Loading...
City Council Packet - 03/16/1987 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA — CATV sign—up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available, MARCH 16, 1987, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start t g TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. o STUDY SESSION 6:30 PM � 1. REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 PM 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non—Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please) t y 3. COMMISSIONER ROGERS' PRESENTATION TO JOHN COOK o Commissioner Rogers 4. ZOA 7-86 HOME OCCUPATIONS FINAL ORDER — ORDINANCE NO. 87- 4 Community Development Director 5. TPI REPORT — CRUSIN' TIGARD '87 o TPI Members 6. PUBLIC HEARING — 135TH/MURRAY LID — PHASE III o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By City Engineer o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By City Engineer o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council 7. PUBLIC HEARING — TEMPORARY USE TU 4-86 — SCHMITZ MOBILE OFFICE o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council — Resolution No. 87—3� g. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING — SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 13-86 — LANDMARK FORD o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Appellants, Respondents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council — Resolution No. 87— COUNCIL AGENDA — MARCH 16, 1987 — PAGE 1 9. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 11-86 - PARK 217 o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council - Resolution No. 87-33 i 10. TMC AMENDMENT - PLUMBING CODE - ORDINANCE NO. 87- o Community Development Director 11. 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: 11.1 Approve Training Request - NW Regional City Managers Conference - Spokane, Washington - $155.00 11.2 Approve Board and Committee Appointments - Resolution No. 87- a. City Center Plan Task Force Committee b. Economic Development Committee C. Park Board d. Transportation Committee e. Utility and Franchise Committee 11.3 Approve Call For Street Vacation Public Hearing - 130th Avenue Resolution No. 87-3L-- 11 .4 Approve Training Request - Police Supervision of Critical Incidents - $500.00 �. 11.5 Approve Safety Town Insurance Rider 11.6 Receive and File: CIP Status Report - February 1987 i 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMENT lw/4551A COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 16, 1987 - PAGE 2 • • V I I T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 — 6:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Jerry Edwards, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; David Lehr, Chief of Police; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Randy Wooley, City Engineer; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recorder. 2. STUDY SESSION — 6:30 PM a. Council discussed ZOA 7-86 Home Occupations Final Order. There discussion regarding concern on the wording contained in the proposed ordinance. Consensus was to table this Agenda Item to April 20, 1987 to allow time for more detailed Council review and comment. b. Agenda Item No. 11.2 should be pulled and rescheduled to March 23, 1987. C. The evening's agenda was discussed in general with some suggestions as to hearing dates and clarification on several items. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. 3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON—AGENDA ITEMS a. Councilor Schwartz reported that he received communication from citizens concerning appeal of a variance and lot line adjustment for the area of Bond Park #3. This was requested to be considered under non—agenda items at the March 9, 1987 Council meeting. b. City Administrator reported there is a Resolution for Council consideration concerning the Economic Development Committee's changing role. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA — No one spoke. B. PRESENTATION TO FORMER MAYOR JOHN COOK a. Mayor Brian presented former Mayor John Cook with a gavel—mounted plaque. The gavel was used during Mayor Cook's term of office. 6. ZOA 7-86 HOME OCCUPATIONS FINAL ORDER a. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to continue this Agenda item to April 20, 1987. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 7. BOND PARK VARIANCE (V 29-86) AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (M14-86) APPEAL — WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION/BOND PARK #3 a. Consensus of Council was to rearrange agenda and discuss this item. Councilor Schwartz reported that he had been contacted by residents in the neighborhood. They asked Council to consider hearing this item. There was brief Council discussion. b. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, schedule a public hearing on this issue at the regularly scheduled Council meeting of April 20, 1987. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 8. TPI REPORT — CRUISIN'TIGARD 187 a. Chuck Martin, Chairman of Tigard Promotions, Inc. , was present to request liability insurance coverage to be added to the City's policy to cover the Cruisin' Tigard 187 activities scheduled for July 25, 1987. Tigard Promotions, Inc. will pay for the additional premium. b. Mayor Brian commended Tigard Promotions, Inc. for this activity. C. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, endorsing the activities of Cruisin' Tigard '87 and approving the addition of a liability rider to the City's policy with Tigard Promotions, Inc. , to pay the premium. Approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. 9. PUBLIC HEARING — 135TH/MURRAY LID — PHASE III a. Public Hearing Opened b. City Engineer summarized. Property owners have been notified of the hearing and of estimated assessments. A notice of the hearing has been published in the Tigard Times. C. Consultants Dave Sandstrom and Bob Meyer of Robert E. Meyer Consultants, Inc. were present. A project description and information sheet were available for review. Council received a copy of these pages. d. City Engineer reviewed the scope of the project and the assessment method proposed. e. City Engineer reported six letters of remonstrance had been received prior to the public hearing. The City Engineer will tally all remonstrances received with regard to percentage of property owners who object to the formation of the proposed LID. Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 f. Public Testimony Proponents o Norm Harker, representing property owner Benj Fran, 9370 S.W. Greenburg Road, Portland, OR 97223 testified that his firm is in favor of the proposed LID and encouraged the City to move ahead with improvements. i Opponents o Marilyn Winter, 11599 S.W. 134th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97224 testified that she is concerned with the City's contribution to the cost of the project. She is against the project as it is now proposed because of the cost to j the residents in the area. E o Russell A. Krueger, 1335 S.W. 66th Avenue, Portland Oregon 97225 is a property owner of a large portion of the area under this proposal. Mr. Krueger objects to the formation of the LID because of the costs he would incur. lie indicated in would be in favor heS.W. 135thAvenue improvements but not the proposed Murray levard improvements at this time. 1 o Scott Etzel, 11554 S.W. 133rd Place, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he is opposed to the formation of the proposed LID. lie questioned the scope of the project. 4 Mr. Etzel said a larger area should be asked to participate in these improvements (i.e. , Katherine Lane and the Fern Street area). o Mark Bonebrake, 13265 S.W. Falcon Rise, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he is opposed to the proposed LID. He questioned why Fern Street was excluded from participating in the LID. He noted he has not been satisfied with responses from City to questions raised on issues concerning the need for the LID. Mr. Bonebrake noted that the overall City responsiveness on safety issues has been unsatisfactory. 0 Roger Anderson, 10120 S.W. Kable, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified he was present to speak as legal counsel on behalf of Mrs. Etta Donivan, 11545 S.W. 135th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Mr. Anderson questioned several issues concerning the formation of the proposed LID; namely, the percentage of total value of properties in the area which have remonstrated, the assessment method (including the inability of his client to obtain Bancroft financing), the scope of the project (suggested Murray Road extension was premature), and the proposed method of acquiring right—of—way. Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 o Ed Forner, 11576 S.W. Sheffield Circle, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he would like to see an audit of the SDC funds already contributed by builders and/or property owners in the area. He suggested that there may be a ' larger share of the project which could be funded with the SDC funds contributed at the time building permits were issued. r : o Michael Burns, 13455 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he is opposed to the proposed Murray Road extension. He commented that S.W. 135th Avenue project should be limited to safety improvements only in order to keep costs at a minimum. o Marland Hopfer, Tax Lot 1300 1S1 35C (Box 390), Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he objects to the Murray Road extension portion of the proposed LID. g. City Engineer responded to questions raised during the public testimony: — In response to citizen input received last fall, the scope of the S.W. 135th Avenue improvements were modified. The street is now proposed to be developed as a minor collector. — Fern Street was not included in the proposed LID as they may be asked to participate in improvements for Walnut Street. ° — The types of tax funds which can be utilized for this project were outlined (i.e. , property taxes are not used). Safety issues are being addressed by City. A street light was erected two weeks ago on 135th Avenue. He noted that speed limits are controlled by the State; however, the City can request review. City Engineer reviewed the method used for assessment. The City is concerned about hardships to individual property owners and is willing to review options for legally resolving these problems. SDC funds paid by property owners in the area were roughly estimated to be around $200,000. COUNCIL RECESSED: 9:02 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED: 9:16 P.M. C Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 t t h. Council discussion and comments: o Councilor Johnson overviewed the City tax structure and utilization requirements of the different revenues received. She outlined the usage of SDC funds and what they must accomplish on a City—wide basis. Councilor Johnson advised if the Murray Road Extension is removed from the LID proposal as it now appears, the amount assessed per household will increase approximately $200. (Some major property owners would not participate as extensively if the Murray Road extension is deleted.) o Councilor Edwards recommended this issue be tabled for one week. This would allow time for staff to tally the number of remonstrances which would determine if further consideration can be given to this proposal. o Mayor further explained the assessment method proposed. He suggested the proposal be tabled for one week to allow ! time for research on the financing problems for the larger parcels of land. Options for these property owners should ` be explored. o Councilor Schwartz noted the history of the proposed LID `! with regard to costs. He said the scale of the original j proposal for S.W. 135th Avenue was reduced. Councilor ' Schwartz also commented on the lines drawn for participation in the LID and noted other roads which will need improvement in the future. i. Comments from citizens in audience included: o Herman White, 11935 S.W. Morning Hill Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223 said he could see no benefit that would be derived by the Murray Road extension at this time. o Mike Burns, 13455 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223 said that the overall consensus of the citizens at the meeting was that they were not interested in the Murray Road extension and the LID boundaries should be rearranged. j . Public Hearing Closed. k. Mayor commented that it appeared to be in order to table this proposal for one week for study of issues raised and for the calculation of the percentage of remonstrances received. 1. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to table this proposal to the March 23, 1987 Council meeting. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 10. PUBLIC HEARING - TEMPORARY USE TU 4-86 - SCHMITZ MOBILE OFFICE a. Public Hearing Opened b. Community Development Director summarized. The applicant requests approval of a one-year extension of Temporary Use permit TU 4-86 which allowed placement of a 980 square foot mobile office trailer on property zoned CBD (Central Business District) . The applicant has satisfied all conditions of approval and has documented a search for a new business location in Tigard. C. Public Testimony Proponents o Dennis Schmitz, President of Tigard Electric, Inc. , 10950 S.W. Fairhaven Way was present to answer questions from the Council. Mayor asked Mr. Schmitz if it would be possible for the applicant to remove some of the vegetation creating sight obstruction for traffic. Mr. Schmitz indicated there are no objections to this request. d. Community Development Director recommended the adoption of a resolution granting the extension of the temporary use for one-year. e. Public Hearing Closed f. RESOLUTION NO. 87-32 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY USE EXTENSION APPROVAL REQUESTED BY TIGARD ELECTRIC, FILE NUMBER TU 4-86, APPROVING THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. (TIGARD ELECTRIC TU 4-86, EXTENSION). g. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Resolution No. 87-32. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 11. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 13-86 - LANDMARK FORD a. Public Hearing Opened b. Senior Planner Liden summarized. On May 12, 1986, the City Council approved SCE 2-86 subject to conditions including the removal of all off-premise signs. The signs were not removed and the applicant was told the remove the signs or apply for a Sign Code Exception. In early communications with the applicant, a Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1987 permit for one off—premise direction sign was discussed. However, the applicant later submitted this application to maintain three of the existing temporary signs. The Sign Code Exception application to keep three of the four existing signs was denied by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1987 (SCE/13-86) . This decision has been appealed for Council review. C. Public Testimony Proponents o Geraldine Ball, NPO 04 Chairperson, 11515 S.W.91st Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that NPO #4 voted unanimously in favor for approval of this Sign Code Exception. Mrs. Ball noted safety conditions which should be considered with regard to the nearby freeway ramp (lacks directional signage) . O Jim Corliss, Landmark Ford, 12000 S.W. 66th Avenue (P.O. Box 23970), Tigard, Oregon 97223-0138 said the Planning Commission denial of this request was handed down because of the amount of time which had lapsed since the expiration of the previous sign code exception time period. Mr. Corliss advised that these signs are needed because of the lack of signage provided by the State for directions to the freeway entrance nearby. o Ferd Wardin, Gateway Ford, 21510 S.W. Johnson Road, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he is in favor of the extension of the Sign Code Exception due to safety considerations. d. Senior Planner Liden recommended that the Planning Commission's decision of denial be upheld. e. Council discussion followed. Consensus of Council was that due to safety factors, sign code exception continuation would be appropriate. Councilor Eadon expressed concern that Planning Commission based their decision on conditions of approval previously set forth by City Council. Mr. Corliss advised Councilor Eadon of their contacts with staff and the circumstances surrounding this request for the Sign Code Exception. Mayor Brian also commented that Planning Commission interpreted the Council's prior decision correctly and noted that the Commission's decision was based upon their parameters of authority. He expressed the hope that the State would soon be able to provide the necessary directional signs. f. Public Hearing Closed Page 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 g. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Schwartz to grant the appeal extending Sign Code Exception SCE 13-86 with the condition that the signs are to be removed by September 1, 1987; staff was directed to prepare resolution reflecting this Council action for consideration at the March 23, 1987 Council meeting. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. h. Mayor requested staff to prepare memorandum to the Planning Commission concerning the Council's decision for approving this request. 12. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 11-86 - PARK 217 a. Public Hearing Opened b. Senior Planner Liden summarized. On January 20, 1987, the Planning Commission approved the above application subject to conditions. The Commission approved the replacement of the existing free standing sign on Highway 217, but did not approve any dimensions that exceed Code standards. The applicant has appealed the Commission's decision and the proposal has been modified slightly. A memorandum from Senior Planner Liden, dated March 6, 1987 explained the sign proposal and Code provisions; the applicant's appeal; Commission decision, transcript and minutes; staff report; and included a revised drawing supplied by the applicant. Photographs of the proposed sign were submitted. C. Public Testimony Proponents o Rick Fuson, Heath Sign Company, testified that he is in favor of this request for sign code exception. o Mark Rockwell, Trammell Crow Company, testified he is in favor of this sign code exception and outlined the request for increased sign size and height. He said the proposed sign will be tastefully done and of benefit to the merchants in the Park. C. Community Development Director recommended favorable consideration of this request. d. Public Hearing Closed. e. RESOLUTION NO. 87-33 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION CROW-SP ECK E R-HOS FORD #67 (SCE 11-86) I Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1987 f. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to approve Resolution No. 87-33. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 13. TMC AMENDMENT - PLUMBING CODE - ORDINANCE NO. 87-11 a. Community Development Director summarized. The City adopted has adopted previous editions of the State of Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code to retain jurisdiction over plumbing code enforcement. This code has been revised and updated by the State of Oregon and needs to be incorporated in the Tigard Municipal Code. b. ORDINANCE NO. 87-11 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 14.08 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT BY ADOPTING THE 1987 EDITION OF THE STATE OF OREGON PLUMBING SPECIALTY CODE. C. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johson, to adopt Ordinance No. 87-11. Adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present. 14. 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 by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to: 14.1 Approve Training Request - NW Regional City Managers Conference - Spokane, Washington - $155.00 14.2 Approve Call For Street Vacation Public Hearing - 130th Avenue - Resolution No. 87-34 14.3 Approve Training Request - Police Supervision of Critical Incidents - $500.00 - Reduced from 4 people to 2 per Council consensus. 14.4 Approve Safety Town Insurance Rider 14.5 Receive and File: CIP Status Report - February 1987 Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 15. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 12.1 Council discussed proposed resolution concerning role of Economic Development Committee. Council consensus was to consider on this resolution on March 23, 1987 after the Economic Development Commission has met met and had opportunity to review/comment on the proposed resolution. Page 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1987 : 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:02 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and review Executive Officer. 17. ADJOURNMENT — 12:10 a.m. c Deputy Recorde�— Ci�tyof�Tigard ATTEST: Mayor — City of Tigard CW/4551A C° Page 10 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 16, 1987 TIMES PUSLISHINC COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 NO @ BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 7-6 9 7 5 Legal Notice Advertising QFC o City of Tigard o ❑ Tearsheet Notice o PO Box 23397 • Ili' Tigard, O r 97223 13 Duplicate Affidavit C/f�,QF 19e� o • r/c,�w_ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 1, Anne Jean , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I amthe /dvertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T i g a r d Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the — eity Geeneil 3/ 1-6- a / 1-6a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the #� entire issue of said newspaper for successive and consecutive in the following issues: March 12, 1987 Subscribed a swom to b ore me this 7 ha Nb1hry Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 19-20-88 AFFIDAVIT ue.sr _ tdan T.P. t ¢ 77 I "�iS 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 87-11 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 14.08 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT BY ADOPTING THE 1987 EDITION OF THE STATE OF OREGON PLUMBING SPECIALTY CODE. STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 87-11 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated March copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 1 '"day of , 1987. r. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon ,a' Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this Q0-t1 day of •••> Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 14.08 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT BY ADOPTING THE 1987 EDITION OF THE STATE OF OREGON PLUMBING SPECIALTY CODE. WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Title 14, Section .08 is no longer consistent with State statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain the Tigard Municipal Code Title 14, Section .08 consistent with State statutes. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 14.08 of the Tigard Municipal code is repealed. Section 2: The 1987 "Plumbing Code Ordinance," attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, shall be adopted as Section 14.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 16th day of _Maroh , 1987. Lar-een-R.r-W,i-1-9en -Gi+r Reeei dei Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This 16th day of March 1987. p lit-mss•--- Thomas M. Brian, Mayor BR:cn/0818W ORDINANCE NO. 87— Page 1 a EXHIBIT "A" PLUMBING CODE ORDINANCE Section 1: Title. This ordinance shall be known as the Plumbing Code Ordinance and may also be referred to herein as "this ordinance" or the "plumbing code." Section 2: State Code Adopted. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the State of Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code, 1987, based on the 1985 Edition of Uniform Plumbing Code, published by the International Conference of Building Official, is adopted as the plumbing code of the City of Tigard and shall be in force and effect as part of the Tigard Municipal Code. Section 3: Violation; Penalties; Remedies. A. No person shall cause any plumbing work to be done on any building or structure within the City, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of this ordinance. B. Violation of a provision of this ordinance constitutes a Class 1 Civil Infraction and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Civil Infractions Ordinance, Ordinance No. 86-20. C. Each day that a violation of a provision of this ordinance exists C, constitutes a separate violation. D. Notwithstanding the other remedies in this ordinance, if the building official determines that any plumbing work on any building or any structure poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, he may order the work halted and the building or structure vacated pending further action by the City and its legal counsel. E. The penalties and remedies provided in this section are- not exclusive and are in addition to other penalties and remedies available under city ordinance or state statute. BR:cn/0818W PLUMBING CODE ORDINANCE t t 2 VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 3/16/87 i AGENDA ITEM#_ lease i (limited to 2 minutes or less, p on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council Please sign agenda, but asks that you is wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the to resole your concerns through staff. Please contact the City first try Thank you. C Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED NAME & ADDRESS C C.. DATE March 16, 1987 ' I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING —135TH/MURRAY LID Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Gr( n w"c\Vjr' I\55 ck >J (A AIM* -N-1 )25 •tel � �Fl l'tA VoarlVAN Y-e,v1-4e-' •ej L/ R, Aj^dersu vy- Mi c Vot4tvtAei 115-1-6- 5w 13 t`—AVC e11-S-76S•�/ S Q e G'i.�c� c"AR Su 2-'j V34SS S IIQ W2t-r-rA-v i 'n(2 :•Tk0A,Rk-:> y DATE March 16, 1987 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: ` AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 PUBLIC HEARING — TEMPORARY USE — TU 4-86 SCHMITZ MOBILE OFFICE Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Krf.,Lc'-L-2 �'- I,.,r'�— O �' W DATE March 16, 1987 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 PUBLIC HEARING — SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) ` Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation \lGa C6i , d' /N LL-- S► ) cv ilk G�vG 6G�G�1GLf C 9. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 11-86 - PARK 217 o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination j o Recommendation By Community Development Director o uncil Questions Or Comments o Pu is Hearing Closed o Consi eration By Council - Resolution No. 87- 10. TMC AMENDMENT PLUMBING CODE - ORDINANCE NO. 87- 0 Community velopment Director 11: CONSENT AGENDA: Th se items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request. that an item be remove by motion; for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 11.1 Approve Training Requ st - NW Regional City Managers-Conference - _ .Spokane, Washington - $ 5.00 11.2 Approve Board and Commi,tt a Appointments - Resolution No. 87- a. City Center Plan Task rce Committee b. Economic Development Com ittee c. . Park Board d. Transportation Committee e. Utility and Franchise Commit ee 11.3 Approve Call For 'Street Vacation Public Hearing - 130th Avenue - Resolution No. 87- 11.4 Approve Training Request - Poli a Supervision of Critical Incidents - TSOO.00 11.5 Approve Safety Town Insurance Rider 11.6 Receive and File: CIP Status Report - Fe ruary 1987 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will o into Executive Session under- the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), , (h) & (i) to discuss labor relations, . real- property- transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and .review Executive Officer. .14. ADJOURNMENT lw/4551A COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 16, 1987 - PAGE 2 i MARCH 16, 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET CONTENTS o Agenda Item 5 - Letter to Chuck Martin from William Monahan regarding Cruisin' Tigard o Agenda Item 6 - Letter from Lynda D. Bell regarding 135th LID o Agenda Item 12.1 - Non-Agenda Item - Appeal of Variance V 29-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86 - Waverly Construction/ Bond Park #3 o Agenda Item 12. - Non-Agenda Item - Economic Development Committee Resolution Establishing Membership Criteria o Council Mail: Council Study Sessions City Administration Review Process 3 b ;k Ll CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 _ DATE SUBMITTED: February 17, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ZOA 7-86 Home Occupations recommendation on 12/2/86; public hear- in s on 12/15/86 and 1/26/87 PREPARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart F' DEPT HEAD OK.1,410MITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY At its regular meeting on January 26, 1987, the Council discussed Zone Ordinance Amendment - Home Occupations (ZOA 7-86) which had been recommended by the Planning Commission for approval. The new ordinance incorporates the following changes as per Council directive: 1) deletion of Type I and Type II home occupation categories; 2) deletion of home parties from the list of exemptions; 3) provides a list of additional restrictions available to the Director which can be imposed on a case-by-case basis; 4) allows the use of a detached accessory building in conjunction with a home occupation only if certain dimensional, Accessory Use and Building Code standards are met; 5) deletion of paid associates, customers and clients provisions; 6) allows small signage for home occupations in commercial and industrial zoning districts; 7) specifically exempts babysitters from home occupation permit requirements, and 8) clarifies "grandfathered" uses. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve ZOA 7-86 as amended per Council directive. 2. Approve ZOA 7-86 with modifications. 3. Deny ZOA 7-86. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Approve ZOA 7-86 as amended per Council directive and authorize adoption of the attached ordinance. 2693P MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council February 17, 1987 FROM: Deborah A. Stuart, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ZOA 7-86 Home Occupations The following summarizes all changes made to the draft home occupation ordinance recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and subsequently amended by the Council on January 26, 1987. 1. Deletion of Type I and Type II Home Occupation categories. All references, approval criteria and procedures relating to Type I and Type II home occupations have been deleted. The status quo has been maintained in that home occupations of varying intensities will follow the same procedures and have the same approval criteria. No public hearings will be held. 2. Deletion of home parties from list of exemptions. By removing home party operators from the exempted list, they must obtain home occupation permits and City business tax certificates. The Director can stipulate that the parties must be held at homes other than that of the operator and at what frequency per location and at any one location. 3. Additional restrictions in Section 18. 142.055 This list was retained to allow the Director flexibility in granting home occupations with individualized conditions of approval in response to neighborhood concerns or the nature of the business. 4. Accessory buildings Now all home occupations will be allowed to use up to 500 square feet of a detached accessory building as part of the 25 percent maximum imposed on the allowable floor area to be used for the business. The word "existing" was removed to avoid circumstances where an accessory building is planned or in construction. As a result of deleting the Type II permit category, no public hearing will be available for those situations where an accessory building has been located closer to property lines than allowed or where the operator may be creating noise. 5. Deletion of paid associates, customers, and clients provisions Under the provisions of this new ordinance, no paid associates, clients or customers will be allowed to visit the home occupation residence. A standard for frequency of deliveries has been retained. 6. Signage in Commercial and Industrial zones Small freestanding and wall signs will be allowed for home occupations in commercial and industrial zones. No signage or other identification will be allowed in residential zoning districts. 7. Exemption of babysitters from home occupation permit requirements Babysitters are now specifically exempted in Section 18.142.020 from home occupation permit requirements. The old ordinance only listed garage sales as the only exemption. 