I I®i I�1�1 I®I�i�l I_I I�I �' , �. ... IIInIN■I nl■11111111■INI■i UN■I■11 4�=_' ��y`'/ `,j I�11d1!I In■I�111■11HIln■I Iln■IANIIII■IIHINI■I ■I ■ m181■IIIII� t /►, ■l�li I NMI IMiIi■IIININ■I �I ■1111181■Intl!!!■I ■Ilnllll■11 ■I ■Ii�IIN lilln■Inf�in■IIINili■lilffifl■l ■■I�IN�I ��'' �``' I■n�� ■llumeninflnl■lni181■IEUIR■IIIIIHI■11® I ■■I■HIH■I■■� ' ■ IIBN!■INIIIII■imimmim il■I■nnl■I®� I�®■I I� ■I ■IIIH■SInn1111N111111�■imiin■Im111■111818■I�� ON ■1 < . ■II811n■11111111■IlnilN■Ilnl® IINI�■I® ■Iminl■Im118■I■Nin■1118111■I�81111■Illlllli■IIIIIHI■11tH!!!■Inn® I�In■I■ -- �� ,�� • Ism_■hlfli■►1111111■III81n■I 111111■IIiIIIII■Illlilll■IIIIIIH■I�� HI■I�I■■Iml�■I ■ ' HI■i1111iN■IIHIIRS IIINIiI■Inummi 118!■Illlllli■IlHlln■I�® In■IIS®■Iml�■I ■ ■I s ■I11I■IIIIIIIII1111111n1n11111■Illi!! ' ■I ;. ,, ,r _. , , n■"ni1Ni■Iiifllll■II811n■lent■ 111■I 111■Iml�■I �..... ■Inlllll■IIIIIHI■IIHNI■lnillli■Illllin■!llnlll■IIIlilll■1181111■Inll� 1111■I NINI■Illlinl■I■N�■I X11181■IIH1111■IAlilliislA'lllll®Illi1111■11111111■111111l►��ii► 111�,lNiHf ifllllir'"�"�. : '".MINI■11�®■I s . . _ � s ■11111111■I WW i`►' 1111■111111111NIil1®IA111gA. �a� ��r li,•�� °* ��f 111®i!!'�r�i■11181N 11111■1111111fOI�111N1�1��1 . ■I ■iIIHI1■IImNI■1111f111■IIIli11r■IIr1111�■1 11111 1r11l1■:®ilii!!■1118111® ON ■IIfNI�i■IINIIII■IninliHIIHIIII■Ililflli■IIlllill■Illlllil®11111tH■IIHINI®�i II[llnr®i11i110�►11 1 ■�; --�� - ■IIINIl1■11111111■111 nl■Illfllii■IlnilN■II■�■I 101IIIN■,!ilii!!■!lift n■Ai!flit■;Ilflln■lllllfll■I■IIHi■ Illfll■Illlllli■1118111■I■HI■I ■IIHIIII■Lni1N■111111n■lAllliii■ilHi ii■1IIi1H1■Illlllli■111illil■IlniiN®1 illi■Ilfllul■lAlllin■11��■1 �I -'�� ' .. " , :.. ■1��11li1'z"�►�I�"'""'R��1"'til■IlNllil■liiillil■1..= u��1/1+�7N®1111181 n181■11!11111■l11111N■i1■NI■I ■(lilrlriMINO�li■liiiiiH�l11r1111■IIIiiIN■{ININI■1111ir1,■111f1in■IIn11N I IIH■Illliill■IlflllN■IliniN■1 ■I !' �1310! 1 • ■Ilii!111■inlln i■Iliiflll■IIf11111i1111 lir■1111111■Illlllli■IIHIIII■lent■� Hlll■II811N■1111181■ImIH1■I <-� .-�� ■Intl!!!MEMO 1■11in111■11111111111®11111®1� � �ml'full■I �yl■lent!!! HUMERI ll■11111111■Imlln■I ■I , -:r.. �, ■InNlll■Imlln■11f1f111■IliHil11111111®IIili1ll■i1l1Ni1■Ili«til■I IIIIU®I _i1N1.1�11111i®Iniilll■111uiii■I ` = - ■II811n■Intl!!!■1111!111■IINIIII■IIIlflll■11111N1■!I111H1iIIIIHI■1�11rii®I 11111■! ^ :�==�+sf11111■In'91n■I ■I■ ■Inlllli■Illlllli■11111111■IlllllliIlilliil■111ifN1®!if1flH■IIfl1111■Inlllll■i Illi!■Iliiillf■IlHilll■Illlllli■I '' -•�. - 1111111■11111111■IIIIIHI■Illiilli■fln 11■11111111■11111111Illiiill■Illlllli■I Iflfll■IIf1fIN■ilfll111■1111 ■ 111111■IIHIIII■fIn11N■I®1l11111�11 ®t®;®e�e� '��IIIf1111f Ili■1111!!6■"lilllli■111lIil■IIINiI■I IS ■Illfllll®11111111."111611■Illllll Ilrrlrl®liililli11i1 I1Pf111■l�llIH■INi1111®IA111�1 I i ■Illfilli■11111111■InI1N1■i11N111 Illlllli■1111111�N�1111111■IAllllll■II�11111■I■Illi!■'�"��-'!till!! ,Illlln■I ■Is. - Ii111I11�P� 1i11■I ■IINIIII■IIIllill■Iliiill IIIlllll imillil■1N11Il i1fIN11■Ililiiil■Illllill■I 11111■!111!!1 lliilll iliillll■1 Iilllili■111f[i_►.1■i�&1� --� " 9� ;il1f111 ilfllll■111[�_!i■Illlllli■I (1111■lllfllll ,111f11i■; I1Ni■l ■I a - '- ■11111111■liillo�9■!�I ��I �Illilll�lfllt ilHllil■11 t111■IIIc%�1i■Iilllill■i iii!■!Alli!!!■llliflil■Illillif■I ` 111111■lilllfll■IlNill 111H111 111111911■11111111■11111■Ill!^ !1■11111tH■Alli■Illflllln'11111l1■IINIIII■I *i 0a ■I ■IIHIIII.11111111®Illifill 1/111611 l�111 i11�I11 Iminim l�III1�I■c.9� _ --�!■IIIIIUI®11111111®111111!1®IIf1�11101sf!I[i1�! t