8. "Grandfathered" uses A new section 18.142.045 has been added to address those situations where 1) a legal home occupation use is/has been annexed into the City or 2) a legal use located inside city limits in a residential, commercial or industrial zoning district without prior City approval. The burden of proof rests upon the property owner or tenant to prove a nonconforming status as per Chapter 18.132 (nonconforming situations) of the Code. 2693P t OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 817 - BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS l condition of a shop. OR the name of another person working In the shop (3) In granting a variance, the Board may impose who Is sufficiently familiar with the Board's safety i certain conditions which it deems necessary to and sanitation rules and licensing requirements to protect the health and safety of the public. be able to represent the shop when the Board is inpecting it. Issuance of Shop Licenses (a) If the person who manages or oversees the 817-20-005 The Administrator of the Board may business operations of a shop is iOT a certified Issue a shop license of hair design, cosmetology or practitioner, he or she must appoint a certified { manicure or any combination thereof providing that practitioner to supervise the actual performance of the applicant: services in the shop. (b) If hair design Is practiced in the shop,the (a) Has applied for and received an assumed practitioner who supervises the performance of business name before applying for a license (unless services in the shop must have a certificate in hair the shop Is to do business under the full name of design. the owner); (c) A practitioner who is actively engaged in (b) Applies to the Board and pays the required performing services is limited to the supervision of fee; only one shop at a time. (c) Designates the area of practice on the floor (8) Comply with the rules of the Board plan Included in the shop application; and concerning health, safety, and sanitation pursuant (d) Complies with all applicable rules and to ORS 690.055(1)(c). regulations of the Board and other state agencies. (9) If application is made for a shop license I within a premises housing one or more other { Criteria For A Shop separately licensed shops, clearly define the 817-20-011 Each shop license applicant shall : applicant's space by marking or physical separation (1) Be at least 18 years of age, as required in from the other licensed shop(s) space(s). The ORS 690.055 (1)(a). marking or physical separation shall be shown or (2) Apply on a form approved by the Board. otherwise described on a plan submitted with the (3) If the shop Is In a rural or an Isolated application. area, provide a map or directions for locating the (10) The cleanliness and sanitation of any shop. common area of separately licensed shops in one (4) If the shop is in a basement or above the premises Is the responsibility of each license first floor of a building, meet the specifications holder on that premises and any violation found in of Uniform Building Code Section 3303 relating to the common area will be cited against all shop exits and fire standards. licenses posted on the premises. r��„"'(71.. (f fFi9•,_. p,...ts ...In _6—home—' tiave an identlfying-'1iouse`7itkfier or Criterla for Operating a Shop ;= vsrofi�`rrbi�"Th-�' i'66r"a�m' Tndtcar.:.Stw-iocetion 8117-20-012 Each shop owner she Iof : j (1) Allow a board Inspector to Inspect the shop t'>!T"Tirie-­aa within a home operated as a shop`, when it is open for business. must be equipped with the facilities and equipment,. (2) Inform every practitionr who starts to work which the Board requires for all shops. ` in that shop that he or she must notify the Board, (b) A hone shop shall have an entry that is within 30 days, that he or she is working in that separate from the entry to the home. The living i 5 Y 9 shop, gluing the Board his or her full name, � area of the home shall be separated from the shop by ; practitioner certiticate number and address. i wails extending from floor to ceiling, with any connecting doors kept closed while the shop is in Posting of Licenses And Inspection Certificates actual tionn�as��required in ORS 690.205(2). 817-20-013 (1) All shop licenses shall be posted (6) Pay the appfle�??arYfea;" f in public view. (7) Post in a publicly visible location on the (2) All Inspection certificates shall be posted shop promises EITHER the name and certificate number In public view. of the certified practitioner who regularly (3) All practitioners# certificates shall ba supervises the performances of services In the shop posted in public view. A practitioner may block out ��uF1sT FE: E�i'T t I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87— AN ORDIANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE — HOME OCCUPATIONS (ZOA 7-86) WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implemertation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the planning staff made recommendation of findings to the City of Tigard Planning Commission at three public hearings on October 7, October 21st, and November 18, 1986; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of ZOA 7-86 at its regular meeting on December 2, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes on December 15, 1986, January 26, and March 16, 1987. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added is UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted is shown in [BRACKETS]. Section 2: That this Ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1987. Loreen R. Wilson, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1987• Thomas M. Brian, Mayor DAS:bs2693P ORDINANCE NO. 87— Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" 18.142 HOME OCCUPATIONS 18.142.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this Chapter to regulate home occupations in residential commercial and industrial zones in a manner that will ensure that the use is: (1) A secondary, lawful use to the primary residential use of the premises upon which they are found, and (2) Not disruptive on the residential area. The purpose of this Chapter is also to: 1) permit residents of the community a choice in the use of theirhomes as a place of livelihood and the production or supplementing of personal income and family income; and 2) establish criteria and development standards for home occupations conducted in dwelling units and accessory structures in residential commercial and industrial zones. The standards contained in this Chapter are intended to assure that home occupations will be compatible and consistent with the residential uses and will not have a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties, and the neighboring residents. HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 1 The standards contained in this Cha ter are intended to romote the efficient ' s and facilities b assurin these services are rovided use of public service to the residential o ulation for which the were Tanned and constructed rather than for commercial or industrial uses. No person shall carr on a home occu ation or Perm—it such use to occur on propert which that erson owns or is in lawful control of contrar to the- rovisions of this ordinance and without first obtainin or insuring- that there has been obtained a ermit for such use in the manner rovided b this Chapter where a permit is-reguired. of this Cha ter to re ulate hobbies. A home occupation It is not the intent is to be geared ultimately towards financial gain. �' 18 142 020 Exemptions (a) Garage sales [are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter.] (b) Sale of produce or other food products grown on the premises_ Lcj Not-for-profithobbies. Bab sitters as defined in Section 18.42.020(a)(11) of the Code. Proven nonconforming uses (see Section 18.142.045 below). 18.142.030 Administration and Approval Process (a) The applicant of a home occupation proposal shall be the occupant of the property. C� HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 - PAGE 2 For a sin le home occu ation carried on at two or more Ti and residences one 'oint business tax a lication shall be re wired but each business artner must a 1 for a se arate home occupation permit. c A Pre-Application Conference with City staff is required in accordance with Section 18.32.040. UO3 3 (d) Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local �( ) policy, -information given by staff to the applicant during the is valid for not more than 6 months. Pre-Application Conference (1) Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any application is submitted 6 months after the Pre-Application. (2) Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria or requirements of the application. [(d)] The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for a home occupation. The Director shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18.142.050 of this Chapter when reviewing an application for a home occupation. [(e)3 Notice of the Director's decision shall be given as provided by 18.32.120. The decision of the approval authority may be appealed in accordance with Sections 18.32.310(x); -86 - PAGE 3 HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7 i Violation of the provisions of this Chapter constitutes a Class I Civil Infraction and shall be enforced as provided in Section 5 04 180 of the Tigard Municipal Code. 18.142.035 Permit Renewal — Applicability (a) Home occupation permits issued under the provisions. of this Code shall expire after one year and an application for renewal of the permit . shall be filed with the City• to continue lawful operation of the home occupation business. The permit renewal application shall be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 18.142.040 of this Code. (b) Home occupation permits which received approval prior to November, 1983 but may be nonconforming as defined in [Section d1►eftre MIS2- 18.132.090(d)(1)] or t, lection 18.142.045 shall be` renewed annually. The permit renewal application shall be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section Q} 18.142.040 of this Code. (c) Home occupation businesses which existed without a valid Home Occupation permit prior to November, 1983 shall apply for a Home Occupation permit under the provisions of Chapter 18.142. The original permit shall be valid for one year and shall be renewed annually prior to the expiration date under the provisions of Section 18.142.040. C HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 4 18.142.040 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time Revocation (a) Approval of a home occupation by the Director shall be effective for a one-year period. (b) The Director- shall renew the permit upon: (1) Application and payment of a fee by the applicant; (2) Finding that: (A) All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied; (B) There has been no change in the original application approved by the Director; (C) There have been no changes in the facts or applicable policies on which the approval was based; (D) The applicable approval criteria in 18.142.050 are satisfied. ' The applicant certifies that he/she is complying with the conditions of approval and agrees to comply in the future. (c) The Director shall give notice of the rencwal as provided by 18.32.120 [and] only in the case where a real or alleged violation has been reported to the Planning Division. [t]The decision may be appealed as provided by 18.32.310(a). [(c)] (d) The Director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by the original home C- occupation permit or the most recent renewal. [Section 18.32.250(f).] HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 - PAGE 5 [(d)] (e) A Home Occupation Permit shall become invalid: (1) should the property on which the original Home Occupation Permit was based be sold or legally transferred to a family member who is iot a resident of the home, or (2) if the applicant moves his residence. -18.142.045 — Nonconforming Home Occupations - Two types of uses may be granted nonconforming status by the City: 1. Legal uses under County authority prior to annexation to the City which have been in continuous operation and which have been or would have been found to meet the County's requirements; 2. Legal uses approved by the City may continue until the use is expanded or altered so as to increase the level of non—compliance with the present City Code. % Such a status is governed by the regulations contained in Chapter _18.132 (NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS) of this Code The burden of proving a nonconforming status which preserves nonconforming rights rests with the property owner or tenant. 18 142.050 Approval Criteria Issuance of a Home Occupation Permit shall be allowed only for those home occupations which can successfully meet all of the following approval criteria, without exception. (a) The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by the C occupants of the dwellings; HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 6 (b) The Home Occupation shall be operated [entirely within]: [(1) The dwelling unit and the use and the storage of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area.] Entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure. The use and storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined gross floor area and the total area used in the accessory building shall not exceed 500 square feet. Any accessory building that is used must meet Uniform Building Code requirements and be in conformance with 18.144 of the Code. Variances to the accessory use requirements may be applied for as per Section 18.134 of the Code. More than one home occupation shall be allowed on any one Y property only if the combined floor space usage of both home occupations do not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the dwelling as calculated in subsection (1) above. (c) The home occupation shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the [house] residence as a dwelling; (d) In residential zoning districts, there shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation; no exterior signs shall be used; no other on—site advertising visible from the exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use except [of] the address of the home occupation may be displayed; —86 PAGE 7 HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7 — •-S b Home occupations in commercial and industrial zoning districts may be permitted to erect a freestanding sign with a total of eight (8) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height. Total signage for walls shall not exceed four (4) square feet. Such signs require a City sign permit as stipulated in Section_ 18.114.020 of the Code. [(e)] There shall be no outdoor storage or display of materials, _ vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire., Health and Housing. Codes. The applicant shall be required to obtain approval from the relevant Fire District prior to storage of any flammable or hazardous materials on the property. [(f)] Sg], The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales. [(g)] (h) The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the property necessitating customer traffic to the residence. [(h)] The home occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, [or] electrical interference, heat, (detectable to normal sensory perception outside the structure), traffic and discharge of materials, gases or fluids into the sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems which are either in excess of what is normally associated with residential uses or which exceed the performance standards set forth in C. Section 18.90 of this Code. HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 8 ((i)] ja There shall be no other paid employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwelling; [(j)] M The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. Thereshall be no more than three deliveries er week to the residence by suppliers. a The home occu ation shall not produce n noise or obnoxious odors vibrations lare fumes electrical interference heat and discharge of materials', gases or fluids into the sanitary sewer or storm draina e systems which are either in excess of what is normally associated with residential uses or which exceed the performance standards set forth in Section 18.90 of this Code. ti 18.142.055 Additional Requirements for a Home Occupation, The Director may .,impose conditions on the a roval of a Home occu ation Permit which he finds are necessar to assure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity. These conditions Nay include but are not limited to the following: M Limiting the hours, days, place and manner_of operation. J21 Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise vibration air pollution, glarg, odor and dust. �. A U3 Requiring additional setback areas lot area or lot depth or width. HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 9 Limiting the areal extent of the home occupation use and location on the site. Designating the size number, location and design of vehicle access points. Requiring street right—of--way to be free of vehicles at all times. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and surfacing of parking- and arkinand loading areas. Limiting the extent and type of interior or exterior building remodeling. Limiting or setting standards for the location and intensity of outdoor lighting. 10 Requiring berming, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance. 11 Requiring and designating the size height, location and materials for fences. 12 Requiring the protection and preservation of existing tree1.s, soils, vegetation, watercourse, habitat areas and drainage areas. 13 Limiting the type and number of vehicles or equipment to be parked or stored on the site. 14 Limiting the number of visitors customers and/or deliveries to be allowed to go to the site. 15 Any other limitations which the Director considers to be necessary or desirable to make the use comply with the purposes stated in 18.142.050. HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 10 18.142.060 Approval and Compliance for a Business CLicensel Tax Certificate No business [license] tax certificate will be issued for a home occupation until the home occupation application is approved and the applicant certifies that the home occupation will be operated in strict compliance with the provisions of the Chapter and the conditions of approval.- 18.142.070 Time Limit and Revocation (a) The Director may approve a home occupation application subject to a specific time period at the termination of which there shall be a renewal application to determine if all of the conditions and provisions of this Chapter have been satisfied. The permit shall be renewed if all of the conditions have been satisfied. (b) The Director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by the original home occupation permit or the most recent renewal permit. [Section 18.32.250.] (c) Failure to pay the annual renewal fee shall result in the assessment of additional five dollars ($5.00) processing fee if paid within thirty (30) days after the due date; or revocation of the home occupation permit if not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date. HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 11 18.142.080 Application Submission Requirements (a) An application shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: (1) One copy [Three copies] of the applicant's statement or narrative which explains how the proposal -conforms to the standards in 18.142.050. (2) A list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 250 [100] feet of the site. (3) The required fee. (4Z One plot plan of the property. One floor plan of all structures on the property. L661 One title transfer instrument. M One assessor's map. L81 The application form. 9� Property owner's signature(s) or written authorization. OTHER RELATED REVISIONS 18.26.030 Home Occupations. A home occupation exists when a dwelling unit in a residential, commercial or industrial zone is used for a for—profit business purpose. See Chapter 18.142. 18.42.020(a)(8) Children's Day Care. Refers to services or facilities authorized, certified or licensed by the State for children's day care of six (6) or more children at any one time for a period not to exceed twelve (12) hours per day with or without compensation. See 18.42.020(a)(11). HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 12 18.42.020(a)(11) Babysitting Service. Refers to daycare services for children if the id directly by the parent or legal guardian or compensation therefore is pa if the service is provided without any com ensation in either the home of the parent or guardian or the home of the babysitter. A babysitting service provides for care for not more than five children for eight or more hours in a 24—hour period and the service may be provided for not more than four other ("part—time") children for not more than three consecutive hours in a 24—hour period. No more than a total of nine children including the babvsitter's children can be present at any one time Variation from the above constitutes a day care facility. See 18.42.020(a)(8). 2693P/0043P HOME OCCUPATIONS ZOA 7-86 — PAGE 13 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 9, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A Tigard Promotions, Inc. , July 25, 1987 PREPARED BY: Doris Harti DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Tigard Promotions, Inc. POLICY ISSUE The City has allowed special non—profit groups to be named on their liability policy for specific community events. INFORMATION SUMMARY A request has been received for liability insurance coverage to be added to the City's policy to cover the Cruisin' Tigard '87 activities to be held July 25, 1987. The activities are similar to last year. The Committee will make a presentation to Council on March 16, 1987. Tigard Promotions, Inc. , will pay for the additional premium. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve request, 2. Deny request, 3. Committee presentation to consider request. FISCAL IMPACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Council Action: Motion to approve the addition of a liability rider to the City's policy and Tigard Promotions, Inc. , to pay the premium. dc:1321p C_ A TIGARD PROMOTIONS INC. ����r� P.O.Box 230391 Tigard,Oregon 97223 roott ns F Ince G' March 6, 1987 Honorable Tom Brian, Tigard Promotion Inc. requests of the Tigard City Council permission to obtain an insurance rider on the City policy through Leonard Adams Insurance to host Crusin Tigard '87. With the rising cost of liability insurance, we would not be able to host this event without the help of the City . L. Respectfully, Chuck Martin President 5 March 10, 1987 Chuck Martin, Chairman CITYOFT'OARD Tigard Promotions, Inc. OREGON Reference: Cruisin' Tigard 25 Years of Service 1961-1986 Dear Chuck: I recently read the Tigard Times article of February 25 which noted that Cruisin Tigard will be held on July 25 this year. It brought to mind several coordination concerns which I hope that we can address early to avoid last minutes problems. As in past years, TPI will need to apply for and receive a temporary use permit from the Planning Division. Contact in early June is suggested. We also need to know the names and addresses of businesses which will be coming to Tigard for the event. They will be required to pay a City business tax. Please make sure that all businesses are informed in advance of this requirement. Last year several potential participants claimed that they were not advised of this until the City notified them just before the event. To avoid confusion, please provide the operators of potential booths with City business tax applications. A sample is enclosed, others may be obtained from Jayne White of the Planning Division, 639-4171 ext. 356. Other concerns voiced by my staff are: 1. Main Street Traffic Markings - Steve Rivett of the Operation Division should be contacted regarding any street markings, barricades, and traffic cones needed. He is at 639-4171, ext. 336. 2. Parking - within the temporary use permit, parking plans must be addressed. 3. Clean up - post event cleanup has not been a problem, however, we need to coordinate again. 4. General Coordination - any other concerns which relate to planning, codes enforcement, streets, parks, noise, and permits should be raised early with staff to avoid surprises. Thank you for your cooperation now and in past years. The City looks forward to working with you on another successful festival. Sincerel William A. Monahan .Director, Ccsoiunity Development _WAMsb*0901W cc-: Bob -Jean,-.City Administrator 13125 SW Hail BtVCL PO.:Boa 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)539-4171 (D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 135th Avenue/ PREVIOUS ACTION: MurrayBlvd. LID — Phase 3 PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Public hearing on formation of the LID. INFORMATION SUMMARY March 16th is the date set for a public hearing on the formation of the 135th Avenue/Murray Blvd. LID. Property owners have been notified of the hearing and of estimated assessments. A notice of the hearing has been published in the Tigard Times. Because some of the LID property lies outside the City, County approval of the LID will be required prior to adoption of the formation ordinance. At the public hearing, staff and consultants will review the project proposal previously presented in the Preliminary Engineering Report. Following the public hearing, if Council wishes to proceed with the LID formation, Council should direct that a formation ordinance be prepared. The ordinance adoption is scheduled for Council consideration on March 23rd. _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Following the public hearing: 1. Direct that a formation ordinance be prepared, or 2. Revise the LID proposal and set a new hearing date, or 3. Abandon the LID. FISCAL IMPACT As proposed, approximately $206,000 of Streets SDC funds will pay for a portion of the project costs. The estimated LID cost is $1,862,000. SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Direct that an ordinance be prepared for the LID formation. RRW:cn/3016P MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bob Jean, City Administrator / March 2, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, P.E. , City Enginee SUBJECT: 135th Avenue/Murray Blvd. , L.I.D. On February 23rd Russ Krueger spoke to the Council and requested City participation in "extra capacity" costs of the LID. "Extra capacity" is defined as the extra pavement width and pavement thickness required for collector streets and not required for local streets. The Preliminary Engineering Report estimates the "extra capacity" cost as follows: 135th Avenue $176,000 Murray Blvd. 95,0 TOTAL $271,000 (NOTE: These figures assume that the City will pay for the Summer Creek bridge. My 2-11-87 report was based on LID funding of the bridge and, hence, had a slightly higher "extra capacity" estimate which included the extra bridge width) . The SDC fund is already expected to pay approximately $206,000 of the project costs. SDC will pay for the bridge and any intersection improvement cost on Scholls Ferry Road. If "extra capacity" costs are also paid by SDC, the total SDC cost would be $477,000. This would probably mean no new street CIP projects elsewhere in the City this next year. SDC payment of "extra capacity" cost would appear to be contrary to the policies which the Council has outlined for the sharing of the street improvement costs between property owners and the City. Therefore, I have recommended that "extra capacity" cost not be borne by SDC. RRW:b53021P LIVENOOOD OHLSON AND COMPANYe INC March 2, 1987 City Recorder CITY OF TIC,ARD 13125 ST: Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Cam ents arding 135th Ave./Murray Blvd. Imnrovement District: 1. Lighting/Traffic Signal at 135th & Scholls_ Ferry: This is an improvement which is long overdue. The increased traffic flag in this area makes it im- perative that this construction take place at once. Ns a homeaamer in the area ftminghill 1) , I would fully support an improvement district to pay the costs of this construction. 2. SW 135th Street Impro;tl ts: There is currently no foot traffic on this street. The construction of sidewalks is unnecessary. There is no "point A to point B" that would be covered on .foot on this street. Each neighborhood in this area has its own sidewalks for walking and jogging. I would liken a sidewalk on 135th to putting sidewalks on Scholls Ferrv, something that is not necessary considering the rural character of the area. I .feel street lighting to fall into the same category, since there is not now any foot traffic in this area. 3. New Brie at Su mer, Creek: Why? In living in the area 4+ years, I have only once noticed any standing water on the roaduray (after an extremely heavy rain fal.1T. Surely this is a high cost item that in all practicality, does not really need to be constructed. Thank you for your including my comments with other property ewners regarding this hearing. Sincerely, 1&4A..k lug4w-,, Mark W. Ohlson 13130 SW Falcon Rise Tigard 646-5940 ADVERTISING&PUBLIC RELATIONS 1201 S.W.12TI:AVENUE • SUITE 205 • PORTLAND.OREGON 97205 503/225-0437 LX March 4, 1987 Mr. Robert Jean City Manager City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Murray Boulevard Extension Gentlemen: I am the owner of the property located between New Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue in Tigard. I have granted an option to Russell A. Krueger, to purchase this property from me. I understand that the City of Tigard has plans to form a local improvement district to construct an extension of Murray Boulevard, through my property. I have just recently been advised by Mr. Krueger that the estimated cost of construction and for the local improvement district, for the Murray Boulevard extension is $639,000.00. I do not want a $639,000.00 obligation against my property. Consequently, please consider this letter as notice that I will not consent to the formation of a local improvement district for construction of an extension of Murray Boulevard through my property, nor will I agree to a dedication of my property for the road right-of-way. Very truly yours, Margery F. Crist Route 1, Box 793 Beaverton, Oregon 97007 U/r 0—� •••y � Q.e c l.J 3�I la(�7 AA&, and � �iyyt2EL L!D �'f" �C�CB�auu�j G(>�cc� cuc.LF, � -N2�u9� U7Pi lUdUl�— � YL) Ua� foLm�j aAa . it a"� � ? Whv, �0 cicsw � fhe� L't L? fp6AA2, U D h-ao i7,a+ -tA, kewuo 5 fi,,,/fU M ur-ra� &.rkA.a-(�IJo tvcu, ao 4hA'� �- � October 29,1986 To Fellow Property Owners of the Proposed Local Improvement District (LID): DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU MAY BE ASSESSED UP TO $14.00 IF THE FORMATION OF THE PROPOSED LID IS APPROVED IN PRESENT FORM? It would provide for roadway i� mprovemenTon S.W. 135th Avenue between Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street as well as an extension of Murray Boulevard- to 135th Avenue at Walnut Street. The estimated cost is $1.7 million as of October, 1986. �4 At the informal meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 1986, the City advised us that when you purchased your property in the proposed LID area, the developer/builder may have neglected to inform you that you would be faced with these assessments. In addition, your right to vote for or against road improvements on 135th Avenue would be waived. On a brighter note - the City will consider and accept our comments - thus this letter. Under the proposed LID, the following improvements would be made: 1. Widening of 135th Avenue from a two lane to a three lane road between Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street 2. Adding sidewalks on both sides of 135th Avenue as well as a bike path 3. Adding a Murray Boulevard extension from Walnut Street to Old Scholls Ferry Road. `•- The safety and traffic volume requirements on 135th Avenue and Murray Boulevard make improvements necessary. However, please consider these questions: 1. Why should 135th Avenue be widened to three lanes complete with sidewalks and bike path? No other Tigard street aside from ti Pacific Highway is over two lanes. 2. Why should we pay for improvements that would greatly benefit the surrounding communities of Beaverton, King City, etc. , with the extension of Murray Boulevard and upgrading of 135th Avenue? 3. Why should these improvements be made when they don't even provide for a traffic light at 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road? This safety measure will not take place for three to four years. 4. What has happened to the increased property tax revenues from within this LID which have been generated with conversion of low tax rate farm land to higher rate residential areas? The City Engineer has asked for homeowner's input on this matter. If you would like answers to the questions raised above or have others of your own, please make your views and suggestions known by calling or writin Randy Wooley, City Engineer, PO Box 23397, Tigard, OR, 97223 (639-4171• A map of the proposed LID is available through the City of Tigard. Also, please attend the November 17th City Council meeting to voice your concerns on this matter. THE BOTTOM LINE: WHY SHOULD A SELECT GROUP OF STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL TAXPAYERS BE ADDITIONALLY ASSESSED FOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT THE ENTIRE COUNTY? SAXON, MARQUOIT & BERTONI Cl� ATTURNINS AT LANG 430 PACIPIc BUILDING 520 S.W. YAMHILL STREET p PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 C C; /�• W v v� TELEPHONE: (503) 243-2035 KENNETH W. SAXON JAMES T. MARQUOIT March 13, 1987 GARY B. BERTONI City Recorder City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Notice of Public Hearing 135th Avenue/Murray Blvd. L.I.D. Dear Sir/Madam: This firm represents: Lucinda Grabhorn Rt. 1 Box 844 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Mrs. Grabhorn is the owner of tax lot no. iSl 33A 00300. Mrs. Grabhorn objects to the formation of the L. I.D. since her farm property would not be benefitted. a Please record her remonstrance. 1 Very truly yours, James T. M oit JTM:law cc: Bert Grabhorn i Re Ce�-..-. 3JIM �iml frl f GEHEE cc: Roi,u� Guo� BUILDER 3-/6- B, aTy od Tica20 Cf fly EN6N� 4MP( wooer✓ TiIE 159ruaE1 �F 6o3wgo AcdApU13 hla Su6Div1fj bF lhE is 60 ons ,PFC-0 !D AS o�Oo� in/C. TE O�oGoSED � o�qG >mO�vE/�J�T 96vb. rclovlvp AND �ce WeP lb I5 C,frr( 6bF� 1�a March 16, 1987 d J City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ATTN: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer RE: 135th Avenue/Murray Boulevard L. I.D. Dear Mr. Wocley: r After reviewing your letter dated February 27, 1987 and meeting with you for more detailed information concerning the above referenced L. I.D. , we object to the formation of the L. I. D. as proposed. i Our objections are as follows: i 1. Your letter states that "properties abutting the proposed improvements and all subdivisions which will have access primarily from 135th Avenue or Murray Boulevard" will pay the total cost of the improvements. You make no mention of the residents who use 135th and who live South of Walnut St. and Southwest of 135th. These residents (owners) need to be included in riot only the cost of these improvements, but also need to be aware of the future impact these improvements will bring. 2. The Murray Blvd. extension that is included in the proposed L. I.D. , is obviously part of a much larger plan to route traffic from Aloha and Beaverton through Tigard and eventually onto 99W. You tell us that by including this Murray Blvd. extension in the L. I.D. , it will bring down the cost of improvements to 135th for the residents. Who makes the determination of "Major" or "Minor Connector?" 135th can remain a "Minor Connector" as it is today: providing residents access to and from Scholls Ferry Rd. and their homes. 3. "Major Connector" vs. "Minor Connector": The only reason, as we see it, to designate 135th as a "Major Connector" is to route heavy traffic beyond the immediate area. By keeping 135th a "Minor Connector" it will keep heavy traffic away from the area and will simply continue to be used by local residents for access to and from their homes. We believe it is more a case of the residents helping the owner and/or developer of the unimproved property West of 135th defray his cost of the L. I.D. , rather than the other way around. 4 f Page 2 4. Again, residents surrounding the new subdivisions who will definately be impacted in the future by further improvements and thus more traffic need to be included in these discussions. We are willing to pay for that which we have wanted from the beginning: improvements to 135th including the unimproved portion of Walnut St. , as a "Minor Connector. " Has anyone submitted plans for just that? Sincerely, Lawrence H. Snyder Carol M. Snyder 13315 S.W. Chimney Ridge Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 Lynda D. Ben 13370 S. W. Brittany Drive ; { 'Tigard, Oregon 97112 March 6, 1987 City Recorder, City of 'Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: 135th Avenue/Murray Boulevard/Scholls Ferry L.I.D. I am the owner of the property at 13370 S.W. Brittany Drive, also known as Tax Lot No. 1S1 33DC 06300. This letter is my formal written remonstrance against the proposed Murray/135th/Scholls L.I.D. for the following reasons: I am a single taxpayer, and this is my first home. When I purchased the property over a year ago, there was no mention of the possibility that I might be subjected to costs such as these for this type of project. The assessment you propose would create a great burden on already tight finances. I fully agree that. 135th needs to be repaired. I have already been subjected to needless car repairs because of the poor quality of the road. However, I think that road maintenance is the responsibility of the City and/or County, and would like to know where the taxes I pay for such maintenance are going if not for this type of thing. I also can't believe that simply paving 135th properly would cost more per capita to the adjacent residents than the Scholls/Murry project you propose. I don't think 135th needs to be made into a super highway with bike paths. (Even with proper lighting and paving, it would still be a dangerous place to encourage bike riding.) The 135th and Scholls Ferry intersection (known locally as "suicide curve") is tremendously dangerous. I'm sure you are aware, there have been several serious accidents there. I nearly had an accident myself last winter while trying to turn left from Scholls to 135th. I missed the road entirely — it simply disappeui e.: in the dark, foggy rain — I ran my car into the right shoulder embankment and was nearly hit by a car coming from Old Scholls Ferry. I also don't think that our relatively small area of homeowners should bear the burden of paying for the suggested improvements to Scholls Ferry, when the people living in the much more expensive areas like Summer Lake, for example, and have as much access to it as we do, won't have to pay anything. The changes you propose will encourage even more Washington County residents to use Scholls Ferry because of the access to 217 and Washington Square. Since the City of Tigard may now have the tax revenues from Washington Square, I think the City, as well as the County, should be more responsible to help make the area safe for the increased amount of traffic. Sincerely, Alt- Lynda D. Bell Robert E r Consultants,Inc CITY OF TIOARD PROJECT DESCRIPTION 135TH / - MURRAY LID ® ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 19862,000 C ® ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION THE ESTIMATED LID ASSESSMENT FOR EACH PARCEL OF PROPERTY WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICULAR TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PARCEL, BASED UPON ITS LAND USE ZONING. PARCELS WHICH FRONT 135TH AVENUE AND MURRAY BOULEVARD MAY BE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS BASED ON FRONT FOOTAGE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS. • ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT / LOT $890 TYPICAL SUBDIVISION LOT • QUESTIONS REFER QUESTIONS TO THE CITY OF TIGARD, ENGINEER'S OFFICE, PHONE NUMBER - 639-4171. .;'.REM • ' C111r"' I .. .1 • ■OIL men ��1111�■� • 11• ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) 1. WHAT IS THE PROJECT SCHEDULE? If the local improvement district is formed in March, preparation of detailed construction plans will begin immediately. Our goal will be to start construction by August so that paving can be completed before winter. Some construction items, such as street lighting, usually require more time and may not be completed until spring of 1988. 2. WHEN WILL I HAVE TO PAY MY ASSESSMENT? After all construction is completed and final costs are known, you will be notified of your final assessment. A public hearing will be held to review any objections to the final assessment roll. The hearing will probably occur in the summer of 1988. Following the public hearing, property owners will be billed for their final assessment amounts. At that time you can either pay the full assessment or apply for Bancroft bonding. Under Bancroft bonding, property owners can pay the assessment over an extended period. Bancroft payments are subject to interest and administrative fees. The interest rate and repayment period will depend on the City's ability to sell bonds at the time. In recent times the payment period has typically been 10 years. Under Bancroft bonding, payments mould be quarterly beginning approximately 3-months after the final assessment hearing. Special conditions may apply if your property is" classified as farm land by the ( County Assessor. 3'. HOW MUCH IS THE CITY PAYING? City street funds will pay for a new 135th Avenue bridge at Summer Creek. City, State and County funds will be paying for intersection improvements at Scholls Ferry Road. City street funds have reduced the costs to the LID by about 10%. Traffic signals along Scholls Ferry Road will be funded by City. County, and state sources as needed and are not an expense of the LID. 4. v8 SEPARATE L.I.D.'S BEEN CONSIDERED FOR HURRAY BLVD. AND FOR 135th? The Preliminary Engineering Report estimated costs for separate LID's. Formation of separate LID's would increase assessments for properties along 135th Avenue and decrease assessments for properties along Murray Boulevard. T'a►e City Council chose a combined LID as a more equitable way of spreading the assessment costs. S. WHERE CAN I SEE A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT? A copy is available for public reference at the Engineering counter in City Hall. in addition, several copies are available at the Tigard Library and may be checked out to read at home. 6. THMENGINEERING REPORT IS RATHER TgICK AND TECHNICAL. IS THERE SOMEPLACE ELSE TO GET MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED? CFor additional information, please call 639-4171 and ask for the City Engineer. The switchboard is open 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays except 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays. BRW:cn/0775W TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR 135th/HURRAY L.I.D. Winter, 1986-87 - Preliminary Engineering March, 1987 Public Hearing & L.I.D. Formation Spring, 1987 Preparation of detailed construction plans Summer - Fall, 1987 Construction Spring, 1988 Complete,street lighting (" Summer, 1988 Hearing on final assessment roll Fall, 1988 -' Begin quarterly payments (For property owners who choose Bancroft bonding). - 0775W "7 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 5, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Temporary Use PREVIOUS ACTION: Public hearings on 4-86 (Extension) July 9 and August 11, 1986 PREPARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a one—year extension of Temporary Use permit TU 4-86 which allowed placement of a 980 sq. ft. mobile office trailer on property zoned CBD (Central Business District) . The applicant has satisfied all conditions of approval and has documented a search for a new business location in Tigard. Attached is a resolution for Council adoption. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 . Adopted the attached resolution. 2. Adopt the attached resolution with modifications. 3. Deny the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution. DAS:cn/3031P i AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT MARCH 16, 1987 — 7:00 P.M. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Temporary Use 4-86 (Extension) REQUEST: For a one—year extension of a Temporary Use Permit which permitted a mobile office trailer on a .51 acre site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONING DESIGNATION: Central Business District APPLICANT: Tigard Electric OWNER: Ronald & Dorothy Schmitz 8720 SW Burnham Route 3 Box 272S Tigard, OR 97223 Sherwood, OR 97140 LOCATION: 8720 SW Burnham (WCTM 2S1 2DA, lot 200) 2. Background Information In September, 1977, a Site Development Review (SDR 24-77) was approved with conditions for Morrison Electric Company (the applicant). The owner of record has remained the same. The request was for property own the review er a Seco square foot office—warehouse as a two—phase to consist of 1,920 square feet of warehouse and project. Phase Z was space (currently on site). Phase II was to 520 square feet of office consist of 7,350 square feet of leasing space. One of the eight conditions required that Phase II be subject to architectural design review. On July 9, 1986, the Council voted to deny the temporary use application for a mobile home and Resolution 86-68 was signed by the Mayor on June 23, 1986. On July 14,hearing bander requested vas rehea of rngd Electric appeared at the public Council voted in favor of the rehearing. A new hearing wa3 held on August 11, 1986. Council voted in favor of thehe expiration date as temResolution 86-96 twtFebruary for was sign d by formerMayorCook on 1986 August 25, 198 1986. C STAFF REPORT — TU 4-86 (EXTENSION) — PAGE 1 3. Vicinity Information Properties to the south, west, and north are all zoned CBD (Central Business District) . Properties to the east on the opposite side of Hall Blvd. are all zoned I-L (Light Industrial) . 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject parcel is .51 acres in size. Presently there is a 2,400 square foot building on the site of which approximately 50 percent of the floor area is devoted to warehousing and another 50 percent is devoted to office use. Also on the site is a 980 square foot mobile home which is used entirely as office space. Approximately 30-37 parking spaces are provided. The mobile home represents an expansion of 21.3 percent of the original floor space. The applicant has cleared some vegetation at the intersection of SW Hall and Burnham Streets which was a requirement of the original temporary use permit. The parking lot has been re-paved and for the most part remains without striping. The temporary structure has been connected to City sewer and an occupancy permit has been issued as required. A second driveway apron has been added directly on the northeast corner at the intersection of the two streets. 'The parking lot pavement and access drive were separate non-required changes done independently by the property owners. A second very large trailer has been placed on the property behind the small residence. It apparently is not being used for any purpose buL is being stored on the site. The applicant requests a one-year extension of the original temporary use permit. The applicant states that the mobile home is necessary due to the inability of the owner to expand the present leased building. Tigard Electric is looking for property to purchase so that a new facility can be constructed. The applicant states that the company would suffer greatly should this request be denied due to a lack of office space. The applicant states that it is unknown at this time whether a relocation will occur within six months to one year. A total of eleven properties are cited as evidence that the applicant is indeed searching for a new business location in Tigard. 5. Agency and NPO Comments_ The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the proposal. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: 1. Ultimate development of this property will necessitate the closure of the recently-created access drive onto Hall Blvd. C. STAFF REPORT - TU 4-96 (EXTENSION) - PAGE 2 2. As noted within the City Council's last decision, right—of—way dedications, half—street improvements and sight distance improvements are more appropriately placed upon Site Development Review applicants. Improvements to the Hall/Burnham intersection are currently controlled by the State and Federal Highway Administration due to the current signalization project. Any proposed conditions by the Council relating to such public improvements will require review and approval by these agencies. 3. A previous condition of approval imposed by Council dealt with vision clearance as discussed in Code section 18.102. This relates to the "sight—triangle" at the intersection of Burnham/Hall only. The sight distance problem near the curve is a separate issue. Proper sight distance here would probably require the removal of most vegetation, trees and shrubs east and north of the existing house. The Tualatin Rural Fire District has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: For a temporary structure, the maximum time that will be allowed by the Fire District is one year on the extension. After that time the trailer must be removed. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criterial for this case are contained in Chapter 18.140 of the Community Development code. The Planning Staff concludes that the relevant portions of the Community Development Code are satisfied based upon the findings noted below: 1. Chapter 18.140 states that the following criteria must be satisfied in order to approve a temporary use for a mobile home in a Commercial or Industrial zone: (A) The need for use is the direct result of a casualty loss, such as fire, windstorm, flood or other severe damage by the elements to a preexisting structure or facility previously oocupied by the applicant on the premises for which the permit is sought; or (B) The applicant has been evicted within sixty days of the date of the application from a preexisting occupancy of the premises for which the permit is sought as a result of condemnation proceedings by a public authority, or eviction by abatement of nuisance proceedings, or by determination of a public body or court having jurisdiction that the continued occupancy of the facilities previously occupied C ' constitutes a nuisance or is unsafe for continued use; or STAFF REPORT — TU 4-85 (EXTENSION) — PAGE 3 44,i (C) There has been a loss of leasehold occupancy rights by the applicant due to unforeseeable circumstances or other hardship beyond the foresight and control of the applicant; and (D) There exists adequate and safe ingress and egress when combined with the other uses of the property; as required by 18.108 Access and 18.102 Clear Vision. (E) There exists adequate parking for the customers of the temporary use as required by 18.106 Off—Street Parking; (F) The use will not result in congestion on adequate streets; (G) The use will pose no hazard to pedestrians in the area of the use; (H) The use will not create adverse off—site impacts including i noise, odors, vibrations, glare, or lights which will affect the adjoining uses in a manner which other uses allowed outright in the zone would not affect the adjoining k uses." a. The proposal meets the requirements for adequate parking, congestion, pedestrian hazards and off—site impacts. K b. The newly created access drive is quite hazardous and does not meet the Code requirement that access drives be located at a ® minimum of 30 feet from all intersections. ` C. Section 18.140.060(c)(1)(A) states that the need for the mobile home must be the direct result of a casualty loss. A change in the financial picture for a business could well be construed as a casualty loss because the business is unable to construct according to previous plans. The applicant has indeed demonstrated Tigard Electric's efforts to find a new location for the business in Tigard as required by the conditions of approval for the original request. d. Because the request in question is for a temporary use and is not a development—type application, public improvements such as sidewalks, walkways, or pathways are not typically required. e. The second large trailer located behind the residence may be stored on the property but cannot be used for any other prupose such as storage or additional office space. The Code allows only one trailer per temporary use situation. f. The Code allows a temporary use approval to be renewed only once. Therefore, the temporary trailer must be removed from the property after one year of the final decision date of this request (if approved). Should the applicant wish to remain on the site beyond this one year period, a Site Development Review approval will be required. Application for this review shall be made prior to expiration of this approval. STAFF REPORT — TU 4-86 (EXTENSION) — PAGE 4 C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of TU 4-86 (extension) subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is valid for one year from the final decision date noted below. 2. Prior to expiration of this approval, the applicant shall apply for a Site Development Review should it be desirable for the business to remain on the site. The trailer shall be removed on or before the expiration date of this approval. 3. Should the business be successful in relocating prior to the approval expiration date, the trailer shall be removed at the time of relocation or expiration of this approval — whichever comes first. 4. The new second trailer may be stored on the property but may not be used for any other prupose such as storage or office space. REPARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart APPR V Y: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community CDevelopment (DAS:cn/3031P) STAFF REPORT — TU 4-86 (EXTENSION) — PAGE 5 ��I�� � � � it 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TIGARD ELECTRICf A request by Tigard Electric for re•- earing on a request for a l Temporary Use Permit which was denied by the City Council on June 23, ; }� 1986. The request is to use a mobile home as a temporary office for up j to one year. The property is zoned Central Business District (CBD). i Property is located at 8720 SW Burnham (WCTM 2S1 2DA, Lot 200). a. Public Hearing Opened b. Assistant Planner Newton synopsized the history of the request noting that the Council had called for the public hearing with Resolution No. 86-68. C. Public Testimony: o Michael J. Scott, Attorney representing Tigard Electric, i 9185 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, requested approval of the temporary use by Council noting that the business needed the area as temporary offices for up to one year. t o Dennis Schnitz, President of Tigard Electric, apologized to the Council for missing the first scheduled hearing, stated he did not realize a permit would be needed to use the trailer as an office and requested Council approval of the permit for up to 1 year. o City Council questioned the applicant regarding scheduled • length of use, whether the trailer is legally hooked up to the sewer, and . lease-hold options by Tigard Electric on the property. d. Assistant Planner Newton recommended approval with conditions as set forth in the staff report. e. Public Hearing Closed f. Councilors expressed concern regarding the illegal hookup to sewer and placement of .the trailer for office use without a temporary use permit. After further discussion, Councilor Brian moved to tentatively approve the request for a temporary use permit for Tigard Electric based on the ' staff findings and conditions and directed staff to prepare the necessary documents for the 8/25/86 meeting. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnson. 01 Approi9d by unanimous vote of Council present. g. Discussion followed regarding the need for another condition regarding the placement of a traffic signal pole on the property for the Burnham/Hall intersection improvements. Consensus of Council was to not require a traffic signal .,pole at this time. Pa %-:fl03t;�8 _`AUOIlST li,Ti9$6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86---f q_86;" DENYING THE APPLICATION, A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF, THE , �PPLICAAT,ION FOR TEMPORARY USE APPROVAL ER REQUESTED BY TIGARD ELECTRIC;;•.....,.. ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: w royal to uSe a WHEREAS, the applicant requested a Temporary Use Permit approval up to mobile home as an office in a commercial or industrial zone temp one year; andular Council heard the above application at its reg WHEREAS, the TigardCity the applicant's request. meeting of June 9. 1986 and voted to deny Council that: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City , Section i• The proposal does not satisfy the criteria necessary to approve a temporary use. Code to resently exists in the Community Development Section 2: No criteria P arily in a commercial or industrial zone as a result allow a mobile home tempor of financial hardship. The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced requthe est Section 3: is, DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS 7, 19 6 and t that be, and the same hereby prior to 5:00 P m on u ythe Final Order as applicant remove the mobile home p Recorder send a copy the Planning Director and the City in this case. a Notice of Final decision to the party PASSED: This day of June 1986. yor= City of Tigard ATTEST: y City Recorder - City of Tigard (br22) G ... • 1 E y t l•r. RESOl.U7ION NO. A6- hi _ _ 5� TIGARD ELECTRIC Electrical Contractors CITV�yi�s�4RD � wAs}uTMOREGON �' DENNIS SCHMITZ President 8720 S.W. Burnham Rd. Tigard. OR 97223 Business Phone: 639-9112 TEMPORARY USE APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE N0. RECEIPT N0. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: ]. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION (A) ApplicatAon form (1) 8720 SW- Burn am St Tigard, Oregon 97223 (B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX IAT NO. 2S1 2DA, Lot #200 authorization (C) Assessor's Map (1) (D) Plot plan (16 copies for CC, SITE SIZE 51 Acres- �ROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER*Ronald D. & Dorothy A. Schmi z 15 for PC, 5 for Director) ADDRESS Route 3 Box 272-S PHONE (503)625-7894 (E) Applicant's statement CITY Sherwood, Oregon ZIP 97140 (16 or 5 copies) APPLICANT* TIGARD ELECTRIC INC. (F) List of property owners and ADDRESS 8720 SW Burnham St. PHONE 503)_639-9112 :addresses within 250 feet (1) CITY _ Tigard, Oregon ZIP 97223 (G) Filing fee *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property N.P.O. Number: request temporary use approval to allow an extension of a Temporary Use Permit Approval Date: to use a mobile home as an office, temporarily up to one (1) year. Final Approval Date: d` Planning Engineering __ } List any variance, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: None known. 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this 4th day of FEBRUARY 19 87 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. (RSL:pm/1053P) . it �' - -,j _a.� +��•�. - '.--f � � � .3..0 .•� K, '.{�hr' x' . �_ P' ! rs.ny.y- Y i Ka - .i•_� t _ ._ ��-.._-._. f.� .���� xy. _:i• ..._-:fin* .y'�,. �- ;p.. I Fam Me. 112—llA51--a mm rR VINY. - SmaHF«m Www wScuNING CO..wwnwMD.OR."204 'i THIS INDENTURE FF LEgSE dd to t __ 'CR28 .. _day of APRIL 19...$3 by and between .. RONAL D D � 1ITA(�� � � HY 's.�SMl72'� _--. ---_------------ -------- ----._....�...-------�.�_._._....._.. .._...__ ..._......__..,.._....�. .._._...._._. ._....�.......�.._..., hereinafter called the lessor, and TIGARD ELECTRIC, INC. AN OREGON CORPORA �ION ...._...r _...._ __....___._..___......_...._..._..._._.._..__._.............__. .........................-.... w..._......_.....__.- ..._.........._.........._...._...._...._......_........_..__...._...._... hereinafter called the lessee, WITNESSETH: In consideration of the covenants, agreem ants and stipulations herein contained on :::e part of the lessee to be paid, kept and faithfully performed, the lessor does hereby lease, demise and let unto the said lessee those certain premises, as is, situated in the City ot._.. T I GARD --,OREGON County of._-WASH I NGTON -.._.._..........._. .__. ._ and State of ... ...__.._.._...._...--.._..., known and described as follows: COMPLETE BUILDING SPACE LOCATED AT: 8720 S.W. BURNHAM ST. , TIGARD, OREGON i i I T Have and t g W the said descri premises unto the said lessee for eriod of time commencing with ts� �AR�H 8�h FEBRUARY the.. ...dey of_..._..............� 19_.�.,and ending at midnight on the...___._...day of _. ......_ 19 ,.at and for a rental of •.'�>,50.00 !or the whole of the add term payable in lawful money of the United States at_ 10950 S.:.&.' Fal rhaven Waw._ __, city of State of .....0 recon �- at the following times and in the following amounts, to-wit: f PAYMENTS TO BE MADE NO LATER THAN 10th of each month. ' I I * There shall be an 8% increase, re-calculated at the anniversary date. $1 ,500-00 the: first year , $1 ,620.00 the second year $1 ,750.00 the third year $1 ,890.00 the fourth year $2,040.00 the fifth year ii {y ' In consideration of the leasing of acid premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, each party 1 hereto does hereby ezpreWy covenant and agnea to and with the other, as follows: a' L (1) The loam*aoeepis said letting and agrees to pay to the order of the lessor the rentals above stated for the full ACCEPTANCE term of this lease,in advance,at the times and in the manner aforesaid. OF LEASS USE OF (2a) The lease shall use said de ,� ro 'see during the term of this ream for the conduct of the following business: PREMISES _ — ELE�CTR1 CAL CONTRAGfI N _ .......................... ........................................................._.__..._...._................_... ......and for no other purpose whatsoever without lessor's written consent. (2b) The lessee will not make any unlawful, improper or offensive use of said premises; he will not suffer any strip or waste !hereof; he will not permit any objectionable noise or odor to escape or to be emitted 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 spiritous, vinous or malt liquors on said premises, excepting such as lessee may be licensed by law to sell and as may be herein ex- pressly permitted. (2c) 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 fire hazard thereon; he shall not install any power machinery on said premises except under the supervision and with written consent of the lessor; he shall not store gasoline or other highly combustible materials on said premises at any time;he will not use said prem- ises in such a way or tot such a purpose that the fire insurance rate on the building in which said promises are located is thereby in- creased or that would prevent the lessor from taking advantage of any rulings of any agency of the state in which said leased premises are situated or its successors, which would allow the lessor to obtain reduced premium rates for long term lire insurance po/icier. (2d) Lessee shall comply at lessee's own expense with all laws and regulations of any municipal, county, state, federal or other public authority respecting the use of said leased premises. UTILITIES (3) The lessee shall pay for all heat, light, water, power, and other services or utilities used in the above demised premises during the term of this lease. REPAIRS AND (4a)The lessor shall not be required to make any repairs,alterations,additions or improvements to or upon said prem- IMPROVEMENTS ises during t..e term of this lease, except only those hereinafter specifically provided for;the lessee hereby agrees to maintain and keep said leased premises including all interior and exterior doors,heating,ventilating and cooling systems,interior wiring, plumbing and drain pipes to sewers or septic tank,in good order and repair during the entire term of this lease at lessee's own cost and expense, and to replace all glass which may be broken or damaged during the term hereof in the windows and doors of said premises with glass of as good or better quality as that now in use; lessee further agrees that he will make no alterations, additions or improvements to or upon said premises without the written consent of the lessor first being obtained. (4b) 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 premises are situated and the sidewalks thereabouts. ...._.__._. .� ____ it is understood and agreed that the lessor reserves and at any and all firma shall have the right to alter, ropair or improve the building of which said demised premises are a part, or to add thereto and for that purpose at any time anal 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, including loss of business resulting therefrom. LESSOR'S (S)It shall be lawful for the lessor,his agents and representatives, at any reasonable time to enter into or upon said RIGHdemised premises for the purpose of examining into the condition thereof,or any other lawful purpose. RIGHT OF (6) The lessee will not assign,transfer,pledge,hypothecate, r.!rrender or dispose of this lease, or any interest heroin, ASSIGNMENT or permit any other person or persons whomsoever to occupy the demised promises without the written ooruent of the lessor being first obtained in writing; this lease is personal to said lessee; lessee's interests, in whole or in part, cannot be sold,assigned, transferred, seized or taken by operation at law,or under or by virtue of any execution or legal process,attach- i meet or proceedings instituted against the lessee, or under or by virtue of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings had in regard to the lease, or in any other manner, except as above mentioned. LIENS (7) 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. ICE. SNOW. (8) !f the premises herein leased are located at street level, then at all times lessee shall keep the sidewalks in front DEBRIS of the der:used premises free and cleat of fee, snow,rubbish, debris and obstruction; and if the lessee occupies the entire building,he will not permit rubbish,debris,ice or snow to accumulate on the roof of said building so as to atop up or obstruct gutters or downspouts or cause damage to said root, 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 tailuro in that regard. OVERLOADING (9) The lessee will not overload the floors of said premises in such a way as to cause any undue or serious stress OF FLOORS or strain upon the building in which said demised premises are located, or any part thereof,and the lessor shall have i 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 is such as to endanger or the event that the engineer or architect so called upon shall decide that in his opinion the stress or airsinjure said building, or any part thereof, then and in that event the lessee agrees immediately to relieve said stress or s train either by reinforcing the building or by lightening the load which causes such stress or strain in a manner satisfactory !o the lessor. ADVERTISING (10) The lessee will not use the outside walls of said promises, or allow signs or devices of any kind to be attached { SIGNS thereto or suspended therefrom, for advertising or displaying the name or business of the lessee or for any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the lessor;however, the lessee may make use of the wig said j leased premises to display lessee's name and business when the workmanship of such signs shall be of good quality 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. ; LIABILITY (11) The lessee further agrees at all times during the term hereof, at his own expense, to maintain, keep In effect, INSURANCE furnish and deliver to the lessor liability 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 Promises;the amounf `- of said liability irtswunce shall not be less than i 100'000'- for injury, to one Person, i_ injuries aridng out of any oaeddemf and ml lass than i.99-a.Q--•.--for property dvmage. Lessee agrees to and shall Itdemnlfy ur i and hold lessor harmless against any and all claims and demands arising from the negligence of the lessee,his officers, agents,invitesa and/or employees. as well as those arising from 183300'3 failure to comply with any covenant of this lease on his part to be performed, and shall at his own expense defend the lessor against any and all suits or actions arising out of such negligence, actual or alleged, and all appeals therefrom and shall satisfy and discharge any judgmen!which may be awarded against lessor in any such soft or action. FIXTURES (1 Z) All partitions,plumbing,electrical wiring,additioris to or improvements upon said leased premises, whether irk stalled by the lessor or lessee,shall be and become a part of the building as soon as installed and the property of the lessor union other- wise herein provided. LIGHT (13) This lease does not grant any rights of access to light and air over the property. AND AIR DAMAGE BY (14) In the event of the destruction of the building in which said leased premises are located by fire or other CASUALTY, casualty, either party hereto mtaY terminate this lease as of the date of said fire or casualty,provided,however,that FIRE AND DUTY TO REPAIR in the event of damage to said building by fire or other casualty to the extent ot_..._._.._... -per cent or more o the sound value of said building, the lessor may or may not elect to repair said building; written notice of lessor's said election shall be given lessee within fifteen days after the occurrence of said damage; if said notice is not 30 given. lessor conclusively shall be deemed to have elected not to repair; in the event lessor elects not to repair said building, then and in that event this lease shall terminate with the date of said damage; but if the building in which said leased premises are located be but partially destroyed and the damage so occasioned shall not amount to the extent indicated above, or if greater than said extent and lessor elects to repair, as aforesaid, than the lessor shall repair said building with all convenient speed and shall have the right to take possession of and occupy, to the exclusion of the lessee, all or any part of said building in order to make the necessary repairs, and the lessee hereby agrees to vacate upon request, all or any part of said building which the lessor may require for the purpose of making necessary repairs, and for the period of time between the day of such damage and until such repairs have been substantially completed there shall be such an abatement of rent as the nature of the injury or damage and its interference with the occupancy of said leased premises by said lessee shall warrant; however,if the premises be but slightly injured and the damage so occasioned shall not cause any material interference with the occupation of the premises by said leasee, then there shall be no abatement of rent and the lessor shall repair said damage with all convenient speed. WAIVER OF (15) Neither the lessor nor the lessee shall be liable to the other for loss arising out of damage to or destruction of SUBROGATION the leased premises,or the building or improvement of which the leaser premises are a part or with which they are RIGHTS connected, or the contents of any thereof,when such loss is caused by any of the perils whirls ars or could be in- cluded within or insured against by a standard 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 not be entitled to sesubro- gation under any circumstances against any party to this lea . 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 join!assured. (` EXTH N (16)In case of the condemnation or appropriation of&!I or any substantial part of the said demised premises by any DOMAIN public or private corporation under the laws of eminent domain, this lease may be terminated at the option of either party hereto on twenty days written notice to the other and in that use the lessee shall not be liable for any rent after the date of lassee's removal from the premises. FOR SALs (17) During the period of _ days prior to the date above fixed for the termination of said lease, the ' AND lessor herein-may post on said premises or in the windows thereof signs of moderate size notifying the public that SIGNS>CNT the premises are "for sale" of "for lease." DELIVERING UP (18)At the expiration of said term or upon any sooner termination thereof, the lessee will quit and deliver up said PREMISES ON leased premises and all future erections or additions to or upon the same, broom-clean, to the lessor or those having TERXLVATION lessor's estate in the premises,peaceably,quietly,and in as good order and condition,reasonable use and wear there- of,damage by fire,unavoidable casualty and the elements alone excepted, as the same are now in or hereafter may be put in by the lessor. ADDITIONAL (19) During the term of this lease, Lessee will pay the Lessor as OR T' additional rent the amount of the excess of such taxes for EXCEPTIONS any year of this lease over such taxes for 1979 - 1980 tax year in the amount of $1 ,781 .25. s f -- 7 eti:a- ATTACErMMM PROVIDED, ALWAYS, and these presents are upon these conditions, that (1) if the lessee shall be in arrears in the DEFAULT payment of said rent for a period of ten days alter the same becomes due, or (T) it the lessee shall lail or neglect to do,keep,perform or observe any of the covenants and adreements contained herein on lessee's part to be done, kept, performed and observed and such default shall continue for ten days or more after written notice of such failure or ne- glect shall be given to lessee,or(J) if the leases shall be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or (S) if any assignment of lessee's property"I be meds for the benefit of creditors,or(5)if on the expiration of this lease lasses tails to surrender possession of said leased premises, 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 inso and upon said demised premises 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's effects at lessee's expense, forcibly it necessary and store the same, all without being deemed guilty of trespass and without prejudice to any remedy which otherwise might be used for arrears of rent or pre- ceding breach of covenant. 13OLD016 In the event the lessee for any reason shall hold over atter the expiration of this lease, such holding OVER be deemed to operate as a renewal or extension of this lease Mall all onlyover shall not create a tenancy from month to month which may be terminated at will at any time by the lessor. COUATTORINET In case suit or action is instituted to enforce compliance with any of the terms,covenants or conditions of this lease, RT COSTS or to collect the rental which may become due hereunder, or any portion thereof, the losing party agrees to pay such sum as the trial court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's tees to be allowed the prevailing party in such suit or action and in the event any appeal is taken from any judgment or decree in such suit or 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 tees that shall arise from en- forcing arty provision or covennartts of this lease even though no suit or action is instituted. wAZVER Any waiver by the lessor of any breach of any covenant herein contained to be kept and performed by the losses 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. NOTIMS Any notice required by the terms of this lesae to be given by one party hereto to the other or desired so to be given, shall be sufficient H in writing contained in a sealed envelope, depoa'fed the.V1.S.'Registered :Qai'raw*th postage fully prepaid, and if intended for the lessor herein then if addressed to said lessor at __.�_ W a I rthayen WW y r 1 rci,_0 fegOn _..and if intended for the lessee, then if addressed to the _...__.__ _..._.... - -.... ._ .�---- ___._... 97 3 _ _ lessee at_ P.O. Box 230083 8720 S W. Burnham _St.,_T i ga rd t 0 recon _-22 Any such notice shall be deemed conclusively to have been delivered to the addressee thereof forty-eight hours after the deposit thereof in said U.S.Registered Marls. H�SSEG AND All rights,remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto shall extend to, Inure to the benmtit 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. In construing this lease,it is understood that the lessor or the lessee may be more than one person;that if the context so requires, the singular pronoun shall be taken to mean and include the plural, the masculine, the leminine and the neuter, and that generally all gramatical changes shall be made,assumed and implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have executed this instrument in duplicate on this, the day and year first hereinabove written, any corporation signature being by authority of its Board of Directors. TI CARD ELECTRIC, INC. -�__ � �•�-� ��-�--�- By 1 1 res l e rn's'•—" - C. Scfcre.tary/Trepe-6urer K- �y t'cyr' itir .x Asae:aed'yalW 'Z: c ' ''.2195. Valorem.,xx z: Coda Ana Account Number Ad Property •, ., Wised - • 4689.05 Total Speetat puaessments � 2195.96 aaab'..199 023 •74 _. �.: mants T' 19 j Property Desriiption ( ax Lot Number) TotaLESS- E S 5 d STATEA P A Y MEN T 5H. CO . Map Number Parcel Special 2195.96 Interest Total Amount pay One o1 These Amounts Township Range section 1/4 t/t6 Discount Allowed Pay By 251'-7A CO200 65.83 11-152130.08 AL '86 0 Acrea Class Sub-class Pull Number FULL 396 2 9:2 e 1 1-1 5-8 5 14 4. 0 3�1 2/3-2% 11-15-86 731.99 arty Taxes 1/3-None Orsc.'Int. Total Amount Pard Thrs Statement Cash Change I k � , RE3r1 r HAitGLG E h C A X ,CHy1Ti • CEA*- AND 0;.t0 f T f.7.JTE 3 �Gx 27c S-+-FWCCC CC; 9? 140 Last Year This Year Account Number A Assessed Value 51 P 30 regon Property Code Arsa x L ArV 0 5 7 800 for y9r, 023-14 4bE03S 4 OC 4 0� ury 1' ° Property Description (Tax Lot Number) C SUI DING une 30. 1?3 7 Parcel Special w E X E M P T I C R Map Number Interest A _ 1113000 A 5}{. ;,3 . Net Assessed Value 10 3000 �;• 21 32 Township Range Section t/� t/t6 „ t R 0 0 00 %­.­ Tax Rate Each$t000 ..;°,",,.19 ? 6 SAL .t. 00 -•.. t1 Number _5 Property Taxes ACrq Class Sub-Class Pu Tax Rate Tax Amount O 31 N Current Taxes Levied BY 2 g 0%.4 6 party Taxes W A S.H.I.N G T 0 N . CO. 2.82 .85 87.55 payer PTLD CCMMa CCL 44.29 tier( PJRT OF PORT .43 n( METRO SERV CT .16 16.48 nor 'AASH C 0 ESD .25 25.75 11 .36 117 0.C8 SCN .DI ST 323 . 27.81 REON HAP.•ELD='E AND GLEN TIGARD NO 27 25.75 Y SCHMITZ* RDEAN AND UNIF SWGE AGY .25 DOROTHY 2 X99 307.97 TUAL&TIN RFPO 1.94 199.82 ROUTE 3 BOX 272-S CITY-TIGARD SHERW00 ) 'CR 97140 ~ 2195.96 Property Tax Totals a Interest Included 11 15 8 6 A LESS S TATE P A't pi1inquertTTakcs •:,_, Tax Year AmountP e Fdrecirts" proceedings wm be c i started alter July 15 on roal A E property accounts with an unpaid i year marked a 219 5. 9 6 baJatK6 for trty tax ye Total Taxes and Assessments .h (•) Pay One of Tulse A-art With C Discount AI!eweo• Pay BY PLEASE ASSESSyEti7.. AND 7AYJETIa:s FULL-3% 65.eE 1.1-15-85 21 3 C.02 MAKE P 0 8OX 35E7 - PAYMENT PDRTL4,V0, OREGGs+ yi �Oe 29.28 -.. 11715�86 ,r -,�:a . .1i34�70 T 2/3 s 296:;:..•.::.�" .• -_ ;rte• .�� 3 .99 1503) 648-8741 1r3��Non6 •,• : :'•11-15-86 , DFscltrtL -_-•_ Total "" - -.. ;F�:.... ,. BREAD PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE r _ ' j �C0 - Q LLJ C/1 42 3 i M aj ILO4i A o �-t-- Z - — T - - l f Q n. 0 x �^ u OE, 22'IL A N Q X �•,+ N A Q ow Rs20S N Q A O N I �Q A 0 d � N A N �; u �o � w. ,a•Ol CLQ N Q N W N o r v N N 0 _ N A O A O in 00 Oa O 4 N N U O Q Ln QD N o b co SOON 3 CK ION 6'GN4 — 3,97°ZON— - .t.. s ,�sy�e,•.Fr_;�c,y �'_u-u-'<-"i^:'jt c :, .i�fi?^;as�gl �`-?"=4'�'��?4�"'��'�s�'a�.:. d:�r��r,r g r � ,.c -.t. .._ _.ss�.r"sc•r•c.;.sd.:-;IJ.:�xa:wa+•a»_ �. ..,.�•. •;yT '`�;; . • _.._ � o� �' ori:;:i f • �:�?. .• � ,�' i%i' ;�? 'moi i :�aw,s �,�( N x va .9 -�' 43dl N — +� ' •'`!' ' ;tidy , �i, _ •d• N � � � '•a' •law:�j.:, ►►4� ;j�,?�(•. �$r� �. IN ILW �@ I j'I�► 1>>.1 yrvw 1 �A!'Kit • � Via; � :*�d e� .. !;� �� � �.+ I M j ►vr'1t IAr.•fls l',uu:( ••i rr �' I �•� ���' �C�)i� '�, �Tlri'+466r •fir.'•, C �' ° :•?� rj+ ! ,.� �#� ,.: ,:•� .Wit, Ir 1" ...a. (�, �1 `# tip.,• ,�„, - i � _ fir' �':,• •'•,�r. 'moi' le jp ol W Z r' ,t•til ./ � �' .�;,.:++'.'•'# f: :itl '. 1 IJ vt o df N ;tib• � �' a � � � I My=��;;;�. �i�l•. �,•:.��:�;��* .}; gid,,• • . . I r�;�11'�.���n{t.'�`• "���r �t � IL fa :,i �• r 1 '•�y 4"+'fir't�:,�1� '3' V � I -•>a71,r. �ljl`f�',h (��'•�..;•`JI' iYY:Z;`�,S 4: tA CL • ♦moi t � •+m. ,� c) a i k It gle -444 f ,., ' wkg Z J.U/ roo N ,y/ W / /f •411•:y.•:{� .rr yr-• :'ti � ,.� -/ y• / '� .•raw r R TIGARD8720 S.W. Burnham Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 ELECTRIC , INC ARTelephone:MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 230083, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-9112 January 28, 1987 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Deborah Stuart Reference: Temporary use of Mobile Home Dear Ms. Stuart After being granted permission to use a Mobile Home as a temporary office, located at 8720 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon, we did comply with the following requests: 1. Made provisions and did connect to the City Sanitation System at an expense of $1,020.00. 2. We cleared vegetation as requested by Tigard City employees. , 3. Submitted a current site plan, which included parking, building set backs, and location of trailer. 4. Submitted and purchased Tigard City Temporary Use Permit in the sum of $150.00. Occupancy Permit # 3265. (See Attachments) Tigard Electric, Inc. has also made the following inquiries to find property to relocate: (See Attachments) A. Lamont Dunnam - Terra Properties, 635-3001 . 1. Old Prarie Market off of Commercial St. - 2. Pacific Highway and Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard, Oregon 3. Pacific Highway, Castile Landscape Area. x City of Tigard Temporary Use Permit Page Two B. R.A. Gray & Company - Robert Gray, Owner 639-6127 1. Property of R.A. Gray Industrial Park, Location at Herman Road, Tualatin. C. Hagaman Properties - Tom Hagaman, Owner 692-0100 Location at Herman Road, Tualatin. D. George Andrews, Owner 638-5791 Location at Pacific Highway, west of Six Corners. E. Norris, Beggs, & Simpson - Mike Sinnerud 223-7181 1. Edy Road and Tualatin/Sherwood Road. 2. Tualatin/Sherwood Road (2 .locations) . C3. Willow Lane, east of I-5. 4. Teton Road, Tualatin. 5. Avery Road, Tualatin, (2 locations) . 6. Herman Road & 118th, Tualatin. 7. 105th & Avery Road, Tualatin. 8. McEwan & 65th, Tualatin. As of this date, we have not been successful in making any purchases of new property. Tigard Electric, Inc. is still in need of your permission to occupy the Mobile Home as a temporary office at 8720 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon. It is not known, at this time, if we will relocate within six months to a year. Sincerely, Dennis Schmitz DWS;ce C; Enclosures 72U S.W. Waslluig Loll Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone (503) 223-7181 NORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPSON SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND Submitted By: Mick Sinnerud Prepared For: Dennis Schmitz Date: August 5, 1986 Company: Tigard Electric Ref. i 5 6 7 8 Aver Roa & Tualatin Sherwoo Herman & 118th, Aadressy Tual-Sherwood Rd. Avery Road Road Tualatin Pittman Map Ref. Dimensions Land Area 2.3 Acre on up 1.41 Acres 1.46 Acre to 4.5 Ac. 3 Acre on up $130,000.00/ac. $130,000.00/ac.' $109,000.00 - $50,000.00/ac. Sale Price $130,000.00/ac. Lease Price Fwy. Identity Access Ind. Park Rail Free Truck Zone Soils ' To o Streets In Telephone Yes Yes Yes Yes -� Water Yes Yes Yes Yes j Electricity Yes, Yes Yes Yes Sever Yes Yes Yes Yes D Gas Yes Yes Yes Yes Zoning Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Available Now Now Now Now Listing Taxes Price is "soft" Bigger portion is LID costs passed Comments good access. in "wetlands". on to buyer. • %ZU S.W. WaSt►�t►�jLett Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone (503) 223-7181 NORRIS, BEGGS & SI14PSON SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL LA14D Submitted By: Mick Sinnerud Prepared For: Dennis Schmitz Date: August 5, 1986 Company: Tigard Electric Ref. 'a 1 2 3 4 Property Edi• Road & Tual- Tualatin-Sherwood Wi llowlane; east Teton Road, Tualatin Address Sherwood Road Road S5 I-5 Pittman Map Ref. Dimensions Land Are-, 3 Acres 22 Acres 1 Acre .75 Acre on up Sale Price 540,000.00/ac. 531,800.00/ac. 5135,000.00/ac. $109,000.00/ac. Lease Price Fwy. Identity_ ccess Ind. Park Rail Free Truck Zone Soils To o jStreets In Teleplione Yes Yes Yes Yes Water Yes Yes Yes Yes j Electricity Yes Yes Yes Yes Sewer Nearbv Yes Yesyoe Gas Yes Yes Yes o Industrial Industrial ( Industrial Industrial Zoning Available Now Now Now Now Ldstin Taxes Comments Good location May not be divisable to 3Ac. 720 S.W. Wasllinyton Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone (503) 223-7181 I NORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPSON SUt•1MARY OF AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND Submitted By: Mick Sinnerud Prepared For: Dennis Schmitz Date: August 5, 1986 Company: Tigard Electric Ref. f 9 -� Property 105th & Avery McEwan & 65th Address Pittman Map Ref. Dimensions Land Area 2.67 Acre 3.19 Acre Sale Price $69,000.00/ar $65,34o.bO/ac. Lease Price Fwy. Identity Access Ind. Park Rail Free Truck Zone Soils ` To o Streets In Telephone Yes Yes Water Yes Ye j -iectricit Yes' Yes -! Sewer _ No Yes Gas Yes Yes Zoning Industrial Industrial Available Now Now Listing Taxes Needs fill dirt Can be divided Comments Price is "soft" Good location r O NTV OREGON �A•Zcd - E• MAP low ctwm s`c. E 101 as) At. G.3 4C�E s 3 ' 801 � • L104 '. Wl I = • +. 00 •.1 fl. J.lIAR ►` 102 100 ,/ J.J1 Ac. J.JfAc. • , • 404a z O� 701 w Off. fit r t 700 •\ ! ! i� I a� �•i ��� axle. �� ���\ • .�` �/lb SEE MA' ,,. • a� .�Y� 2S 1Q- e ♦� 66N ter 1099.6• �t69• �!• 600 �e� s1.s+rl r. •• - . . o o r,c'* - :al+"- ?'-ms's.t�f=� t' p► x�.• "INDUSTRIAL LAND FOR SALE ? LOCATION: S.W. Edy Road, Shere$on. and 3 Two parcels of approximately acres, with the 3 acre site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Tualatin-Sherwood Road and Edy Road and the 6.3 (appx.) acre site on the south side of Edy Road, approximately 100' north of the intersection. DESCRIPTION: The 6.3 (aPex. ) site has approximately 550' of frontage on S.W. Edy Road and approximately 500' of depth. Water and sewer lines are on, or adjacent to, the property. The 3 (apex.) acre site fronts on both Edy Road and Tualatin-Sherwood Road with a minimum of 600' of frontage on each. A portion of this site lies under Portland General Electric power lines. Forming the northerly bpoowerrline propeof this rty. BPA land owns is the BPA p its property and, therefore, is not an encumbrance to the subject. Water lines are located in both Edy Road and Tualatin-Sherwood Road, adjacent to this property. Sewer lines are nearby. PRICE: er.. • fie. k+lormalon respaetirq thls GfOG'RY has N11+ar been omn to us b tion-.-M asset ou0 ffu to o�v�r•Inck+6�+0 ax d-at—d v� 1B�10 aA skft aa�+aa Mai ads as vacarny tactors.repay'4 maa"a"a"°'n«ns.and reptao«r WA iom faa,-7E C - Zz tz 15 1 h1 - ciustrialLand 242asi ac rwood, Oregon on Tualatin-Sherwood Road, She of 22. 81 acres of general Hi gh_ Description: This the Tualatin S1er ood south attractive site consists industrial land located on approximatelY and in Sherwood, Oregon, to develop the way, The Property is ready frontaggZ-V.P Of Portland. alar, with 1700 feet of roughly tri an$ , Tualatin Sherwood Road. ^-<<'� manu- campus t.ech?naac' i ng,�OgY+ including " whole- Zoning: General industrial, assembling* as � facturing, processing, ehousing tri-bution. Baling, laboratories, war ortland General Elec- e utilities: services available to sit All Northwest Natural ral Telephone Company, al Gas+ and City of Sherwood ine) tric, , o£ Sherwood Hater City Sewer ( 18" line) . !°r ~ 'r east to west. Topography: Sloping gradualthe property is�y ► ,� covered with The northe Portion of Y QsQetation: second94b_ w ouglas Fir. $1 + is located at the Tases: priced property of in an area i attractivel�heP City or Sherwood good access and Comments: * rth edge of uses, with developing light industrial proximity to along Tualatin SherwoothisaqualitY site can be exposure an Highway 999, ark or developed by a Interstate asa an industrial p subdivided single user. , 000 cash Sales Price: $725 ft. ' .�`sq:.. ) with 25% down $870, 000 terms ---- --- cn� C r ""-yid .�" 1 Re~ .i• - - - K•f4>-' Awl:. 4 � � yr `? }�. � `t �:�'". LTi,� ,^�1e �•fil+:. - : i �.: r r` r '� �. . 1 .S �f 1 �.�1 p � � `(eft y~i ,• �� �_ ♦J. rf y Cb.�i�l Y••�••-1r;�if'„r�i• .-� S 1�.._ „- ') ;. •.+•• ' . � - i'S,• l"•�. a� .T�r 1 11 i� rCf 7 3-. a. .:�!..• ' aM �{ y'�3:.f/' � •moi jam.r t� s e# _ '•� .. K �e a.ir v•.5� v y,} 11�t•�� 6 f ��i• f ���A� -� �= ;y. '-, I lt.l1�..� Cdjyrr�•TeLi•. 3y Q-� tv1.l �4'4'Lrw L •� .. ,,�tY^1� �'•_.,�1,� .w�r��rFy oa. `.'•r r Fin N- ' Oa a. `�ti�>=' ,-� t� �.�f lam ^ _ k,�y,�w �rrti4��S �>��,•� . . y:a- �/_•7}•�;t�=T.r»"!I''� r'+ `'% `Y+�'� ji''v �. -y`n" ��': w7 `�I[t d �• CV' r wt 1 srs f"r "" .y Xx wz f7►� S' Z�. , r r:. �alst.�i(,w• t!!'y art'e ;r ~ ;a +-�4 y�IHs fti,tom. '7"'s�t•`• ".?? .is - �`'� 4-i�' � Vie i 1` ' � jf'y .(�•ei" . �\.t,�.• g 11 o,�•e f .•.ri-1y .r•��,''y ��`�`� Y�„r,'+�t f c "Ft" 'di�r !'f- •.�/ r• �+ •� �1.sR. L pr�•'^�.�.x •? sL. aSa h vi Y ,`3 • L�NS t� +�'- r �•.•.� ri {�;•rr '^�iYt. �I• i '1�51�fri�"';, F Ke. + '�• �tw; - fit` .f. -!,h _ 1r.< '•.4•x.,(��rt'yc:�l-%�+ ._'� . •'Y•d'•'►Q +5.._= rC ♦� t w•t�Pl K• 1'rt, �•. ww I - » '°� r .✓-' CYT 1. oil It � I• � - �� rte' �.-. • . . • 1 — r, .: P �• .: BLV - Si.,.. I y �FOf +,r�' .,L;<�. T-'•a' moi ?- i ]�' ♦R _ .;� is •1 !. ` `'T `{` � �f ti r �•� 'az,�.,; s''• wy�• 7. ..,�. ,,la'N ,'•'`�`,�.' f• i i cj I b `.•fin. Dur►18�,'i "moi�. A �- •-'..—,�f 'I• ^�?�•• I !:,___,. _ { i ' 'i ;N4t .a•. �. _ I '��My7h •.ru. r�*a•' )�T•� � a�'W"5 �...... A�SCl1 NI = tl a'�1.w+i•••• Its«.{ ' ° rl �` .. '.� Rn I may/ e - .i 1fi!'ls•� ...11 (�4 .arc. amu• - �r .�...s •1 •�I.• •2• -v •• 1 I ' J A. ��( I RrOV@ ,MADS � A- ♦7 aL �r - ' .- I '••ruc 1 I SSS... {i_� ��� �'•J�� � `�' •w`�..r.w.�r � iwv i'•• Tualatin S' INN S.1A1. rial Location: 5640 S.W. Willow Lane, Lake Oswego • ize: 1 Acre (150' x 290.4') • tilities: Water— Lake Oswego, Sewer—Lake Oswego, Phone — Pacific Northwest Bell, Gas — Northwest Natural Gas, Elec- tric — PGE • Zoning: Industrial Park (City of Lake Oswego) • There is an existing house and 1800 sq.ft. concrete block shop. Most of the land is graveled and there are two fuel pumps. - Price: $135,000 3.0 �S F• - The property is just 1/2 mile from the Lake Oswego/Durham Inter- change on 1-5, and just off S.W. Boones Ferry Road. -ti��..'rcx:ti--.y. c•. 'sM{�-M4..";y,�^'^�'s'-`�' ".5', �� ?tLL�•'�-. .� �� _ - - - - _ - e � . r Grubb Elis ark �'� a*!. ,{ _.,z 1'� �p_y, "•" _ _ ,�, kil.*, ��r. IISIaffn'-S� s.' •w+a- �Pfi. y.r._ " �` ��rr •�'tsx' - - y , �� •� �=�' •�T _ -•.al � 'w =..y.9fr�' � �t� `��� ria i '2F ti � afL1�.�J • irk, . •. • • • • • • c � � .r r,:�:�••+� Qc_.•.. -„,.14..- {�' � `r L.'h r�'.�t'�'i-O{ r�',`#r S •`r /( •��'• 1 ����• .AN 4- yam,♦ ' {..�I "�• {/ `113{'.« 'y. •I. `f,ia f7!!f' � � ',�'...rYi �• � fit,• :i ��`.�# ” i? •fit � i•����� � � 1 r� � h .; t r •,tiex 1, ��� U' �> iyw�f ' y, ,'. L(. L .j N�.n.S.,.A t�j,• y r . L==�•} � .F � �1�_`�;iN� O' •moi "i�� �-� aJa �.. - w t r . y.a• i -:to r:Y��- :'(.- :.'�,r,� ti rr 1 .�••: JNERFNN ;� � —. ;ri�ti.•ttar... -'� �T•.r -4{.i-�Z.µT.. .. � 1.. •• - r-- �..1 !_• � irr mer 'y f;� s •. ♦ ♦J•I♦- •- ♦ rr�r II♦I f� ' MJ�.l� 'w.. _ •_S ,R • �`• �J J♦J�J.JIf-� "•1 `�n... aat�� W.y• .�- •--�•�►� ..,r�hid ��Y � r �' �-'.�•�Tj-��y��y��,L;j� �� `'� r 1�}7.��,,,,,,='Cry' � n""""'l��u�"i1 $L' �� �'��1/ t ~ �r:.j �i-ta�f - ��, y.,f�..• f •s�,R.6�� - , S, .i� •� ji•�i lops Jr r+..aaow..."•; "•'�.,�"��." - • - -,r f�"a •�'Cs�� .•• z'♦ -.yamf f �sr• "(r. r.'L f �, _ .T � "� �+_� r � y .tom.• I .. , lof tri ugines et B ro :� • ;�.� t ..; 7R•• �. vt .syr.�•,. J L� - / ._ t� • Ptviland -Smiles SOUTHTECM 4,11,11111. 1 NAPCO T . . Stanton Indus2nes < ..i� •_ .rte •" .. '"".L.. �,>,•, .. - .:. ..mow'_..._...0.-. .� '.�.. .�.�, - ..NN��� � •., _ �'` ✓ AVERY; 3USINES!t PARK IL. r fln"rts QraP6ics �. " 7 9 w' . AVERY BUSINESS PARK �r INDUSTRIAL LOTS - TUALATIN , OREGON PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOCATION: 10900 SW Tualatin-Sherwood Road SIZE: Lots ranging in size from 2.3 to 3.2 acres: up to 16.5 acres total. ZONING: MG ( General Industrial). This zoning allows all light and general industrial uses as prescribed by the City of Tualatin. TERMS PRICE: Competitive pricing. COMMENTS/FEATURES *Industrial campus setting located in one of Oregon's fastest growing communities. *Easy access to 1-5, 1-205 and Highway 217. *Rail available. *All utilities to site and underground. *Just 10 miles to Portland City Center. AVERY BUSINESS PARK SITE PLAN 9� 0 /sr/ S��r Y/ ,. .3e�GY�+il -' �1: _„.. . ... .. . .:. :-.. - ,�.d.+nr.:wi�✓�n-Syj-A' .'+ ,. 14�1�d�"� "'S.'`�'n � t`ar?.�. `pt"'fwiP— ?;'y:.:_ • A + .�,�.� ."5i�i•,_..- _ sew'.. > �`t. N r TUALATtN COUNTRrr ..i .+•:.�!z.^L�": l! ' CLUB' ;��..+__ may.:��1�'�.(4-µh -'s• •?�` � •"•" �. ,- '� -�,��.. . ;: � ,v« t � Or ' w� ORp. {t'��r".� �`l�r.~�j'y`t"'�i'S��-�1:0 ..1 Y' ,`y t +i_a+,,,+-�,� s _�.�„�w\ ...•��, +may+ � �� y'L.,•, - �,N�V(cFCf '- '.>a Y.Mil~i`y � -._. ` ..�{,� �".• �,�.�,���%�ti \' y_-. �4�r_� y 1.,•r�e'.+.tJ _ ei17 1��►:� Y' €i� ' e •'•IC.- ,N•r• ����•-•{�+_7 � �_i- �•,i-: I•',�. IVA1 •� ' S ' _ 4 I..Y Y PRIME INDUSTRIAL LAND TUALATIN, OREGON r 1 . 41 ACRES READY FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOCATION: East of 10189 SW Avery, Tualatin, Oregon DESCRIPTION: An extremely attractive 1.41 acre industrial site located in Tualatin nestled between two newer facilities. This land has excellent topography and is ready for development. The piece has easy access to I-5 via Teton Avenue and Tualatin/ Sherwood Road. ZONING: ML (Light Industrial) . Will accommodate a wide spectrum of light industrial uses. UTILITIES: Water: City of Tualatin Sewer: City of Tualatin - Electric: Portland General Electric Telephone: General Telephone Gas: Northwest Natural Gas L TERMS PRICE: $184,250.00 ($3.00/SF) cash. TAXES: 1985-86 - $1,261 .01. FEATURES/COMMENTS •Two tax lots: 1) f 2) acres 'Can be purchased separately. "Owner will sell, build-to-suit to sell, build-to-suit to lease or lease option. `u ti . D 3 • J - - Portland.8 m�fe3'• Tuiila- �n= .�-. - �` .� ox7, ,- �y' :�c•- ,� _ ,'" �o c, , + 1NDUSTRIALr: �+ ' PARK.' i - Ai � "� - •� a , � .J !�M'e sib l ti f'a � �' �• 'i/r' _d•. �,� — 1 .t.� illy ..1+. `. 7t� r ° •� -mss . �T PREMIER INPADRK ® ATINI OREGON PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOCATION: Tualatin-Sherwood Road at Teton (102nd) Lots ranging from 1.46 to 5.57 acres SIZE: allows for numerous ML (Light Industrial). This zoning ZONING: manufacturing distribution uses as prescribed by the City of Tualatin- TERMS PRICE: Competitive pricing (Seller is motivated) COMMENTSlBBATURBS *Located in the hub of Tualatids industrial district E� *Easy access to 1-5,1-205 and Highway 217 *All utilities to site and underground Center , *Just 10 miles to Portland City Ray Bristow Company, 'Williams *Neighbors include-The Hemingway Company, Catello Printing, UPS. - FOR SALE OR BUILD-TO-SUIT UP TO 23 ACRES TUALATIN, OREGON ADDRESS: S.W. 118th & Herman Road, Tualatin, OR a LOCATION: Frontage on S.W. Herman Road, S.W. 118th, and Myselony Street, Western Tualatin, OR LAND: Up to 23 acres. May be divided. (See reverse side. ) UTILITIES: 12" water line and 8" sanitary line in S.W. 118th Avenue. RAIL: Proposed rail spur layout by Southern Pacific Railroad is available. ZONE: M-2, General Manufacturing, City of Tualatin permitting light to heavy industrial uses. NEW NEIGHBOR: United Parcel Service recently purchased 36 acres east of subject property. UPS will start construction in May 1986 of its Phase I 100,000 sq.ft. satellite distribu- tion center. One of the reasons UPS chose this area is its brief travel time to the I-5 and I-205 freeways. SALE PRICE: $50,000 per acre. Purchaser to assume pro rata share of Tualatin sewer and water Local Improvement District cost. Lam' A0 C Olin= �i +�,"�` ii��.�� Hyl:-'`y) •-_��..yy.. ':, yl�s����'� hlh��Ld.Yci Y. .'.-: ,...�.,, �- 1 ._: ':: I.. ��7'��'f•">'1 ��. S N ROPO t t'►E�MPN so ,Ori HEaNp�c� t t 10.1±AC. 9.3± AC. SITE OF EXISTING PLANT (EXCLUDING ACCESS STR9) O O O m co W 1 tJ 800.0' I Q C ACCESS STRlr r cd � 30± AC. 0 7.4±AC. R c 3.O±AC. - o 420.0' 520.0' 10.0'DEDICATION MYSIONY ROAD NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIES PARTITIONING PLAN MACKENZIE / SAITO 8 ASSOCIATES. P.C. 0 100 200 ra.wnua-Prra-OVIGMaawME y _,..--a •.v ,r.. t1'.r � r I+^`r t'Tt'+Y n ry 9�'S's•Fy,"'�r :.. �; � y. FRE,,,' A L E 2 , 7 ACRES INDUSTRIAL LAND TUALATIN OREGON 7 _ MIA ..TETON AVENUE f" _ ZOL K°' C fir•r: - - i �• -`!. • r_ 105TH AVENUE. JN TRI-COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK w J• x CONTACT: MICK SINNERUD, 223-7181 Tir. rr0 n.,.. ... ..nh -i'.".-k .. ........... ....1.. ...rhi. R..1.• ... ..... .u,um. :r ....m NORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPSON 720 S.W, WASHINGTON PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 15031.228 7i81 r r- Zone: Light Industrial Municipality: City of Tualatin Location: Southwest corner of intersection of 105th and Avery Road in Tualatin Topography: Flat Size: 2.67 acres (116,305 square feet) Telephone: General Telephone be Electric Electricity: Portland General Electric Gas: Northwest Natural Gas, 2-inch line off 105th Water: 12-inch line off Avery Road Sewer: Yes gam• Southern Pacific 1985-86 Taxes: $3,467.00 Price: $185,000.00 ($1.59 per square foot) Terms: Cash or terms acceptable to seller FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT MICR SINNERUD (503) 223-7181 �" '4i�E'•;.=• aKrrw_ R%ZE t21tr'�}F4A3 'C'7�. tCe:'�X ,§`, - •z 4G{ r 1 W � y Y � _ t I �. _• t If WASHINGTON 720 sm - I ! r-K�Olf 223-7161 s - Y% •;rSy`.J.3ppr. ♦ ��'" -. w`,�'+ * .rr-r.Y" 4�.'x ;r "' ,�, n �uC.�asta. �.+• ^',�_,.Nr. r - � f-^- tr .I rx"..�. :'Y1-r:,• ,• a iso o ro r y { ) R ao•. f•1"g R' . s N 30 Y •0' N) SVy --------- COUNTY ` MERIDIAN s.w. 6Sy' ROAD y m OOG9f- G $ O C 1 A C 'rt -A J\/)v A\ S NORTH Cn b N LOCATION: On north side of S.W.McEwan Rd.and west side of S.W.65th Ave.in Lake Oswego,Oregon. Less than 1/2 mile from 1-5. DESCRIPTION: Irregular in shape with approximately 180 frontage feet on S.W.McEwan Rd.and approximately 495 frontage feet on S.W.65th Avenue.Topograhy is basically level and at street grade and contains approximately 138,956 sq.IL or 3.19 acres. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T2S,RIW.Section 1313D,tax lots 300,400 and 600,Washington County ZONING: Industrial Pa*(MP),City of Lake Oswego,allowing a wide variety of uses,including research and testing facilities,manufacturing and product assembling,and warehousing.Conditional uses include professional office space and commercial recreation facilities. UTILITIES: City of Tualatin and City of Lake Oswego sanitary sewers, 6 inch and 16 inch water lines adjacent to property along S.W.65th Ave.Northwest Natural Gas lines along both McEwan and 65th.General Telephone.Portland General Electric. TAXES 1985-86: $4711.31 SALES TERMS: $243,000 ($1.75/sq. ft.). Cash preferred, contract terms possible. Present all reasonable offers. CALL JAY JACOBSMUHLEN OR JACK McCONNELL (503) 223-7181 � �..�SNar,'iFA�:�1e`^�;3?R`u c�Si�i�'1Ci�.,T-"`-�'����n:.i?�;;—.sem._•,.'r�� Y�'L�„ ��X�V. 'i�}i'' :�'i' ';YfN' r.3•� .. e REALTORS® : �11x%2 2Qrill v I rvnetn LAMONT DUNNAM TE VACANT LAND PROPERTY TYPEI SALES ASSOCIATE ACommomial/Apartment ❑IndusuW . RES:(503)635-3001 OFFICE: (503)626.7300 IOT APPEAR IN OMLS BOOK) OFFICE LISTING • 9656 S.W.Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy.•Beaverton,Oregon 97005 CODIFIED CO-OF INFOT III 9A COW ' 0S At Mv `02!'t e oke:ice.:_'•/���i�G 1�--L- CJI t .fiE !� J — 1 aD CP��Q�� _��/a.�•��. ._ _..._ - -.. .._-•• as/A • � Nne 1I► • • Ovw.��LI[v'+C'i'S� AA/ is ✓D/Qi TL,NL.Z.-.— _... SamRtoso • Show12 `Pasnvo� 0. VA•me•A!e f01 R/1 10 32.10F —�L?t .Uaisetsz d U!d 1�� �n�X--- 1 �• r 17 OirnMeiataT V To 12 Mi s water S Cs ! Elmer_S —-- to S"tadua 7 0 �°^rr' ' °rts�__ IoM" m.t3'dr'�L1PL11 16 Od.W Irtpovr naiwf 27 F/,Itvrte • • • t: 1e i7 Icird.l + _ 10 Sonata,fM 10 LOM. to to , • - MkIlh m To 17 O�rit �d�=�l2L--�Z�/� AewrnP Fee s • • 9 s Is � � Add1 Entarnt um"s • is LgalfwarrExrlRwnvls /�0 9GIC7'�— �"� - • a % ovv.dT. s 20 •c -�'1 Q—�- • ADZ Gros Ta>tr s ►s Yr. + t/!� C.N_ so.eiel Tax.s • 22 �p�'� Xs,..1� ,r1,Irsv ,,v)T6 it/eF�r o Tit 71'� 2 24 r/�JaF�O� �G'i1 INT 22 9+s 25 Exdusa�:fwL� yy��"" 2e fa�as Q�res Feassd Cltls: Vbe.,*sa+ *our*"*QTas- •,,:•• ;••. 27 09moO S/Ox Less. GS001•T0Si ... ..Si Q 101 S>••t Aarr rAmx4m N:M dsx1l Aeaty m maAlttA MAFs Ff1pMT OF OMLi atooec Potential for large 7-60=erc ial --evelopnent City of S:�er7rood tea:�s property annexed conditioned on sewer and :nater going in. ^.Hers are now installing seer and :cater :Gains at their e=erse xlnt ?acific Hwy frontage last large piece re:_.air3rg bet:teen sG olls rrywood and +torPacific Hwy Acress u- near County in planIling swage connecting S this property to city for annexation. Wro n coMpletion Of utilities apply 6/17/86 - /oo Lal L L,T nv tit•ttt+l�1�, "3 ,r r t , ' MPAMMEM M CrISA lE'CE i' t&&"!Y i•r Obn pocpl,tytr.\rM\']'e it,K�Jit ala r t _,T Ita+lwr •3lY1 s � R to NOT t alaLDSP3 PlA T rA �A1D..X' aer teI iawr "ioWr aa cowere•+1 wro.•coerotu+tca•�o r\ylrluan d local 9*mrwwffL Lj 0•4r0" WCSSVtef Ft>• CO�tI•lt►YC7 1 MrfTM\"T1 KDu,.\TC l spa "T .O\T•1 ' t ` �a: a n.I.a .tr cad • 1 �aT1t�"'E r � . 7 1 • �, ' NS ~ ' •• •. !�r.A.. ROUTuq mor E F0111 t LIFE SaiETrREWIHT ' .. 4o" ?I ,. SrMUGTlJ1{AL PLA vj REVIEWOTI I _ _ �•. THE AFPLICAL. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYWO ALL (� •, r:(��� ..:i:D PARTIES AS TO THE EEt1AAn0 N..1'EO ON Tlt.. E OF KA.VD REVIEW. AAA. Of -1401 /NTE l t:�M.• jj LF TI.IS APPROVAL AT THE PROJECT 1 TH.S'�f OF PLAITS SHALL BE KEPT 1 DUBIN?CONSTtiuCTIDNI - ON •�• • i sTnio o coots on+ntoN yl BANS REVIEW SECTION t 1 ry ysOA AI,DuSIR!ES GLM f pD• •;\/� ' e..�t:u OREGON 07310 !tel SSSS • , . h^. ` �/�`VYY`,• . .. •ice � t CIS 0. 4A I. elk tu ' - s(T� �(-�.�1__ "1.Cts _ � � • �•i • � - �� � �cel ��.. �_ _" •�' '� (M t ,y a •+ � ` � a"• �` 5� p S L oil....t.0 a Ad" 19 I 818 J I T,I •• I'A 1 I ! I � MGM oell --- I ZoC I q O W 'f QO I CA—WZ iono^'^ S ( C, W W =�QQu . NN Et ( O 1 ® m o� s oo`�oo.� Y ct R ' Q .+ I W W -- LVz % o M <NN� $yyNa , t G Tin /4 1A) � o C � •fie, `vl•1Fs7�J'f�� DO�I►�D!`¢�{ r ( lw.�.naunu�����N��rtl�n�ee�.�•......................... �— �• nauuuuuuuuuuumounu�om�uimnmumw�muimuimuuaunun�m�um�e • �` � .._ /„__ .. '— Zvi tv c v7 b � � Zit Z7 b • ,,�,�' • x.• �a Gr • \ S 3 O •• ,�D, }� 7& Wr ZA • ,� , G uiGuV�Y � A �, ,. ia CONSUMER INFORMATION REPORT PREPARED FOR Terra Properties 9656 SW Bvtn. Hlsdl Hwy. Beaverton Oregon 97005 ATTN: Lamont PROPERTY ADDRESS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND 6/4/86 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION PER YOUR REQUEST: TAX INFORMATION: Tax Account Number 2S 1 2 9 B Description SEE DOCUMENT Assessed Value - Land - $ 2 ,100- 00 Assessed Value - Improvements $ True Cash Value- Land $ True Cash Value- Improvements $ 1986 Tax Amounts $ 44. 04 Assessed Owner S I X CORNERS LAND INVESTMENTS OREGON LTD 609 Pacific Building 520 SW Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 X Map X Copy Deed Contract Other Document of Record 80/13335 THIS TITLE INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED, WITHOUT CHARGE, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES APPROVED BY THE STATE OF OREGON INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. THE INSURANCE DIVISION CAUTIONS INTERMEDIARIES THAT THIS SERVICE IS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE ULTIMATE INSUREDS; INDISCRIMINATE USE ONLY BENEFITING INTERMEDI- ARIES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SAID SERVICES MAY BE DISCONTINUED. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR ANY ERRORS IN THIS REPORT. T-10/WTC(b) 7 84 NW V4 SECTION 29 T2S RIW WX 2S 1 29 t WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON � • SCALE 1•820 t 4 SEE MAP 25 1 20 j 4J sag*Go 00 \,• 1ie ..y M troW. .Y Y,. a ••6 6 7166 po A •t. Goo _ Nwr . 88-9 -• �! SEE MAP �� ` .••� 2S 1 29A • 04 /.T., - v I \ + !00 i Y• • sm J EDT to are ROAD { � !f 1 ifC ^7 LnL .^�w:.:ffi•.�.M1,Op...�. , '1 .�y' � ,•, •-.-.w,'kktoX'YSsS Y++;a RY�M�ir�4.;nr:3.,3'-`p T ''�i�e' �,• .'sem'_: Vim• "J� Aq y� CONSUMER INFORMATION REPORT PREPARED FOR Terra Properties 9656 SW Bvtn. Hlsdl Hwy. Beaverton, Oregon 97005 ATTN: Lamont PROPERTY ADDRESS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING INFORINIATION PER YOUR REQUEST: 6/4/86 TAX INFORMATION: Tax Account Number 2S 1 2 0 Description SEE DOCUMENT CAssessed Value - Land ` $ 24,000 Assessed Value - Imppovements $ 58 800 True Cash Value-Land $ True Cash Value-Improvements $ 19 8 6Tax Amounts $ 1 ,735 . 48 Assessed Owner SIX CORNERS LAND INVESTMENTS OREGON LTD 609 Pacific Building 520 SW Yamhill Portland , ORegon 97204 X Map X Copy Deed Contract Other Document of Record 81 / 31549 THIS TITLE INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED, WITHOUT CHARGE,, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES APPROVED BY THE STATE OF OREGON INSURANCE COMMISSIONER- THE INSURANCE DMSION CAUTIONS INTERMEDIARIES THAT THIS SERVICE IS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT TNN NOT BE PERMITTED. SAID SERVICES MAY BE DISCOTE INSUREDS; UMISCRIMINATE USE ONLYS NO LING IABILITY IS RMEDI- ARIES WILL N ASSUMED FOR ANY ERRORS IN THIS REPORT• T•/0/WTC(b) 7 94 ur,_ ___ ••,rr ee3_4 Ne•■ • M••• .0". �•eq wo Co.,u•n u h• .7 ..rac.wa.\�, • S01 gas• \ IOg P., t �•�� 4L,rif�...r ✓• -L1- .w,r Soo cfDAN At 900 1 G�` I Mbr �/ I f •000 •00 •iir 1.•• \1. ` r•. 0- op r— � •N re � QD �r00 rl il, �1 'A I /�•.f 1m .00 W• • 1 rem ` rroo � ►•� rem 1 =(I Jr S= LOT . 35.00 LOT 1 3500 •o on .n g• J,,,r eoo I. " - -- _ -a�:Y Cs p .29 6 CID .waxts asa.r� -� ��c •eer �.. . • 'i ar r•� sw roe• Ae �- — 8—� / .;.car• .e�.ro� . err..- �"'. - .1 - 29 w -- v 13 u ose metal clad storage buildings were built and general p rp in 1980, are in good condition and are highly functional under existing landscaping and nursery stock operation. and would also be adaptable to other uses. Appraisal estimates minimal 5% depreciation from all causes. Relative to subject* site improvements which include app- roximately 1000 feet of gravel roadway and parking area, office building yard area landscaping, three (3) under- tanks, water holding/pumping/ ground gas/diesel storage ximately five (5) acres of under- pressure system and approground plastic irrigation line, subject property owner estimates 1980 costs of water and irrigation system @ I $50,000 and $20,000 for all other site improvements. Ex- perience finds site improvements to generally be high maintenance and short-lived items which experience greater ` physical and functional depreciation than do typical I structure improvements. Appraisal adopts 508� sitemp� rovement depreciation from all causes, based upon observation of typical market response to typical agricultural oper- ations. Computations follow: Office Structure 1,350 sq.ft. @ $35.00 $47,250 i Metal Clad General ` Ipurpose Sheds (2) 3,840 sq.ft. @ $5.0 _ $19,200 Greenhouses (2) ` — 3,840 sq.ft. @ $2.50 $ 9�0 � Total Structure Cost New $76,050 i, Less Depreciation (5$) ($_2 ,803) Depreciated Structure Value $72,247 Add Depreciated Site Improvements $70,000 X SC;: $35,000 Total Depreciated Improvement Value Rd. $107,200 I � I . I � Red Eswte Appe-sse� L ",♦ _.. .. �y� �tr,.._.d�t. _;,.. ......,._ .: , ,..Y .+..'ijry:jJ�ns!P'ri yk'�.a•r.T;,'r ..... �.:hi,+alrtTt,'t. :. nwf4 1 --. -r.... 11 14 summary and Correlation of Cost Approach components Total Indicated Land Value: $262,400 /$287,400 700 Sandy Loam Deposit: 1 ,9 500 _$134, Depreciated Imp rovements: $107,200 100, $489 - $529,300 Total Indicated Value Range: I Although above indicated subject value range is based on relatively reliable recent data, it is however weakened by lack of supporting market evidence involving directly comparable properties. Appraisal has given considerable attention to current market conditions which are extreme soft in all areas of the local economy. Although appraisal analyses reflect a conservative prudence mandated by current economic conditions, it should again be noted that certain projections and as3umptions contained herein are in fact based on very little, if any, evidence of immediate market recovery. For these reasons, appraisal places greatest weight on the lower end of the indicated range of value, yet with slight adjustment upward to the mid-range level typical of normal market negotiations. After a thorough inspection of the subject property and close investigation of current local market trends and conditions, it is therefore my opinion and I estimate the Fair Market Value of the Castile Property, as of January 31, 1982, to be: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($500,000) 1 t . Ed Fre.111e, ppfiiser � I i Heel Eecace OPPrO46W 1 � - ay�1. umsls' P t.:.n1;.0 i ,p-rw Ce 'T�iFl" _ ,1.� ^-_! .,,.rt-ze'�•-,,mss :: ,r - t ._.._ �.e:� t vm» ~`°�"'�" TIGARD ELECTRIC. INC. 5092 PO BOX 230083 839-9112 TIGARD.OREGON 97723-0154 Mab le .Ftp„�_.�,� f rm t fo - ome Off i e be in ing -' MAY 206 19 86 -86 to 5-5- Iner aa m t $ 150 .00 AY TO THE i b Ste ar RDER OF CITY OF TIGARD I lon 4- 8 *****ONE HUNDRED, FIFTY AND N0/1 0***** DOLLARS TOTAL Of onracEs I rv,,Brane>s United states hadanal Bank I of Oregon T pLrd O.oR 23308 iI TOTAL DEDUCTIONS I 1 t- AMOUNT Of CNEC% �'�• u-005092,1' -1: 1230002201: 036 0100 ,f�0611' f P. f• 'S1✓`-�flw.�� i:1• ylM1 .l.it`.��� .1l'.ti '?r3iTSTt1"a' r_+c�rS+y7..Y7s-z ra •n r:�,--s`.! .i. o-....:..ice_ uC:;•.. 5 :..�;:LGa{a T f Y „m ,,, TIGARD ELECTRIC,INC. 5365 Imampar,= Pe PO BOX 230085 638-9112 TIGARD.OREGON 97223.0134 mf AUGUST 27, 19 86 AY*itTO THE OF $ 15.60 ROER*it ***** I COLLARS * S TOTAL Os.noIus um_sowou�r TipBranch united statess Wuati onal Bank of oregon Ti P.O. o W TOTAL ocOurTiow I , i Aar u200 5 3 6 5u■ -1: 1230002201: 03r. 0 L00 0 6u' i CITY OF TI N�. 1706b GA ' `• 13125 S.W.HALL BLVD. P.O.BOX 23397 Date - TIGARD.OR 97223 Name Address Lot Block/Map Subdivision/Address Permit Ws Bldg. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other Other Rec. By Acct. No. Description Amount 10.432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plu ibing Permit Fees 10.431-601 I Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230.501 I State Bid .Tax 10.433 ( Plans Check Fee 30.443 Sewer Connection 30.444 Sewer Inspection 51.448 Street Syst. Dev. Charge 52-449-610 Parks 1 Syst. Dev. Charge 52-449620 Parks II Syst. Dev. Charge 31.450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev.Charge 10-430 Business Tax 10-434 Alarm Permit 10-227 Bail 10 455- Fines-Traffic/MisdlParkin g 10-23a CPTH TrafficlMisd/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30.122.401 Sewer Service/USA 30.122.402 Sewer Service/City 30% 30.123 I Sewer SeviceiCity Maint. 30.125 Unmatched 31-124 Storm Drainage 40-475 I Bancroft Prin. Pymt. 40-471 j Bancroft Int. Pymt. TOTAL h� CUSTOMER Y 94 wt l0 -Sl, IF •.��+�+ — ----' '-- - -.. .._ .. -' __. •��".ni-may?•.:-'��`\ qI ml _ >ax zn rn Lnl A= CD cu CD cn a7 cn r , m 04 I i Vii, W [- C •> ,: ��` '.h C31 C14 L- cn ' ' �' � by r i; J C y4= Air -ikrz;b #yam y ♦2-<, "'Y` CO •�' .. -.,+� - - - -�. .. AAAA• •/ .{f . :y y� a A SEWER PERMIT tel� 29'76 2 UUnified Sewerage Agency CITY OF Tigard DATE 9- -86 of Washington County 639-9112 OWNER: Dennie Schmitz(Tigard Electric) PHONE OWNER'S ADDRESS: 8720 SW Burnham TYPE OF INSTALLATION: © BUILDING SEWER ❑ LINE TAP AND BUILDING SEWER ❑ LIN[ TAI' TYPE OF OCCUPANCY: ❑ NEW 0 EXISTING ❑ SINGLE FAMILY ❑ MULT. RES. ❑ INULIS1RIAL FIXTURE UNITS 12 DWELLING UNITS 1 ADDRESS OF STRUCTURE : 8,790 9W R„rnhnm n.,-+ - Permit Conditions: The applicant agrees to comply with all rules and regulations of the Unified Sewerage Agency. When calling for an inspection, please refer to the Permit Number. The Permit expires one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of issuance. The total amount paid (permit fee, connection charge, line tap fee and/or other charge) will be forfeited if the permit expires. The Agency does not guarantee the accuracy of the location of side sewer laterals. If the sewer is not located at the measurement given. the installer shall prospect three feet in all directions C from the distance given. If not so located, the installer shall purchase a "Tap and Side Sewer" Permit at the current charge and the Agency will install a lateral. F( ES: PERMIT FEE s 45.00 CONNECTION CHARGE 975.00 LINE TAP INSTALLATION IS—SUED BY OTHER TOTAL APPLICANT I DATE SEWER PERMIT W? 29762 ADDRESS OF STRUCTURE 8720 SW Burnham .S TAX MAP 251-2DD TAX LOT 200 QUARTERSECTION LOT BLOCK OF • I �B - A VED BY DATE UED BY DATE Of' I S:+UANC! AAAk 1� 4" pipe required. Connect temporary buildititt 0-70 D.U. 'S __ REMARKS � a?n. •� .� ..rte - �..� .c,.�� '-. `. � w w .,�•y ^M J } .yr�• .>•-..M"'. •�.,a '�"M. .._�`\.A• .w.y w. .y� ,c�+.* ^W � .'k• ^x 1 40�tv�..�t�* � s s� fig, 1� ,;� �:. - ;� •mak.� a,. ,4 r 1�r � _ rr �, +�'',.� �.,.. '}►, w � � J{t Yif:'>lfdr � •�fj}CY.�fri�itsi4. aol } •, ,��, >. � > qty SuraA.- C) / }ye .tea 'n m m �'• ri El u OQ O1 Off , \q`t fOff', ;a: „p a v do c 0.i =y3i:!ty yak vs- 114 +� 'r4 cm go 0o p �! � C , L of HAt oc =o cu n tri �CLO E3 ` co • ►-z a 'o > �••� .a u toC14 m po 44 41 as �+ U cs 1� d uto p U v vy+ S 'A ca •� �' � +�.� � � tip kr J' ��: t _ _ OF 1p �1,.rF� } r ��+ kms; u � ,�•:�;,••t �''” ' y>z i� r' iy U �",-� �i^..�.,'`4au::,aRc� ""7� � ,�7""•., t �'� ..a-n'M"'ti •'' v. .f _x ' CSS" �4ts" `�L�,"a��•,� ^� i������-"� X. t m, i 71 if-- __51 W: CMECA SDEE•ED-M COMNECTOM TIGARD ELECTRIC, INC. 5432 � AaouNr I n PO BOX 230083 839-9112 ConiectioTIGARD,OREGON 97223.0154 at 8720 S W. Burn am 1 1230 for tem o ar I =�► September 25, 19 86 Trailer. 1 ,020.oa j ;PAY TO THE CITY OF TIGARD $ 1,020.00 ORDER OF i' 1: '**ONE THOUSAND TWENTY AND NO/100*** DOL_4RS TOTAL OR!NVOICES Tiprd Branch LEu-`DISCOUNT united ScaMS NXiona!Bank i dBoforegon Tig .OA� TOTAL DEDUCTIONS IAmM T Of CMECtc I I 1 11800S432118 -1: 1230002201: 036 000 061►' .. 1 a _1 r. 4SRI y 0, eat�,�'1�1'{�` fir; sgdrt �.` 3Vf�N"��wh���YJ 4 a ZS •�? I!7-� ''�rr r S ti�Y� ee ® /v�g e� xt luat 1ot�':+tom a�;1,wc7a�� , a®��t13�` l��r��I�1 OU"COMP , l I f� C� I t., a F ._ -OFAT r: t INSPECTIONSCALL 640-3561 FOR INFORMATION CALL 640-3470 — .� PERMITEE ADDRESSPHONE MO. .n DIRECTIONS INSPECTIONS: E]STRUCT PLUMB E]MECH ELECT CALLED IN BY FIEGUESTEDYM HOWEVER NOTE:. I�NOT APPROVEIk REPAIR OR REPLACE AND RE—INSPECT: r78TOP WORK UNTIL: _ j DATE AUG 2 9.19 INSPECTOR zo Us: ~ k TIGARD8720 S.W. Burnham Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 ELECTRIC9 INC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 230083, Tigard, Oregon 97223 ■ �-^�'" Telephone: (503) 639-9112 1 January 28, 1987 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 a Attention: Deborah Stuart Reference: Temporary use of Mobile Home Dear Ms. Stuart, The following is a list of property owners within 250 feet of Tigard Electric, Inc. , at 8720 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon. 1. Mrs. Schram 2. Tigard Water District 8770 SW Burnham ST. 12755 SW Ash St. Tigard, Oregon Tigard, Oregon 244-4737 3. City of Tigard 4. Dick Sturgis P.O. Box 23397 2216 SW Sunset Blvd. Tigard, Oregon Portland, Oregon 246-6520 5. Amber Foods 6. General Telephone Elect. 12970 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 1003 Tigard, Oregon Everett, WA 98201 684-3086 r 7. Southern Pacific Transportation E 800 NW 6th Ave. { Portland, Oregon 97209 Sincerely, Dennis Schmitz DWS:ce CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 3/16/87 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/4/87 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SCE 13-86 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission appeal (Landmark Ford) denial PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK TY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 12, 1986, the City Council approved SCE 2-86 subject to conditions including the removal of all off-premise signs. The signs were not removed and the applicant was told to remove the signs or apply for a Sign Code Exception. In early communications with the applicant, a permit for one off-premise direction sign was discussed. However, the applicant later submitted this application to maintain three of the existing temporary signs. The Sign Code Exception application to keep three of the four existing signs was denied by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1987 (SCE/13-86). This decision has been appealed for Council review. Enclosed are copies of the applicant's submittal, staff report, minutes, transcript, final order, and proposed resolution. C ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Planning Commission denial and sign the attached resolution. 2. Reverse the Planning Commission decision, articulate relevant findings, and direct staff to prepare a resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Uphold the Planning Commission's decision. sb/3035P i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87— . N OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTIO [ DENIAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 13-86) APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION LANDMARK FORD. e City Council at its meeting of March 16, 1987, WHEREAS, this matter before the applicant on a Planning Commission denial of a upon filing of an appeal by . Sign Code Exception; and Council had before it the Planning CommiCo�missionlhearing WHEREAS, THE City t of the Planning the Planning staff's report, the transcri the applicant as part of the application; and and documentation submitted by WHEREAS, the applicable criteria in this decision are the following: Chapter 18.114 of the Tigard Municipal Code the City Council makes the t WHEREAS, based on the record in this case, k following findings of fact: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: located at the NE corner SW Section l: The subject sites are east side SW Franklin/66th, SE corner an Dartmouth/SW 68th, 68th between SW Elmhurst anWCTM SW D2S1m1AAh Tax outhLots h1200, 1301, l limits of Tigard, Oregon. and 5700) signs are located in the vicinity of the Landmark Section 2, The following Ford property as noted below: Dimensions Tota_ a Proposed Loci n -- Unknown Removal NW corner of Unknown but small SW Dartmouth and SW 68th 4' x 6' 48 sq. ft. Remain at SE corner of SW location Dartmouth & SW 68th . 6 sqft. Moved to West side of SW 68th 2' x 3' east side halfway between of SW 68th Dartmouth & Franklin 2' x 4' 16 sq. ft. Remain at NE corner of location SW 68th & SW Franklin RESOLUTION NO. 87 I Page 1 Section 3: The applicant states that he wishes only a "temporary sign exception good for 180 days". The sign at the southeast corner of Dartmouth and 68th will remain up until the State Highway Division completes their signage for the southbound ramp. The applicant has purchased land which surrounds the Ford facility and establishing direct access from SW 68th to the business. Once such access has been created, there will be no need for the signs. Section 4: The applicant's request is to retain three off premise signs that were to be removed as a condition of approval of SCE 2-86. Section 5: Section 18.114.145 sets forth the approval criteria for exceptions to he sign code. The City Council also make the following conclusions of law: (1) The City Council concludes that the applicant's request for a Sign Code Exception does meet the approval criteria set forth in Section 18.114.145 of the Tigard Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission denial of the application shall be upheld. (2) The City Council concludes that the off site signs shall be removed within 10 days of adoption of this Resolution. The City Council, therefore, orders that the above referenced determination be, and same hereby is, DENIED. The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final order as a notice of final decision in this matter. PASSED: This day of 1987. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder — City of Tigard 3035P/dmj C RESOLUTION NO. 8'7— Page 2 - C alal�� ( !J U 1SPAMON IS OUR MAIN CONCERN" FES 2 1887 F flUM012000 S.W.66th AVE (�)639.1131 / P.O. BOX 23970 TIGARD,OREGON 97223-0138 January 29, 1987 Keith Liden a' 3 — �? City of Tigard n, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Enclosed is our filing fee of $450 for appeal of the case number SCP 13-86 which was denied by the P a pr *. _ Co ssi n. )DAZ 6&-&- na---kJO`s 3 ".51-7. . -I L11 -c,o �a.„r c a� a i s P, /5 S•7• ��^� �o�o-�i v`7��i I believe our original request was very reasonable and the City Staff and NPO 4 both were in agreement. The Planning Commission denial seemed to center on the fact that the City Council had set the original perimeters and the time span involved. �y As you know, you and I have had several conversations concerning the signs over the last several months. At the time of the original City Council decision to remove the temporary signs, it was not anticipated to be a major factor because I was in the process of negotiations to purchase the land on 68th Street which would solve the entire problem. Unfortunately, that sale didn' t close until December 15, 1986 and it will be several months before we will have the ground developed for an entrance to the dealership. Very truly yours, LANDMARK FORD, INC. im Corliss President JC/b jk Enc. ,SATISFACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN" 12000 S.W.66th AVE. / PHONE(503)639.1131 / P.O.BOX 23970 TIGARD,OREGON 97223.0138 December 19, 1986 City of Tigard Tigard OR 97223 Enclosed is an application for sign code exception. We don' t want a permanent exception at this time, but rather a temporary exception good for 180 days. My business has a definate accessability problem created by the completion of the Haines on/off ramp. We need proper signage on 68th Avenue to direct customers to our dealership and better signage on the state right of way to keep local traffic from entering the 'freeway. As you know, we- have had temporary signs on 68th Avenue for some time. I don't believe the signs are an eyesore, but rather are a welcome sight to any stranger entering the triangle area. They C help drivers get their bearings whether they are going to our business, Kaiser, Farmer' s, Lamb Weston, etc. . As part of this application for a temporary permit I would like to request the following: ' (1) Reduce the number of signs on 68th from 4 to 3 with the remaining signs located as per the attached map. Sign #1 will remain as it currently stands on the state right of way(see attached letter to the State Highway Department and their response) . That sign will remain until the state completes their signage. Sign X12 will be located on the property I just acquired. Sign #3 will remain as it currently stands on property owned by John and Ferd Wardin. (2) We are beginning to undertake immediate plans to develop the parcel of land outlined on the map to provide direct access to our business from 68th Avenue with proper and permanent entrance signs according to the sign codes. Realistically this may be as long as the end of June before completion. (3) Follow with a request from the Tigard Triangle Businesses to allow additional signage within the Triangle as outlined in the attached letter. I will appreciate your favorable consideration of this request. Please advise if you have any questions or need any additional �. information Very truly yours James L Corliss President JLC/bjk "SATISFACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN" B 12000 S.W.66th AVE. / PHONE(503)639.1131 / P.O. BOX 23970 TIGARD,OREGON 97223.0138 Gentlemen: As a business manager in the Tigard Triangle area you are aware that directional signs are needed to help direct vehicle traffic within the Triangle. If there is enough support from business managers in the area, I would like to submit a proposal to the City of Tigard to allow a group of Triangle businesses to construct directional signs on the select city right of ways assuming adjacent property owner permission. C_ Following is the tentative proposal: "The following Tigard Triangle Businesses request permission to construct, install and maintain directional signs within the Triangle, area. The signs will be installed on the City of Tigard right of way areas with each and every sight and design approved by • the City staff. The permanent sign area should not excece. 30 square feet and 10 feet in height. Two initial signs are requested. 1) at 68th and Dartmouth. 2) at 72nd and Hampton. More signs may be requested as the area develops. The cost to construct, install- and maintain the signs will be shared by the sponsoring businesses." I would like to know if you support the proposal and if you would like to be listed on such a sign assuming costs are reasonable. Also, as a member of the Tigard Economic Development Cbmmittee, I would like your input on anything, the City could or should be doing to help the Triangle area. Very truly yours, C LANDMARK FORD, INC. Jim Corliss a' President cc: "SATISPACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN" v � e 12000 R.W.66th AVE S PHONE(503)639-1131 / P.O.BOX 23970 TIGARD,OREGON 97223.0138 October 23, 1986 . Oregon State Highway Division Region 1 Highway Division Building 9009 S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Gentlemen: This is an urgent plea for you to solve the sign problem for the I-5 southbound on ramp at the Haines Interchange X1293. I've had several conversations with what I thought were appropriate persons before, during and , after the Haines Interchange construction about appropriate signage of the southbound ramp. The ramp needs one or perhaps two large sign that say FREEWAY ENTRANCE ONLY or something similiar. Frequently vehicles use the on ramp thinking they are coming to our dealership because of limited visibility. When they discover they are on the freeway access they back down the on ramp blind corner which is going to cause a serious if not fatal accident. .. With the permission of Bob Shotwell, we finally installed a large directional sign of our own on the e State right of way. It has been over a year and there is still no state sign so we are asking you to please do something immediately. c rely J m Corliss resident JC/crk cc: Keith Liden, City of Tigard C_ j STATE OF OREGON INTEROFFICE MEMO 1I TO: DAVE LVHITE DATE: November 7, 1986 Distri t Mai enance Supervisor 2A FROM: KEN HUBERT Region Traffic Investigator sueJECT: Haines Rd. Interchange I-5 Southbound On-ramp At the request of Jim Corliss, President of Landmark Ford, the Region Traffic Section recently investigated the Haines Rd. Interchange. It seems that motorists searching for Landmark Ford were entering the I-5 southbound on-ramp, realizing they could not reach their destination, and then backing down the on-ramp. The Region Traffic Section originally considered placing a sign with a legend reading "Freeway Entrance Only". However, upon requesting approval of the Salem office we were advised that this sign was used at one time, but is not currently used. The sign as shown on the attached page is what Steve Wilson of our Sign Design Section advised as being acceptable to L. E. George, the State Traffic Engineer. As a result of our investigation, we are recommending the following: * Construction and installation of a sign, similar to that shown on the attached page, on the back side of the sign currently facing N.B. traffic, just south of the S.B. on-off ramp, intersections on S.W. 68th Ave. If you have no problem with this sign, please proceed with this project. KH/ds cc: Jim Corliss % Landmark Ford 12000 S.W. 66th Ave. Tigard, OR 97223-0138 C R� w - - LANDMARK FORD d op jv i �•rU�r/1/•Isv _ � r 7 w .. y � I ..mss-- .•r;�i 5t�� `' '� _ o , ..t: OEM m MINIM mom IN • � Q MRri WV r/" 45AO !I w:oil IN w■ ■ WE M■RIN e� ■ / age ■ . .. ■■r�� ■■�� �■� ■� huge. MSIMI moss milli mom M1 MOM INN - r� i CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s) : SCE 13-86 2. Name of Owner: Ferd & John Wardin and James & Cora Corliss/Landmark Ford 3. Name of Applicant: Landmark Ford Inc. Address • 12000 SW 66th City Tigard. State OR Zip 97223 4. Location of Property: Address NE.-:corner of SW Franklin & SW 66th; :SE corner of SW Darthmouth & SW 68th Tax Nap and Lot No(s). 2S1 IAA lot 1301 5700 and 1200 S. Nature of Application: To allow location of three temporary, off-premise signs in the vicinity of SW 68th Avenue and to allow one sign to be approximately 24 sq ft in size where 12 sq ft. is permitted. 6. Action: Approval as requested. Approval with conditions XX Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant & owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON February 3. 1987 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 PM February 3, 1987 C- 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257P) C � CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 87-03 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 13-86) REQUESTED BY LANDMARK FORD AND FERD AND JOHN WARDIN. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on January 20, 1987. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information ' CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 13-86 REQUEST: To allow location of three temporary, off-premise signs in the vicinity of SW 68th Avenue and to allow one sign th be approximately 24 square feet in size where 12 square feet is permitted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) APPLICANT: Landmark Ford, Inc. OWNER: Ferd & John Wardin 12000 SW 66th 915 East First Tigard, OR 97223 Newberg, OR 97132 James & Cora Corliss Landmark Ford LOCATIONS: 1. Northeast corner of SW Franklin St. & SW 68th 2. Tax Lot 1301 on map 2S1 1AA 3. Southeast corner of SW Dartmouth St. and SW 68th 2. Background Information On March 20, 1986, the Planning Commission denied an application for a Sign Code Exception (SCE 2-86) to allow a fifth free-standing sign approximately 25'11" tall and 151 square feet in area where one free-standing sign, 70 square feet in area and 20 feet in height is permitted. The denial was appealed and on May 12, 1986, the City Council approved the application subject to several conditions including the removal of off-site signs within 90 days or upon installation of the new sign at the dealership. The off-site signs were never removed and are the subject of this application. 3. Vicinity Information The three temporary signs will be placed on properties on the east side of SW 68th which are zoned C-G (Commercial General). Properties in all other directions are zoned C-P (Commercial Professional) . FINAL ORDER NO. 87-03 PC - LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 - PAGE 1 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant presently has four off—premise signs erected along SW 68th Avenue. A description of the signs follows: Map Location Dimensions Total Area Proposed E NW corner of Unknown Unknown Removal Existing SW Dartmouth and but small one—side SW 68th #1 Existing, SE corner of SW 4' x 6' 48 sq. ft. Remain at two sides Dartmouth & SW 68th location #2 Existing, West side of SW 68th, 2' x 3' 6 sq. ft. Moved to one—side halfway between east side Dartmouth & Franklin of SW 68th #3 Existing, NE corner of 2' x 4' 16 sq. ft. Remain at two—sides SW 68th & SW Franklin location The applicant states that he wishes only a "temporary sign exception good for 180 days". Sign #1 will remain up until the State Highway Division completes their signage for the southbound ramp. The applicant has purchased land which surrounds the Ford facility and establishing direct access from SW 68th to the business will be established. Once such access has been created, there will be no need for the signs. 5. A!3ency and NPO Comments The Building and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. NPO #4 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comment: We recommend approval of Sign Code Exception 13-86 for Landmark Ford as submitted. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission concludes that the applicable Code requirements have been met based upon the findings below: In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the Cfollowing three criteria contained in Section 18.114.145 must be satisfied: FINAL ORDER NO. 87-03 FC — LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 — PAGE 2 a. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would 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 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 on which the business is located. Criteria a and b do not apply in this case. The property suffers from an accessibility problem in that the business is visible from SW 68th Avenue but the access is not apparent. The applicant cites the frequent occurrence of customers mistakenly using the Interstate 5 southbound ramp to gain access to the site but they wind up instead on the freeway. SW Franklin and Dartmouth Streets are presently the only access drives to Landmark Ford. — However, the Commission finds that granting the exception is not appropriate because it is contrary to the condition of approval attached to Sign Code Exception (SCE 2-86) that required the removal of all off premise signs. These signs should be removed unless City Council approves the continued use of the signs. C. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning Commission DENIES SCE 13-86. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This o? ST day of January 1987, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (DAS:bs2893P) FINAL ORDER NO. 87-03 PC — LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 — PAGE 3 TRANSCRIPT LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 JANUARY 20, 1987 — PLANNING COMMISSION n President Moen, We' ll move onto item 5.2, we'll first Keith Liden, Senior Planner, "This is a Sign Code Excel: ..,r Landmark Ford and its to allow three temporary off premise signs in the vicinity of 68th Avenue and to allow one sign of 24 square feet in size where 12 foot, 12 foot_ square sign is permitted on a temporary basis. As I have explained in this staff report the signs were originally requested to be removed as a condition of approval for a previous sign code exception and they were not and the applicant was requested to either take the signs down or submit a application for a sign code exception. Obviously, the later alternative was followed and we have a staff report which describes the signs that are out now and we have four, four, and the applicant is proposing to remove on off the four and on page two we have the signs listed with the approximate square footage areas for each. Then also in your packet, it was the best I could do I afraid for zeroxing a poloroid photo but it gives you, at least some idea of the porportions and relatives size of the signs that are out now and then in the applicant's submittal, we have the location of those signs. The numbers corresponding with the numbers in the photograph and the numbers on the list on page two. The staff is recommending approval of the three proposed temporary signs with primarily two conditions; one, that all these signs meet our temporary sign size requirement of no more than twelve square feet total for each sign, and that they be removed within 180 days from the date of final C, decision." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 1 F President Moen, "Okay." Commissioner Newton, "I have some question " President Moen, "Do you want to ask staff now, go ahead." Commissioner Newton, "I was confused. Your commentary on page one 'says to allow a fifth free standing sign where one is permitted. Is this right?" Liden, "That was describing the previous sign code exception application." Commissioner Newton, "So there are now " Liden, "And that application was talking about five freestanding signs on the Landmark Ford property. These signs are in addition, or where outside of that application. However, one of the conditions of approval for that application as granted by City Council was to remove the off premise signs." Commissioner Newton, "So how many signs are there now? I'm still confused. How many signs on the Landmark property." Liden, I believe Mr. Corliss can answer that, I'm sure, but I believe there are four free standing signs on the Landmark Ford property and four off premise signs." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-66 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 2 l i E Commissioner Newton, "So they have permission, through previous sign code t i exceptions to have four and they wanted a fifth and the City Council said?" {� l Liden, They were, if I recall correctly, they were required to remove one of the free standing signs on site and then replace that with the new sign and then another condition was to remove the off premise signs." Commissioner Newton, "And this hasn't been done?" Liden, "Right, so the applicant is wanting to continue the use of these on a temporary basis. Uh, oh also I might point out that in the staff report it talks about, a proposal to buy property with frontage on 68th. This in fact has been accomplished, so they do now own that. So its a matter of developing the property, getting driveway access to 68th and then the applicant says they will no longer need the off premise signs because they will have driveway access to 68th instead of trying to direct them around the block to get to their entrance on 66th." President Moen, "Okay." Commissioner Newton, "So, but I take it the removal of these signs was a condition of the City Council order?" Commissioner Liden, "Yes." Commissioner Newton, "Do we have authority to water down one of the City CCouncil's . . . .(pause several people spoke out same time). . . TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 3 Liden, "I believe so, as a temporary sign. I think, I think that you would be overriding or conflicting with City Council's approval if we approved permanent signs." President Moen, "Okay. Staff I would like the record to reflect that our public audience consist of Mrs. Ball and Mr. Corliss, both of whom are familiar with our procedures, thats why I dispensed with the reading' of the procedures. Could we have the applicant's presentation please." "I don't have a presentation other than that I agree with the staff report. A couple of comments on history. First of all if you'll recall, it was many months ago that we came to the Planning Commission, asked to put up a freeway sign, of which the Planning Commission declined and wanted to go to the City Council, of which we did, and the City Council approved that. At that time we had, they call four free standing signs and wanted a fifth, City Council approved adding the billboard freeway sign and taking down one free standing sign. Two of the free standing signs are small entrance signs, but they are bigger than the permanent sign code allows for an entrance sign, so therefore there called a freestanding sign. At some point they will be reduced when we change the property around. As Keith said, we just purchased the land from Mrs. Ball and her family and we' ll have permanent entrance and developable land as soon as it drys out and we get the City to finish the sewer, which we are granting an easement. The issue of the temporary signs really wasn't addressed that much at City Council, it was a permanent sign issue of which one of the things, one of the Councilors wanted to take down these temporary signs. One, we wern't prepared to address at that time. One of them, and I TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 4 wish you would go look at it, is entry to the freeway. I've asked the state and I think its part of the package to property sign it, to make it what it is a freeway entrance known to all parties, and thats still not happened. They have put up a sign which I'm still unhappy with thats, probably good enough to take down the one that I've got there, which I've got no problem, Keith wants it down till its reduced in size, but even then, be it the Planning Commission, City Council, Economic Development Commission, which I'm a member of, somebody's got to get it signed properly before someone gets hurt'on that on ramp and off ramp. Other than that, there leaves two simple signs that direct people in the right direction to a business that needs the traffic._ And I think that its a simple request and one that, if it was not my business, if it was any business, it would put up a reasonable looking sign, should deserve to have for temporary sign code exceptions, I would like the Planning Commission for this one and for anything in the future to look at it from the economic impact of that business. If they are a good member of the community, we want to reserve, and I talked . . . . . . economic development commission for a minute to try and preserve and promote the business from a friendly atmosphere and not just say you can't have it cause its not part of the Code. Thats all I've got." Secretary. "Could I please have your name and address for the record." "Jim Corliss, 9750 SW Inez." President Moen, "Okay. I think we probably have some questions for you, so if you can stay up there. Commissioner Newman." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 5 C C Commissioner Newman, "Uh, my understanding is that when you went to City Council and they gave to approval. They approved the signs you asked for subject to the removal of the off site signs within 90 days. Is that your understanding?" Jim Corliss, "Thats correct." r Commissioner Newman, "As I understand it, these are the signs." Jim Corliss, "Thats correct. Why wern't they taken down." Commissioner Newman, "Yes." Jim Corliss, "At that point in time, I wanted to leave them up. I had dialogue with the City, what can we do to leave this up on a temporary basis and this is what we came up with, was to come back for a temporary sign code exception, not permanent. I could ask for permanent signs, but I wouldn't want these as permanent signs." Commissioner Newman, "Wait a minute. You had this discussion reasonably soon after the City Council meeting?" Jim Corliss, "Yeah, I can't remember the exact date." Commissioner Newman, "Eight months ago?" C TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 6 Jim Corliss, "Well it was after that signs, it wasn't that long ago. Commissioner Newman, "May 12th was the City Council date." Jim Corliss, "Four our five months ago, as . . . . I can recall, when it was, but it was substantial after the City Council and when we got notice that the sign was in fact going to be soon installed. That we had the dialogue. Do we have to take it down or can we do something else." President Moen, "What time was the sign, when was the sign, the big, the large sign installed. Approximately. Jim Corliss, "I don't have they date, it was ordered right after the meeting and it took three or four months to get it up I think." Commissioner Newman, "So this would have been the fifth sign?" Jim Corliss, "Pardon." Commissioner Newman, "So this would have been the fifth sign?" Jim Corliss, "We took one down at the same time. We asked for five and they said no you can have four, so we took one down and put one up." Commissioner Newman, "Okay." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 7 = y- Commissioner Newton, "Then you waited two or three months and then had a discussion about what to do with these other signs." Jim Corliss, "I don't know if that was exact chronological events. We had dialoque." Commissioner Newman, "Thats what I'm asking. I mean, it wasn't right after the meeting it was some time later, was it one month, two months, three months, five months? I mean this was eight months ago that you understood that you had 90 days to take these signs down." Jim Corliss, "After the completion. Yes. And it was before the sign went up that we had dialogue." CCommission Newman, "So five months ago." President Moen, "Does that answer your question?" Commissioner Newman, "Yeah, I guess." President Moen, "Okay. Any other questions, okay thank you sir." Commissioner Owens, "Oh yes, I'm sorry." President Moen, 'loops, one more question." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-66 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 8 i � 4 Commissioner Owens, "Could you show me on here what, where the property is that you purchased from Mrs. Ball and her family and where your access will be. Jim Corliss, "I have to figure out which way I'm going. Let see. This the freeway on ramp right here. The sign will be . . . . . . . . . . . . . property . . . right now the dealership is . . . . . . (several talking) . .development will be in that area." Commissioner Owens, "So you will have some frontage right along 68th. I see.'.' President Moen, "Okay. Thank you. Moving onto the public hearing portion, first of all, well, Mrs. Ball did you want to speak with respect to the NPO or to yourself. (Couldn't hear response). Very good. Mrs. Ball from NPO 4." "Geraldine Ball, NPO 4 Chairperson. First I want to state that of our nine members that eight were present and we voted unanimously in favor of the sign code exception for Landmark Ford. And I also want to state from a personal standpoint that I spent a lot of time up near that property and I saw two instances where people got up around the corner on the 66th and backed to 68th. So its a very very dangerous. I've talked to the Highway about putting Highway, you know, I-5 only, but they haven't done anything yet." President Moen, "Okay, Thank you. Uh, that concludes, did you have a question Commissioner Butler." Commissioner Butler, "well, I can, after the public hearing. TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 9 R President Moen, "Okay, I want to close the public hearing portion. Commissioner Butler." Commissioner Butler, "On condition number three why is that, it look like a second sentence had been added to condition number three about, removing the signs immediately until there reduced, then they can be put back in. Is there a reason why he should just immediately go out there and chain saw ttem down before, I mean it wouldn't be that long before he reduced them. Is that normal procedure. It looks like its been added to, after the . . . . .several talking . . . . I'm just curious." President Moen, "On the addition, well if the applicant doesn't have any problem with it, unless. C. Jim Corliss, "No problem." President Moen, "Thats fine. Thanks. Commissioner Peterson, any comments. Commissioner Peterson, "I think that its terribly confusing out there. I get lost every time I go out there. I'm still trying to figure out where all the streets go. I don't see any problem with the temporary signs. The 180 days they'll get it developed and I sure they want to get the traffic in there as easily as possible and seems like they are working towards it." President Moen, "Commissioner Butler." C: TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 10 Commissioner Butler, "Same, same comments." President Moen, "Commissioner Owens." Commissioner Owens, "I also think thats its obvious that there is a problem getting there. I suppose that I could appreciate Commissioner Newman's questions because there is a certain sense of frustration in, just not having been done before now. I would like to suggest, perhaps an additional recommendation if approve this, that wording somehow to the effect that, uh, that the City will have authority to go out and remove the signs if they are not removed within a time frame thats stipulated in this proposal. I don't know if we can do, if we can add a clause saying something like that or not, but, if we can." President Moen, "Staff, do you have any comment on that?" Commissioner Owens, "I don't know if he heard me." Liden, "Yes, I would say that you probably exist in condition two, just add that either a temporary sign permit will be obtained within 30 days, . . . . . . . at which time all signs will be removed." Commissioner Owens, "Okay, we could do that, but then theres also that they have 180 days by which they have to remove all signs." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 11 C Cl Liden, "Right that would stay. But my point is that if they chose, just like all other approvals, this gives them the permission to have the temporary sign that . . . . . . conforms to size requirement. Landmark Ford for example, I guess this is the concern, they decide well, we' ll just leave the sign there. . . . . . (to far from tape can't hear). . . Is that what your after." President Moen, "I think that she's . . . . .several people talking. . . . . Commissioner Owens, "I want to make sure that those signs are taken down in the long haul." — President Moen, "At the end of the term. At the expiration of the permit." Liden, "Thats stated in condition number four." C Corrm.issionpr Owens, "Yes, but its stated, but it was stated previously and it didn't happen. So what I'm asking for is a way to state that to say so. The applicant shall remove all signs within 180 days of the date of the final decision and if the signs are not removed then they shall be removed by whoever has authority to do that. Commissioner Newman, "The City." Commissioner Owens, "Can we do that. Is there any . . . . . Commissioner Newman, "Anybody with a chain saw or an axe would have authority." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 12 @ Liden, "I believe they are all within the road right—of—way, so if thats the case then we could remove them. If there on private property, I would guess that we would have to go through Unidentified, "Procedure." President Moen, "Okay, we'll give to a chance to formulate something." ' Commissioner Owens, "Okay." President Moen, "Commissioner Vanderwood." Commissioner Vanderwood, "I don't have any real problem with the sign code exception in of itself. But I do have a problem with the fact that they were instructed by City Council to remove with 90 days and didn't. And that its eight months later and I have a problem with granting a sign code exception to someone who has been in violation of previous sign code exceptions. I don't think that we have any guarantee that they will comply. My feeling is that the Council should have the word on it. They are the ones who set the condition. They violated the Councils condition and I think that the Council should be the one to approve it. So I don't think that I could go, approve it at this point." President Moen, "Commissioner Newton." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 13 C � Commissioner Newton, "I completely agree and I also think that, that uh if I were on the City Council in this kind of a situation I might be rather offended if the City Planning Commission, my subordinate, took away one of the conditions I imposed." President Moen, "Commissioner Newman." Commissioner Owens, "Could I ask Commissioner Newton to interpret what he just said. I don't understand that." Commissioner Newton. "Well, okay, someone comes before the City Council and says we want this and they say okay we' ll give you this but you do this, this, and this. Okay, X, Y, and Z. But the applicant doesn't like X, Y, and Z. So they go back to the subordinates, you know the Planning Commission that reports to the City Council and says, hey, the City Council imposed these requirements, but we don't like one of them, will you let us out of it. If I were the City Council I would say, hey give me a break." Commissioner Owens, "Oh I see, your saying, your saying, . . . several talking . . . . Commissioner Newton, "We told them they had to do this to get what they wanted. Who are you to let them out of it." Commissioner Owens, "Okay, I see. Your saying that if we grant this temporary sign thing that we are in a sense overuling what the Council. TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 14 C . . . .several talking. . . . President Moen, "Let me ask question of staff related to that. Staff, question on the sign code exception procedure. If you approve, we have the right to approve this if no one appeals this then it becomes, it goes into affect. Right. Liden, "Right." President Moen, "Okay, if we deny it the applicant have the right to appeal it to City Council." Liden, "Yes." Commissioner Newton, "Isn't that what you were trying to get at?" . . . . several talking . . . President Moen, "Commissioner Newman." Commissioner Newman, "I guess my biggest concern with, Commissioner Newton sort of touched on. When we deliberate something, in a case of an exception, what we balance is the entire agreement. We take a look at all the factors involved in whats going on. In the case of the original application for this sign we found the real need of the business for directing legitimate customers to their location. And what is admitted here confuses the situation and we C TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 15 balanced all the factors involved and we chose, to understand, it was our interpretation of what our ability to grant or not grant, so we turned them down. They went to City Council. City Council had to look at the same thing. They have a little more power than we do, they have a little more discretion and they said as a package, we agree that you can have this sign if you get rid of these. Now we have, what in essence is really an appeal. We don't want you to look at the stuff we got, because we like that. What we want you to look at is the stuff we didn't get, cuz we don't like that' And I think to take action on a subset of this entire question that was presented to City Council, I think is a real problem. I don't think we would like somebody to do that with our decision. I don't think we can split it out that way. Thats my comments." President Moen, "Okay. Very good. I guess my comment is that I kind of, I agree with what Commissioner Newton, Commissioner Vanderwood and Newman said, from the standpoint that I have a problem with the applicant not complying with the uh, part of the order and kind of, whether he intended to or not, it appears to come in the back door to do this. I have great sympathy for what he's trying to do. I think his business has a legitimate need for those, for those signs, uh, on a temporary basis. I think this is the way it should have been approached, but it should have been approached quite a bit earlier than it was. With that in mind, I guess I'm inclined to agree that we should not, that we should give the City Council an opportunity to make a decision on this, no us, because they were a party to the overall plan and they didn't agree with us the first time and I think the ought to have a chance to do this. So with that I would entertain a motion." C TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 16 7 a C Commissioner Vanderwood, "I'll make a motion that we deny Sign Code Exception SCE 13-86, based simply on the fact that the applicant is in violation of the City Council order and I don't think we're, . . . . . . I don't think he's in a position to apply to the Commission for a Variance when he's in violation; and the appropriate forum Variance would be to the City Council. . . . . . several people talking . . . . . Commissioner Owens, "You mean the exception." Commissioner Vanderwood, "The exception." Commissioner Newman. "Second." CPresident Moen, "Under discussion, let me ask the question of staff. We'd probably have two choices. Okay, if we deny the application, the applicant has the opportunity to appeal. Is there a fee for appealing?" Liden, "Yes." President Moen, "Is there another option opened to us. Can we bump it upstairs? Any other way but denial?" Commissioner Owens, "We can't remand it can we?" Liden, "No. The only, I guess the only thing that could happen is that City Council on its own could call up the decision. TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 17 President Moen, "Decide to call it up. With that in mind, I don't think we have any choice, if this is the tack that we want to take we have to pursue it.'° Commissioner Vanderwood, "I think. I mean, he had his 90 days, I'm not even inclined to waive the fee. He should have gone back to Council if he couldn't comply with their decision." , Commissioner Butler, "Your waiving the fee?" Commissioner Vanderwood, "I said No I would not waive the fee, because he should have gone back to the Council within the 90 day period if he could not comply, didn't want to comply." C. President Moen, "Either that, or come to us and initiated something." Commissioner Vanderwood, "I think the time factor is what is the irritant." President Moen, "Okay, well we have a motion, do we have a second?" Commissioner Newman, "I seconded." President Moen, "Commissioner Newman. Furth-2r discussion. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying Aye. ® Commissioners Newman, Newton, Vanderwood, Moen, and Owens, "Aye." TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 18 President Moen, "Opposed." Commissioner Butler and Commissioner Peterson, "Aye." President Moen, "Okay, Commissioner Butler and Commissioner Peterson opposed, the rest of us, the motion passes five to two. That takes care of the public hearing portion of the meeting. di/2967P C C TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD PAGE 19 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 20, 1987 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL ROOM - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Owens, Butler, Vanderwood, Peterson, Newman, and Newton. Absent: Commissioner Fyre and Leverett. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to' approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Moen and Peterson abstained . 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 12-86 OREGON SIGN CORP/BURGER KING NPO H 2 Request to allow a roof sign approximately 2' x 17' on a Burger King Restaurant. Property is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and is located at 10105 SW Nimbus Ave. (WCTM 1S1 34AA lot 1900) . CThis application was requested to be sent over by the applicant. President Moen moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to set Sign Code Exception SCE 12-86 over to the February 3rd Planning Commission hearing. 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 13-86 LANDMARK FORD/FRED 6 JOHN WARDIN NPO N 4 Request to locate three temporary, off-premise signs in the vicinity of SW 68th Avenue and to allow one sign to be approximately 24 square feet in size where 12 sq. ft. is permitted on properties zoned C-G (Commercial General) and located on SW 68th Avenue between Dartmouth and Franklin Street (WCTM 1S1 36DD, lot 5700; 2S1 1AA, lots 1301 and 5600). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the history of the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval with four conditions. Discussion followed regarding the previous approval, existing signs on site, off site signs, and purchasing of new property for a another entrance. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Jim Corliss, 9750 SW Inez, Tigard, 97224, supported staff's recommendation. He reviewed their previous request and explained the need for the off premise signs to direct customers to their business. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 1987 - PAGE 1 o Questions and discussion followed regarding the previous approval and the location of the new entrance. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a Geraldine Ball, Chairperson NPO # A, stated that their NPO had voted unanimously in favor of this proposal and that they had an attendance of eight members. Speaking for herself personally, she favored the proposal because of the safety factor involved. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Peterson and Butler favored the proposal . o Commissioner Owens was concerned if the City would be able to remove the signs if the applicant did not. o Commissioners Vanderwood, Newman, Newton, and Moen had a problem with giving approval when the applicant had not come into compliance with City Council original approval. Consensus was that the City Council should be the one to grant the approval because of the non—compliance issue. * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to deny SCE 13-86 based on the fact that the applicant had not complied with the original approval from City Council in a timely manner. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Butler and Peterson voting No. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.1 Inez Street Vacation Senior Planner Liden reviewed the portion of Inez Street which is to be vacated. Discussion followed regarding public improvements. * President Moen moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to forward the Inez Street vacation request to City Council with a recommendation for approval, except for the portion which would be used for the pedestrian pathway. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. SW 66th Street Vacation Senior Planner Liden reviewed the portion of SW 66th which is to be vacated. * Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to forward the 66th Avenue Street vacation to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. ` i / 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 1987 — PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEMJ';,2 STAFF REPORT JANUARY 20, 1987 — 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 13-86 REQUEST: To allow location of three temporary, off—premise signs in the vicinity of SW 68th Avenue and to allow one sign to be approximately 24 square feet in size where 12 square feet is permitted. _ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C—G (Commercial General) ZONING DESIGNATION: C—G (Commercial General) APPLICANT: Landmark Ford, Inc. OWNER: Ferd & John Wardin 12000 SW 66th 915 East First Tigard, OR 97223 Newberg, OR 97132 James & Cora Corliss Landmark Ford 12000 SW 66th Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATIONS: 1. Northeast corner of SW Franklin St. & SW 68th 2. Tax Lot 1301 on map 2S1 1AA 3. Southeast corner of SW Dartmouth St. and SW 68th i 2. Background Information On March 20, 1986, the Planning Commission deni4id an application for a Sign Code Exception to allow a fifth .free—standing sign approximately 25'11" tall and 151 square feet in area where one free—standing sign, 70 square feet in area and 20 feet in height is permitted. The denial was appealed and on May 12, 1986, the City Council approved the application subject to several conditions including the removal of off—site signs within 90 days or upon installation of the new sign at the dealership. The off—site signs were never removed and are the subject of this application. 3. Vicinity Information The three temporary signs will be placed on properties on the east side X SW 68th which are zoned C—G (Commercial General). Properties in all- her directions are zoned C—P (Commercial Professional). PORT — LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 — PAGE 1 s e 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant presently has four off-premise signs erected along SW 68th Avenue. A description of the signs follows: Map Location Dimensions Total Area Proposed E NW corner of Unknown Unknown Removal Existin% SW Dartmouth and but small one-side SW 68th #1 Existing, SE corner of SW 4' x 6' 48 sq. ft. Remain at two sides Dartmouth & SW 68th location #2 Existing, West side of SW 68th, 2' x 3' 6 sq. ft. Moved to one-side halfway between east side Dartmouth & Franklin of SW 68th #3 Existing, NE corner of 2' x 4' 16 sq. ft. Remain at two-sides SW 68th & SW Franklin location The applicant states that he wishes only a "temporary sign exception good for 180 days". Sign #1 will remain up until the State Highway Division completes their signage for the southbound ramp. The applicant anticipates the purchase and development of land which �.. surrounds the Ford facility and establishing direct access from SW 68th to the business. Once such access has been created, there will be no need for the signs. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Building and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. NPO #4 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comment: We recommend._ approval of Sign Code Exception 13-86 for Landmark :Ford as submitted. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Staff concludes that the applicable Code requirements have been met basad upon the findings below: In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the Cfollowing three criteria contained in Section 18.114.145 must be satisfied: STAFF REPORT - LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 - PAGE 2 a. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would 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 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 on which the business is located. Criteria a and b do not apply in this case. The property syffers from an accessibility problem in that the business is visible from SW 68th Avenue but the access is not apparent. The applicant cites the frequent occurrence of customers mistakenly using the Interstate 5 southbound ramp to gain access to the site but they wind up instead on the freeway. SW Franklin and Dartmouth Streets are presently the only access drives to Landmark Ford. Therefore, the need to erect off—site signs is evident. Section 18.114.100(c)(4) requires that temporary signs have a maximum total sign area of 12 square feet. Sign # 2 complies with this standard but Sign # 1 (48 sq. ft.) and Sign # 3 (16 sq. ft.) exceed the maximum allowable area. Staff does not find any justification for allowing the additional sign area. Q, C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings arnl conclusions noted above, the Planning staff recommends approval of SCE 13-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall remove the fourth sign from the northwest corner of SW 68th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street within 30 days of the final decision. 2. The applicant shall obtain temporary sign permits for the three remaining signs within 30 days of the date of the final decision. 3. Signs 01 and #3 shall- each be reduced in size to a maximum total area- of 12 square feet: Both of these signs shall be removed immediately from their- locations until they have been so reduced in size. 4. The applicant shall remove all signs within 180 days of the date Df the final decision. REPARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart P VED BY: Willia:a A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (DAS:b52893P) STAFF REPORT — LANDMARK FORD SCE 13-86 — PAGE 3 r r, 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 3/16/87 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/4/87 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SCE 11-86 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Appeal (Park 217, Crow—Speiker— approval with conditions Hosford PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK N TY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 20, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Lhe above application subject to conditions. The Commission approved the replacement of the existing free standing sign on Highway 217, but did not approve any dimensions that exceed Code standards. The applicant has appealed the Commission's decision and the proposal has been modified slightly. Attached is a memo explaining the sign proposal and Code provisions; the applicant's appeal; Commission decision, transcript, and minutes; staff report; and revised drawing supplied by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Commission's decision and direct staff to prepare a resolution. 2. Approve the application as modified by the applicant and sign the attached resolution. 3. Approve the application with modifications and direct staff to prepare a resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as revised by the applicant and pass the attached Resolution. 304OP/dmj 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council ,/ March 6, 1987 W FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner I-1 SUBJECT: Sign for Park 217 (SCE 11-86) The Park 217 development has one freestanding sign along the Highway 217 frontage which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1985 (SCE 1-85). The present application (SCE 11-86) involves a request to replace the existing sign with a larger unit that includes an electronic message board. The information presented to the Commission indicated that the replacement sign would be 115 square feet per side, 25' 2" high, and located on or near the right-of-way line. The Commission approved a sign of 90 square feet per side, 22 feet in height, with a minimum setback of 20 feet. The applicant has re-evaluated the needs for the sign and the message area and total sign size have been more accurately determined. The attached drawings C illustrate sign dimensions and location. The sign dimensions are 16' 6" by 7' 2" or 116 square feet and "Park 217 Business Park" and "Trammel Crow Company - 245-9400" messages have lettering that total approximately 4.5 square feet. This results in a total sign area of 122.5 square feet. The electronic message board is 16' x 4' or 64 square feet. The sign is now proposed to be approximately 30 feet from the right-of-way line and because the ground is 8 to 10 feet lower than the highway, the 25 foot height is still requested. The approval criteria for reviewing Sign Code Exceptions are contained in Section 18. 114.145 of the Community Development Code. In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the following three criteria (CDC 18.114.145) must be satisfied. a. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would 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 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 on which the business is located. APPEAL SCE 11-86 PARK 217 Page 1 Based upon the information presented, the Commission concluded that none of the criteria were satisfied. The Council should review the photos submitted by the applicant to determine whether the additional 3 foot height is justified for the new location as provided in criteria b. In addition to using the Sign Code Exception criteria relating to sign height, the Planning staff feels that it is appropriate to utilize section 18.114. 130(g) to evaluate sign size. This portion of the Code allows the Planning Director to allow an additional 50% in sign area as a part of the Site Development Review process. Subsection (4) applies in this case: (4) Shopping centers or industrial parks, defined as areas of not less than 8 business units and consisting of not less than 4 acres, shall establish a single signing formant. (A) The sign shall include the complex name and street number. (B) Up to an additional 50% of sign area may be permitted under the development review process to adequately identify the complex when determined that the increase sign area will not deter from and purpose of this Chapter. (C) This increase should be judged according to unique identification needs and circumstances which nessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. (D) When a shopping center of industrial park has more than one main entrance or separate frontages, a second free—standing sign may be allowed under the design review process. The two allowable signs shall face separate frontages and are not intended to be viewed simultaneously. The issue related to additional height is covered by the Sign Code Exception criteria above. The Code allows for additional sign area in conjunction with a Site Development Review application. The staff feels that it is appropriate to review both the height and size issues under this application rather than acting only upon the height request and requiring the submittal of a Site Development Review application to deal with the sign size. The Code allows a sign area of 90 square feet per side with a minimum setback of 20 feet. The applicant has revised the proposal to include a 30 foot setback. With a 50% increase as provided in Section 18.114. 130(8)(4), a maximum area of 135 square feet per side is possible. 3040P/dmj APPEAL SCE 11-86 PARK 217 Page 2 } HEATH SIGNS YAKIMA,SEATTLE,PORTLAND,SPOKANE,KENNEWICK,WENATCHEE February 2, 1987 02/3/9'7 City of Tigard Planning Department Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SUBJECT: 12100 SW Garden Park Place PARK 217-CASE #SCE 11-86 DATE OF DECISION: 1/20/87 OWNER: Crow-Spieker-Hosford 167 gejah�,os a S Ct ?aCfTy 10300 SW Greenburg Rd. Portland, OR 97223 APPLICANT FOR OWNER: Heath Sign Co. 175 NE Columbia Blvd Portland#OR 97211 I have enclosed prints of the sign that has been designed to represent the eleven (11) existing merchants with a possible three (3) or four (4) more. These merchants are located on 23 acres - 245,000 square feet of building and over 1,200' of frontage. There has been two problems at PARK 217: FIRST PROBLEM: How to get people into the park. Sign on Pacific Highway and on Hall Blvd helped the traffic flow. SECOND PROBLEM: How to allow the eleven (11) exis`ing merchants to advertise their name and individual pr.- 4iints and services that they provide. The existing sign on Highway 217 just doesn't get the job done. It only identifies the park name and nothing else. This sign is the problem that we addressed. HEATH designed a sign that could advertise the services of all the merchants in the park with an absolute minimum of sign square footage. The secret in the design is the "Electronic Message Center". Can you imagine eleven to fourteen individual merchants all wanting 70 square foot signs along Hwy 217 - that would be 1,000 square feet of C sign clutter. We will provide these merchants with adequate exposure using only 115 square feet of sign (71x16' with 21" characters) . HEATH NORTHWEST, INC. 175 N.C.COLUMBIA BLVD. PORTLAND.OREGON 97211 (503)283-0110 t Page 2 February 2, 1987 City of Tigard Previously the City of Tigard has had problems with their Sign Code (70 square feet - 20' height) when they have tried to apply their main street code and sizes to freeway F businesses seeking exposure. In this situation, the problem is compounded by the fact that it is not just one tax paying business but eleven (11) all seeking exposure for their business. To give you an idea what, other communities along freeways are allowing: Albany 50, 250 square feet Salem 50' 250 square feet Woodburn 45' 200 square feet - Tualatin 45' 250 square feet Clark Co 60' 350 square feet Again if you would look at the size and proportions, you can see how tastefully and conservative in size we were. Remember we are dealing with 55 MPH traffic not 25 MPH city. If you would divide up the sign, we allowed 26" in height for the Park 217 identity and two lines of 21" characters to describe the merchant and his service. The C. sign is not big. It is conservative and tastefully done. In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Message Center was allowed for the park by the Planning Commission in 1985 (see Staff Report) . So what we are talking about .is the size and height. When you think of three lines of copy with each line not exceeding 26" and the total square footage drastically smaller, thanks to the Message Center, this is a terrific sign that has been well thought out and should be approved. It should be noted that off the record the majority of the Planning Commission are in favor of the sign, but they could not technically approve it as it is larger than 90 square feet. We would like to request a full or partial refund of our Appeal Fee of $400.00 Regards, HEATH SIGNS CAllan Conant, Vice President AC/hp Enclosures CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SCE 11-86 2. flame of Owner: Crow-Spieker-Hosford # 67 3. Name of Applicant: Heath Sign Co Address 175 NE Columbia Blvd. City Portland State OR zip 97211 4. Location of Property: Address 12100 SW Garden Park Place Park 217 Tax Hap and Lot No(s). 2S1 IBB 400 and 1400 5. Nature of Application: Request to allow a 115 sq. ft. per face, 25' 2" tall, freestanding sign when a maximum area of 70 sq. ft. per face and maximum height of 20 feet is permitted on property zoned C-G Commercial General). 6. Action: Approval as requested XX Approval with conditions Denial C_ 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant & owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON February 3, 1987 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 PM. February 3. 1987 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257P) CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ,l FINAL ORDER NO. 87-02 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE11-86) REQUESTED BY CROW-SPEIKER-HOSFORD #67. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on January 6, 1987. The Commission based its decision on the fats, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS f 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 11-86 REQUEST: To allow a 115 square foot per face, 25'2" tall, freestanding sign when a maximum area of 70 square feet per face and a maximum height of 20 feet is permitted on property zoned C-G (General Commercial). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (General Commercial) APPLICANT: Heath Sign Co. OWNER: Crow-Spieker-Hosford #67 175 NE Columbia Blvd. 10300 SW Greenburg Rd. Portland, OR 97211 Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 12100 SW Garden Park Place (Park 217) 2. Background The Park 217 project received City approval in 1978. Phase I of the project was completed in 1980-81 and Phase II was approved by the City in 1984 (SDR 13-84). As a part of the completion of Phase I, an off-premise sign was installed at the corner of Pacific Highway and Garden Place and a second sign was constructed on the Hall Blvd. frontage. In 1985, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Code Exception (SCE 1-85) to allow a third freestanding sign along the Highway 217 frontage and the modification of the existing free standing sign on Pacific Highway. Also, the ability to place an electronic message board on the Highway 217 sign was approved as part of SCE 1-85. In August, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Code Exception to allow the enlargement of an existing 37.5 square feet freestanding sign on Hali Blvd. to 61.75 square feet (SCE 9-86). C FINAL ORDER NO 87-02 PC - SCE 11-86 - PAGE i 3. Vicinity Information The Park 217 development is an "L" shaped property which is adjacent to Highway 217 and Hall Blvd. One parcel lies between the project and Pacific Highway. The properties to the north are also zoned C-G (General Commercial). The area west of Hall Blvd. is zoned CBD (Central Business District) and the land to the south is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) and I-L (Light Industrial). 4. Site Information The applicant proposes to remove the old freestanding sign and erect another sign in the same place with larger dimensions than originally approved as part of SCE 1-85. The originally approved dimensions were 10 feet in height and 45 square feet in area. The new dimens}ons will be 25'2" tall, 115 square feet in area per sign face and an electronic readerboard will be added. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Building Inspection Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: The proposed sign does not meet with prior efforts to control sign size and height. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: We recommend that the State Highway Division have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. The State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: I do not support the installation of a variable message sign visible from a high-volume, high speed arteria].. The motorist distraction presented by the various messages are a safety concern (example: I-5 Ford dealership). In addition, Park 217 has guide signage (directional signs) on Highway 217. Denial is recommended. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission concludes that the relevant Community Development Code requirements have not been met for the sign as proposed based upon the findings below: FINAL ORDER NO 87-02 PC - SCE 11-86 - PAGE 2 l In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the following three criteria (CDC 18. 114.145) must be satisfied: a. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would 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 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 on, which the business is located. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exception of those on the subject property) which block visibility from I-5. The Park 217 property is lower than the freeway (about 10 feet) but the sign is clearly visible from Highway 217 in both directions. There is no Sign Code Exception approval criteria Sign Code Exception to allow an increase in sign area. Criteria c.does not apply in this case. The Commission does support a Sign code Exception to increase the size and design of the existing sign which was approved previously as part of SCE 1-85 up to the size limits prescribed by the Code. An enlarged sign with a minimum setback of 20 feet and maximum size of 90 square feet and C. height of 22 feet is justified. C. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions above, SCE 11-86 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of the new sign. 2. The sign face shall not exceed 90 square feet or 22 feet in height. 3. The sign shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet. 4. There will be no logos or lettering allowed on the sign column. 5. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval date. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This �O ` day of January 1987, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. Bonnie Owens, Vice President Tigard Planning Commission (DAS:cn/2836P) FINAL ORDER NO 87-02 PC — SCE 11-86 — PAGE 3 TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 CROW—SPIEKER—HOSFORD/HEATH SIGN CO JANUARY 6, 1987 VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Item 5.2, could we have the presentation please." SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "Okay, this is our second sign code exception this evening for Crow—Spieker—Hosford and its for Park 217, they've had a couple of sign code exception proposals before you in the past. One in 1985, was to ask for permission to allow three free standing signs for their development. Two signs already existed, and then to have a third sign on Highway 217. The size of this sign, that was approved, was approximately 10 feet in height and about 45 square feet in size per side. There was another sign code exception approved in 1986, that allowed for a slight enlargement of the sign on Hall Blvd. The applicants are now requesting to replace the sign on Highway 217 with 25, 2" tall and 115 sq. ft. per side sign, which also has, as you can see by the drawing, the main component is a changeable, electronic sign, which is ® permitted by the Code. Staff is recommending denial of this proposal, primarily because we do not see that the additional height and square footage is warranted based upon the three sign code exception criteria. What would be €€ allowed under these circumstances would be a sign that would be 20 to 22 feet tall and 70 to 90 square feet per side, depending upon the setback of the sign from the property line. So in other words if you where on the property line you would be allowed 20 feet in height and seventy square feet in size; and then if you work your way back to 20 feet from the property line you would be entitled to 22 foot height and a 90 square foot size. With graduations inbetween. ;So we have no objections to a sign that conforms with the size requirements of the code, but don't " VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Newman." NEWIAN, "Same thing. Why is it that the 5 1/2 inch letters that say Trammell Crow Company and the 6 inch letters that have 1--he phone number are not ® included as part of the size? At the very least the letters, I would think, TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 1 would be." Again we get into the question of what constitutes the size of the sign. You multiply 5, 7 foot 2 by 16 feet you come up with 114 feet 8 inches. So Trammell Crow Company and the phone number, as I understand it, are not included in the size of the sign. That doesn't seem right to me." LIDEN, "Yeah, uh, . . (pause/silence). . again we don't have any hard and fast rules. I think I would agree with Commissioner Newman that probably, since the support, or the column for this sign is larger than what you would need to just to hold it in the error, that it is a component of the size, and probably some portion of that sign should also have been included as far as square footage is concerned. That again is an interpretation thing and we don't have a clear" NEWMAN, "I think, ignoring the pillar, at the very least, the lettering should have been included." LIDEN, "Just the letter, yes, I would agree." r VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Newton, did you have a comment?" NEWTON, "I have a couple of questions. Are you through Will?" NEWMAN, "Yes." NEWTON, "You said you would permit a sign 10 feet high and 70 square feet?" LIDEN, "At the property line, 20 feet high and 70 square feet per side." NEWTON, "Twenty feet high and 60 square feet. So do I take it then, they now have a sign that is 10 feat high and 45 square feet." LIDEN, "Yes." NEWTON, "So when they built that sign they built the sign smaller than permitted." l TRANSCRIPT SCE 13-86 PARK 217 PAGE 2 LIDEN, "Yes." j NEWTON, "Amazing." I COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "But it was an exception, wasn't it. Because it was the third sign." LIDEN, "Yes, it was an exception because it was the third sign and if I recall correctly the 10 foot height and 45 square foot size was what they were requesting. I don't recall an amendment being made that, Oh, well, we'll give you the third sign but it has to be reduced." a k NEWTON, "When was this third sign approved." LIDEN, 1-1985." NEWTON, "That was the one in 1985. Seem, seems like last summer when we had one of these that we had a message board request. Wasn't it these people." Several voice agreeing. LIDEN, "Landmark Ford." NEWTON, "Oh, it was Landmark Ford." VANDERWOOD, "Maybe it wasn't Park 217, I though we NEWTON, "I though we did have one for this property. j NEWMAN, "We did." VANDERWOOD, I though this freeway sign was 86. I think you may have them reversed. Because I think the most recent one we did was the reader board on the freeway." NEWMAN, "Yes." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 3 LIDEN, "The reader board on the freeway was Landmark Ford. I'm quite sure we had gone through. VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, We did (several people talking) it wasn't a reader board, but we did do a sign for Park 217 recently." NEWMAN, "Yes." VANDERWOOD, "The freeway sign is the most recent one that we did." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, But its not a reader board. The Landmark Ford one was NEWMAN, "Yes, August 86." COMMISSIONER FYRE, "But there was a point to your question." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, But it says here 4_ VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, Try calling and see." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "I swear I'm calling tomorrow." . . . .laughter. . . NEWTON, "The ability to place an electronic message board on the highway 217 sign was approved as part of SCE 1-85. Is that right? VANDERWOOD, JThats January of 1985, thats too long ago." NEWTON, "So they have the ability to put a reader board." LIDEN, "Well, they really would anyway, since the Code does permit electronic �( message signs. We don't allow flashing sign, strings of lights, banners, t fireworks, you whirling gigs . .laughter. . and so on, but the intent is, that if it operates like a time and temperture sign, where it flashes the message, TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 4 then goes off, then flashes another message then goes off. No creeping signs." NEWTON, "No creeping sign." NEWMAN, "Well Landmark Ford's sign does nothing but creep. LIDEN, "I know . . . . several talking. . . . Landmark Ford, I think in fact that Landmark Ford is the reason why the State Highway Division had the comment that they had." NEWTON, "I think thats a real nuisance sign. Is that legal?" LIDEN, ,We got, yeah, we, after they got the approval through City Council for the sign, um, we did have to request that they mellow out how they were using it. ng pretty wild. We got calls from the Because it was really getti Highway Division and some other folks and so the sign is not as animated and as flashing as it was." NEWTON, "Oh they did comply then." " NEWMAN, "Well, except for the three or four sign that they don't have any approval for that they won't take down." y LIDEN, "See again, we don't define in the Code what is a message sign, how its Hots a message and its a flashing many repetition per second before light. You know, is it two second, or do you have to have a message on for three second interval. We don't have that defined, so, for awhile they had something that was flashing 2.9 or their financing rate, or whatever it was very rapidly;, several times a second, I would guess; and we said, well, we're interpreting the Code that at least that is out, and they did cooperate. They did comply with that." NEWTON, "Why don't we rut something in the Code?" LIDEN, "Well, we have talked about reworking the Code on a number of things and this certainly would by one of the items." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 5 NEWTON, "Thats all I had." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Vanderwood, do you have any questions? Commissioner Fyre? Commissioner Newman? Commissioner Butler? Okay. Could we have the applicant's presentation." "My name is Allan Conant, Vice President with Heath Sign Company. I also have with me tonight, Mark Rockwell who represents the property owners. I would like to discuss the sign that we're talking about and I'm not sure that you people have see the colored version before, but its very conservative. We're using grays and the colors of the building to tie into the building. This sign has been designed to represent eleven existing merchants and theres a possibility of three or more merchants going into the Park 217. These merchants are located on 23 acres, so its not a 7-11. If 245,000 square foot of building and I have over 1200 lineal feet of .frontage on Highway 217. Park 217 has had its problems. First problem was to get people into the Park, and that is why we have the signs on Pacific Highway and why we have the size on Hall Blvd. That help the traffic flow, definitely did. The second problem that they've had is how can they allow or present or create a method to allow these eleven existing business to advertise their name, their individual products, and services that they provide. The existing sign on Highway 217 just doesn't get the job done. It only identifies the Park name and the Trammel Crow people who own the Park. On top of that, since that sign has gone up theres been a meridian thats been put up on the Highway and it even eliminates the people are the far side from, from getting a good shot at that sign. This sign is a problem that we have addressed, Heath has designed a sign a sign that could advertise the services of all the merchants in the Park with an absglute minimum of sign square footage. The secret in the design is obviously the electronic message center. Can you image eleven or fourteen, eleven to fourteen merchants all wanting 70 square foot signs along Highway 217. That could calculate to a 1000 square foot of sign clutter and I don't want it, and I'm sure you people don't either. With this size we can provide the merchants adequate exposure, using only 115 square foot. We will comply with the setback and move it 20 — 25 feet back, however far you need to have it back to become more suitable to your existing Code. Previously the City of C TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 6 y Tigard has had problems with their Sign Code in relationship to freeway oriented business, and the reason, I believe is that their Code, which is a good Code, is really a Main Street Code. It addresses business that are singular businesses and businesses that are, speaking to 25 MPH motorist. In this situation the problem is compounded by that fact that its not just one tax paying business, but eleven, and they are all seeking this exposure. They need it. Its a competitive world out there today. To give you an idea of what other communities along freeways are allowing. Albany is allowing 50 feet in overall height and 250 square foot signage. Salem's allowing 50 feet 250 square foot of signage. Woodburn, 45 feet, 200 square foot of signage. Tualatin, 45 feet, 250 square feet of signage. Clark County, 60 feet, 350 square foot. They have addressed they problem of freeway oriented businesses and I think that its something that eventually would save you alot of time if you would address is also. Again if you would look at the size and porportion, you can see how tastefully and conservative in size we were. Remember we're dealing with 55 mile an hour traffic, not 25 mile. If you would take this top line, that says Park 217 Business Center. That is only 26 inches in height. I don't think thats out of reason. The reason for the length, which is 16 feet, is just to allow that copy to be on there. Park 217 CBusiness Center. We've reduced business center, again to minimize the square footage. This electronic message center is divided into two lines. Those lines are only 21 inches each. Again, to reduce the square footage. The two line allow a merchant to advertise his name, the second line to advertise his product. Message centers are unique in that aspect, that they don't have to take the eleven different tenants that he has now and spread that out through a sign which becomes a huge eyesore. They can do it in a relatively confined area. The sign is not big, it is conservative, and it is tastefully done. I would like to address the staff report briefly. On the second page, the very top paragrapr, it says that this sign would go in the same place. Again, as I just said, we would move it back for the setback. We also believe that we'll move it, probably 20 feet to the east. The whole time its going to be on their property. And also on the last line, it says 115 square foot in area per sign face and an electronic reader board will be added. That reader board is included in that 115 square feet. As you brought up the name of Trammell Crow, Mr. Newman, on point I would like to make, that was a signature for the Csign and that is non—illuminated. It is not an illuminated portion of that TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 7 sign. As we go down page 2, the Building Inspection Division reviewed the proposal and had the following comments. The proposed sign does not meet with prior efforts to control sign size and height. Again, I think that there an exception that needs to be granted, because we're not talking about one business, we're talking about eleven, with a possible of fourteen. And we're talking about 23 acres and extreme size and buildings. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and recommended that the State Highway have an opportunity to look on it. The State Highway made the comments that are there and I want to clarify that that those are personal comments only, from the State Highway. Its not represented by the State Highway, uh, Dale K Horman/(sp) in 1985, who was the Assisted Attorney General for Oregon, ruled that the Department of Transportation did not have authority from, to legislate or to make regulation regarding message centers. He also mentions, that State Highway also mentioned that there had been a safety concern, example, I-5 Ford dealership. There has not been a traffic problem with the Landmark Ford Sign. In fact the comments that Landmark Ford has received has been more positive than any other method of advertising that they have ever done and I have a letter to that effect. Also, more important than that is that are own Federal Government has done study in 1980, the study is number FHWA4DB0051, that addressed that fact. Do message centers cause traffic problems or are they hazardous, or is there a safety problem. That study cost you and I lots of money and they came back with the answer that there is no relationship there at all. In conclusion I would like to point out that the message center was allowed for the Park by the Planning Commission in 1985. So what we're really talking about is the additional size and height. When you think of those three lines of copy, twenty-six inches on the top line, twenty-one on the other two. Each line not exceeding the 26 inches. The total square footage drastically smaller, thanks to the message center. That it is a terrific sign, it has been well thought out and should be approved. Thank you very much." "VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Thank you. Is anyone here from the NPO or CCI? We have no one signed up to speak for against this so we can proceed directly to questions and discussion." CONMIISSIONER NEWTON, "I have a questions of him?" C-- TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 8 COMMISSIONER OWENS, "Yes." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "How often do you except to be varying or flashing? How rapidly will the sign be flashing?" ALLAN CONANT, "Well they have it on a, we have the computer that generates the copy, is a variable speed computer and when we set that to the speed of traffic, uh, in the case of, you mentioned Landmark Ford where they were flashing rapidly. That can be avoided. As far as the speed, normally the copy now they, originally when a message center was developed, the copy started from the right side and went to the left and it crawled across there. Personally, its a horrible method of communication, because your only getting a portion of the words and they are trailing across the screen and I think thats an inadequate way to do it. So now what they do, this copy basically will roll up or roll down on these lines, and what that does, instead of having to go 64 rows of lamps and lengths we are only talking about 7 lamps. So the copy can appear much easily and more quickly and its not a blinking movement, it disappears, its just there, its going to be Smith Home Furnishing, or its going to be Park 217 wants to congratulate the Tigard High School football team or other good will type activities, and that will take place. There will be a lot of community service. The copy is reasonably put on and we can actually set that speed to almost anything." NEWTON, "Did you think about having just Park 217 and leave off the words Business Center to narrow the sign even more?" CONANT, "You could do that, but what you need to do is, you need to provide a field. If you look at this we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. We have nine letters across that screen. Maybe we can get eleven or twelve, depending on the character or the letter itself. Thats not too much to ask to be able to put 12 letters on a sign at one time. And, so this determined the top size sign." NEWMAN, "How long are, are cars going to be able to see that as they travel?" TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-06 PARK 217 PAGE 9 CONANT, There going to see that approximately 1000 feet, that is the bottom line, the bottom two lines." NEWMAN, "How long will that?" CONANT, "And I' ll fill out a chart here and give you a quick answer to that." NEWTON, "Sixty thousand hours, eighty—eight feet a second. Thats eleven seconds." CONANT, "Fifty miles and hours your going to get, uh eleven to twelve seconds." NEWMAN, "How many messages do you plan to show in that amount of time.?" CONANT, "You would, you could get probably eight." NEWMAN, "Your looking about a second and a half per, per message." CONANT, "And that could vary extensively depending on whether its time and temperture, size of the words, the amount of NEWMAN, "I'm thinking if I'm renting space in there I want my message up there so everyone sees it. So your going to have pressure to get as many up as you can. On the other hand. CONANT, "No theres not. May, if I can correct you for one second. Its not a pressure time situation because its a repeated thing and in their case their only going to divide it with possibly 14 tenants and they can easily get an hour a day. Well, thats a, you know, you think of a 10 second radio spot, which you pay for. If they can get eleven seconds worth of exposure. Their just happy as all can be. It really works well. And its an effective tool and their market place, and theres been a lot of studies done, the market place is 217. Because 217 is Tigard. The people that are going back and forth are their customers, and the problem that they have in that center is / that they can't get any exposure. Its a just a tough, tough situation and TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 10 Trammell Crow has done a tremendous job of trying to address this thing and its been a continual thing and thats why they have been here. They've had problems getting people in. They've had problems identifing with the merchants and if the merchant can't tell people what he's doing, he's not going to stay in there. Its just not economically feasible." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Are there other questions or comments?" COMMISSIONER FYRE, "A quickie. Could you have a reader board a 70 square feet, you asking for 115, is that right?" CONANT, "115, thats correct." COMMISSIONER FYRE, "Could you have one thats 70 square feet, reader board?" CONANT, "Not and be effective. No. And the reason I say that, is that I established a 21 inch character height as a readable letter, which is a safety concern. If you drive by tonight and take a look at the sign, you can't read it. So you want to make sure that it can be read and can be read clearly, but without being obnoxious. I could have made the characters three feet high. But I made it just so that it could be read in the confines that it could be seen. You know, we have the overpass coming in one direction and then the road in pointing sort of into the center, . . . . the other direction. And we're not that far off. If we step back, the required setback that staff has asked us to do, then we're at 90 feet, and so we are getting much closer. And it is a conservative sign. It just, as you look at it, I could take the Park 217 off of there. But you really need to identify that. And I don't think allowing Trammell Crow 26 inches of copy on the there on the top is too much to ask. They're going to provide the rest of the sign for the tenant space and the good will messages." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Butler did not have a questions?" BUTLER, "I had a question for staff. What is the requirement, what is the allowance for each 10 feet, I think you have an increase that you give, away from the property line is so much extra is given for each 10 feet back from C- the property line. TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 11 i LIDEN, "Well, for height you can have an additional foot at 10 feet from the property line, and then as far as size is concerned you get one additional square foot of size for each foot of setback." BUTLER, "One foot for each " LIDEN, "So if you had a one foot setback you could have a 71 square foot sign. . . . . . . . . .to far from tape. . . . . NEWMAN, Pass what." 3 LIDEN, "Up to 90 square feet." NEWMAN, "No, no. Oh, okay." BUTLER, "So if its 20 foot back then you get the 90 feet?" LIDEN, "21 feet back you would still get the 90." BUTLER, "Right." CONANT, "Mr. Butler one thing that I didn't address is that the reason that we asked for the 25 feet in height, which is three feet over, is that the area in which the sign is placed is basically 10 feet below the highway at this point and then theres also the concrete meridian in the center. So if that property was level, I would be very happy with being under that 20 feet limit that staff has asked. I would be at 15 or 16 because its much more economical to build it ..that way. Because of the terrain being set down below the highway and thats where we're trying to reach, we just need a few extra feet to do that and we flew a target, what we call a target. I had one of my boom trucks come out with a four by eight sheet of plywood on it and we raised is up in the error. Mr. Rockwell and I drove it, the freeway, back and forth just to make sure that it could be seen and once it could be seen we didn't go any higher. He didn't want to pay for it to be any higher. So we're not trying Cto push that issue on the City." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 12 BUTLER, "Okay, I have conflict, because on the staff findings on 1 b. , you raised a possible exception that they negated. Now, was there a field study done, Keith, on this, or something that would say to us that you checked out here on page 2, 1 b. , exception, on the topography and you found it was not a viable exception." LIDEN, "I did not do a field check. Our other Planner who wrote most of the staff report did go out and, and I told her to go out and view it, . . . . . up and down the freeway. I talked with here about it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." BUTLER, So he's saying that he had a truck with a sign and did it, and your saying that she went out and check it, field check. LIDEN, . . . . . to far from tape . . . . . BUTLER, ". . . . the existing sign is how high?" CONANT, "Existing sign is 15 feet, a little over that." C BUTLER, "How do you, I don't understand, how that can be explained when you said that at 15 they could see the sign, but yet you had to get yours up to 20." CONANT, "If you get on the opposite side of the street, now theres a concrete meridian in, and thats blocking it and that was in after that sign was put in. And as you look at that sign now, uh, no offense to the design on that, but that was not designed properly. That should have been up higher to begin with, becausg, actually its, it almost sits like its right on the edge of the road and I don't feel that thats a safe way to have a sign. It should be up so that its just an easily viewed sign with no distraction for the motorist. CONMIISSIONER BUTLER, "So did you, Keith, did she go to the other side of the road like the gentleman is saying and look and the sign from across, across, or over the meridian divider?" C TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 13 LIDEN, "I believe she did, but I couldn't say for sure." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "I did." COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "You did? Could you see across the meridian?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Yeah. I mean, see it clearly from how far back? You can see it clearly from pretty far back." COMMISSIONER BOLTER, "I mean across, like he' s saying, across the Meridian?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Yeah. The meridian, I'm mean you can see, you can see the on comming lanes over the meridian. So two talking same time. . . COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Okay. . . . . .to talking same time. . . I'm just speaking of the sign." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "And the meridian, for the great majority of that distance the meridian doesn't make any difference. I'm mean all it blocks is the view of the other lanes." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "So Will are you suggesting then, that 1 b. exception is not met? In your opinion?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "In my opinion its not. If theres some, I mean you could get into a debate about how far back you need to be able to see the sign, but." C"ISSIONER NEWTON, "I understand that." I ALLAN CONANT, "If it would help at all tonight to get the approval, and if we're talking 22 feet from the staff and I'm and 25 feet I would be happy to concede the three feet." C WMISSIONER NEWTON, "Is that what we're talking about, staff? Twenty—two Cfeet?" TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 14 SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "If theres a 20 foot setback, then 22 feet allowable." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Then how about the square footage?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, 1190." CONANT, "90 and we're at 115." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "We dealing with a over sized size as well as, as extra height." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "I've have another question of Keith. If, if Trammell Crow sold each of the, these building to their tenants, would they each have a right, and they included a little strip of the parking lot that ran out to the freeway; would they each have a right to put a sign there?" (no verbal response) So the fact that they are agragated in this one area doesn't change the number the signs that they are entitled to have." CLIDEN, "They can have, there really isn't a limit on wall signs." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Okay, they can have all the wall they want." LIDEN, "The free standing signs are . . . . . .to far from tape. . . . COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Each tenant is, the whole place is limited to a certain number." LIDEN, "Its, considered as a shopping center. So if they are all part of one project, the sign code exceptions do allow for additional signs, so that they have a free standing on two different frontages, which has been granted here in the past. They have a sign on each street frontage, Hall, Pacific Highway, and 217, but they wouldn't without another exception be allowed to have . .Fade out. . . COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "What if they wern't part of the same project, they were all built separately?" TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 15 UNKNOWN, "They would be alrow 70 square feet." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Then they would each get a sign?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Now wait a minute, they wouldn't each get a sign on all three streets, unless they had frontage on all three streets." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Well, but everyone who had frontage?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "On all three streets? Thats a neat trick." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "On each street, would have, could have a sign on whatever street they had frontage on." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Yes." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Do you have, are there any further questions? If not r I'll close the public hearing. Okay public hearing closed." LIDEN, "Pardon, UNKNOWN, "I would like to speak." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, Oh, I'm sorry." LIDEN, "Hes Mark Rockwell with Park 217." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay." "Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to address you. I'm Mark Rockwell, 164 SW Kingsgate, Lake Oswego. I'm with the Trammell Crow Company and I'm Project Director for Park 217. I wanted to make just a couple really brief comments. And that is that when I took over management of this project about three years ago, and continuing up until present, it became increasely apparent to me that if there is any one single problem with that location. It C- TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 16 is without a doubt, adequate visibility for the merchants on the interior. An exception, of course, would be someone like Smith Homes Furnishings, which is situated directly adjacent to the freeway and has no problem. But you take an interior tenant, even someone and old and as well known as Director's Furniture Company, who has been around for 76, 77 years. Most anyone who has lived in the Portland area for any length of time has heard of Director's Furniture. And yet heres a firm, who frankly made a very bad move to come to Tigard, because no one can find them. This is a firm that spends thirty some thousand dollars a month in newspaper advertising. Thirty thousand dollars a month, to tell people where they are. People can't find them. Thats a real unfortunate situation and we're working diligently to try and correct that. Because we think that Director's is not only an _example of the quality type of firms that are within the Park, but we hate to think that they would fail for simply lack of identification. They have people who have done business with them for years, and years, and years, and years, and have been loyal customers. And, over and over I hear from Director's, they say, that every saturday people will come in and say, you know we've been looking for you for six months and we finally found you. These are customers who have been doing business with Director's for years and determined enough that they are going to ultimately figure out the funky little map thats in the bottom of the add and their going to go and persist and find this firm. You can only imagine what its like for some new business. Some small merchant, that 6 or 7,000 square feet, that doesn't have a $30,000 a month advertising budget. The fact is, its just simple is out of the question. That location, becomes simple, unusable, unmanageable. That isn't to lay the problem at your feet totally, because, obviously we built the project. I think that there are some very major design problems. We are, frankly, we the project was conceived, it was designed with the thought in mind of being more of a service location. Frankly, appealing to people who didn't need walk in traffic. The realties are though that the mark has dictated that the type of tenants that appear to be best suited for that location are retail type merchants. And yet there are some, as you know, some obvious limitations. We selected the idea of a electronic sign, and make this appeal to you, from the standpoint that, after giving great consideration to what type of sign would do the job and yet, in an effective way, be tasteful, and yet be something that was minimum in square footage. Minimum, meaning whatever is the absolutely smallest sign that can TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 17 s be put up and still be deemed effective. I mean, you've had enough exposure to sign request to know that if a sign needs to be X number of square feet and you make it 30 or 40 percent smaller than that. Your really kidding yourself, you probably shouldn't even bother to put up the sign, because if it can't be seen, and it can't be read easily. It probably is just money that is just wasted. So we had a study run to determine was the absolute smallest sign that we could put up, still be deemed effective, be tastefull in appearance, and also, one of the biggest attractions to us about the electronic sign, is we feel that is does provide us a very definite opportunity for public service. We will be controlling in our office, the Trammell Crow Office's, the input of all copy. This isn't going to be left up to, uh, Willie Nillie nature, individual merchants, because we have very strict standards on what we will permit on the board. The primary driving consideration is to be able to be able to put up each merchants name. Now that isn't to say thats all that we're going to put up, but that, that is our primary concern. To be able to say, Director's Furniture. To be able to say, Ameri-Tone Paint. So that when people when they are going down the road can say, Uhl , Ameri-Tone Paint is in there. I've heard about Park 217, but I've never made the connection between r Ameri-Tone Paint and Park 217. We desperately need to make that connection. \, So we will be controlling all the input at our office. But as a matter of policy, and we've notified all the merchants of this, that are interested in participating. A full 25 percent of, operational time is being reserved for what we call public service. Public service means time, temperture, and public announcements, such as, school bond issues, vote, today is election day. Any type of message that we feel will provide a genuine, legitimate, public service. So we do have that community aspect in mind, we have made that commitment up front to ourselves and to all people who are participates. So I also thought that was also important to let you know that. So with that I will conclyide my comments. Thank you" MICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay, thank you." CONM9ISSIONER NEWPIAN, "I have a questions?" VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Yes." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 18 COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "How would you feel making Park 217 one of the things that shows up on the reader board, instead of having it permanently affixed to the top?" ROCKWELL, "Well certainly, thats a point that I don't think is hard and fast from our opinion, from our standpoint. But what we are trying to do Commissioner Newman, obviously, we are trying to make the connection between Park 217 Business Center and the merchants name down below. We do have multiple signs at the entrances. This whole process, its kind of like a treasure hunt, you've got to get the people off the freeway, then you get them down the freeway, down Pacific Highway, they've got to see the sign at the entrance. If at any one of those critical point, you don't have identification, you've lost of people. And its really interesting, I never realized how important signage was until we moved one firm within the Park, it was Waterbed Warehouse. They use to be on the freeway. We moved interior, into the park. A sign that I swear anybody could see when they came down the hill. People couldn't find them. People become some preconditioned to seeing a sign that is readily visible, if you make a sign, anything other than blantantly visble, people will just miss it. And so, it is that treasure hunt routine, we want to make the impression as people go down the freeway, they see the Park 217 Business Center. We don't really care if they know about Trammell Crow Company so much. But we do want them to be able to make the connection between Park 217, Director's; Park 217, Ameri—Tone Paint. So that when they get up on Pacific Highway, and they see the name name Park 217, it all fits together. Their not looking for an Ameri-Tone Paint sign, their looking now for a Park 217, Park identification sign that ties them back to the name Ameri—Tone Paint. So I would think that it might be important to keep those two in sink (sp) so that you could have the Park 217 and the Ameri—Tone Paint as an example, simultaneous visible." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Are there any further questions?" COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "I just have a comment. I think, uh, this Commissions be generally been sympathic to this problem, and realize that it is a problem. I think that, the comment that you make is important to remember, from your side, and that is . . . end of tape . . . TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 19 ROCKWELL, ". . . park based on economic conditions. I mean, there's no denying the economic conditions have not been what everyone would have hoped. So we're trying to make, that project is going to lose $600,000 this year. $600,000 that we will take out of our hip pocket to subsidize it. That is in no way a money make for us. But we don't want it to turn into a unmitigated disaster." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "I understand." ROCKWELL, "Okay. Thank you." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Were there further questions or comments. Okay, now I'll close the public hearing portion of this meeting and call for Commissioners comments. Commissioner Butler?" COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "I have no comments." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Newman?" COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "I have a question of staff, quick question if I could." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Oh, well, okay." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "I want to clarify this. If, if the sign was 90 feet or less and 22 feet high or shorter, would they need to talk with us?" SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "Well, in our view they probably would because the previous sig} code exception approved the sign a certain size and proposal is larger." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "So the only thing is, is that we would have to sort of re—validate the sign code exception that they can have a sign there. Of a size other than what we originally approved." 4 . TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 20 SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "Yeah, or I guess you could look at it as amending the 1 previous approval with this approval to allow a larger sign." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Comments. I'm a little disturbed." MR. ROCKWELL, "Could I make just one more brief comment?" VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Well the public portion." MR. ROCKWELL, "Oh, I'm sorry, I was going to address the setback." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "No, thats no a problem as far as I'm concerned. Um, I guess it seems to me that, having grown up in a household where, what put bread on my table was a man who wrote advertising for a living, I'm painfully aware of the importance of signage and whats on it. But I have a lot of trouble with this sign as, as much as I agree with you that there is, theres probably an in-equity in the sign code for a large parcel that has a number of places in it, I mean, we treat a little piece of property just like we treat a big piece of property and thats unfortunate and we need to do something about l,. that in the sign code. However, we are constrained by what the sign code is, not by what we would like it to be. Uh, but I am uncomfortable for two things, one is, that I think that the sign is, is clearly much larger than we have any, any way that I know of in the Code to approve; and secondarily the size we're talking about, isn't, in my mind, the size the sign actually is. Because there is in fact additional signage on there." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Why do you say that its much larger, if we're only talking 90 versus 115 feet." r COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Well, thats twenty-five feet, thats over 25%. Thats significantly larger. The other thing is, that it seems to me that you could i z remove, that you solve, virtually every problem we're dealing with, by removing the permanent Park 217 Business Center from the top of the sign and do nothing else to the sign, except as the reader board reads, alternate every second or third or fourth thing with Park 217. In fact, I think if took a Clook at studies of signs, when the words change they are read more often than 1 t E TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 21 when they don't, andin fact I doubt many people would ever notice the Park 217 Business Center, part of the sign, if its the only thing that never moves. I guess those are my comments. I think that the problem can be solved. The very real problem and be solved fairly simply and perhaps even more effectively without stretching the sign code that far." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "I have a question of you. Are you my that proposal suggesting that your willing to approve a reader board sign?" COMMISSIONER NEWTON, That flashes freely COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, ,well I'm not happy with the reader board sign. But thats a personal feeling, it doesn't matter whether I like it or not, the Code permits it. I mean, thats really not, as far as I'm concern, thats not part of the discussion. If they can have the sign they can have a reader board. And a reader board, I think, properly managed is a fine sign." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, ,Well, I guess I feel that when safety is a concern, possibly it is (pause) for discussion." C COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Well, yeah. But theres nothing in the Code that allows us to say that you can't do it because its a reader board. Safe or unsafe as it may be, as I understand it." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, ."That may be true. Commissioner Fyre." COMMISSIONER FYRE, "The difference in square feet that we are talking about here is 25, uh, I guess we could do a couple of things, one we could approve 22 feet and ja square footage of 90 and, or approve it as is. Now, sign code exceptions were put into place for a couple of reasons. One, is to prevent clutter is the downtown area. The people of Tigard have to drive the strip everyday and the proliferation of signs resulted in the sign code. The exceptions come along for special circumstance. You did a good presentation on explaining what the special circumstance where. Namely, the location of Park 217, its proximity to the freeway and the fact that if the sign is 25 square feet larger, somehow your going to get more people in. The fact that C TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 22 7 the sign is 25 square feet larger means its going to be a little bit bigger to look at, when I drive by there everyday as a Tigard resident and I know where Park 217 is. I know whats in there. Sometimes I don't go down there because its hard to get in and out. Signage isn't going to do anything in terms of bringing more Tigard residents in. But it will be an impediment, in terms of the people in Tigard that live and have to drive by it every day. You built a fairly good case, a fairly compelling argument to gain the additional 25 feet. I'm somewhere inbetween. I' ll hear what the other two Commissioner have to say." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Vanderwood." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "Talking about being inbetween. laughter . . . Quite frankly when I read this, I said absolutely not, but they have given an excellent presentation and made me think about some things that I didn't previously consider. Uh, at this point, I'm leaning, I think, towards approval. 90 feet, 115 feet, we're talking a big sign, one way or the other. I think to start messing with what has been designed professionally, I think ( that we could destroy the integrity of the sign by trying to cut it down, `-- change it around. At this point I think that I'm leaning in favor of it. I think that there is some merit to doing it. I would add, that I certainly hope they never come back again. But, . . laughter . . this every six months, Park 217 sign code exception. But I think that they have done a good job in trying to comply as best they can and meet some real needs. Obviously, because we are in Tigard we know Park 217, but I'm sure that there are a lot of people who don't and I imagine there is a real problem. I know several businesses that have moved out of there and I think that we have to look at, if Park 217 doesn't make it, whats it going to turn into in terms of, for the City of Tigard. Do we viant it to be what it is now or turn into warehousing or some less attractive alternative." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, It was undoubtedly financed non-recourse, . . . . . . back to the back, and then they have a lower bases and someone will . . .laughter . . . VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Commissioner Newton. Any further comments" TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 23 COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Well, I don't really have problem with 115 feet. That doesn't trouble me. I'm with Commissioner, the Commissioner sitting next to me, whatever here name is. No, I know what her name is. . laughter. . I was trying to think of a complimentary way to say that. Um, Well, what I'm concerned about, what I don't like is the flashing reader board. I don't care what the Federal Government study says. I think if we reviewed all what the Federal Government studies say, we would all laugh and some of the things that they have concluded. And I don't, and I think there, I think there just, I think there a distraction, I dislike the Landmark Sign. I'm sure they love it. I'm sure that Landmark loves it. But I think its a distraction and questionable in my mind, the safety hazard and I would like. What I would prefer to do is to deny this and hope that in the interium staff would get their act together and come up with some definition about how often can it flashed. I would like to see a sign stay on there 10 seconds, or 15 seconds, or something like that. So if you drive that area you see one signs, thats all, then change it, so that one person isn't going to see multiple signs, but each group of motorist could see it. I think that everything else about the presentation was terrific, commendable, and I would otherwise vote for it, if we had an ordinance that said, on a flashing reader board, you can only vary your sign every 10 seconds, I'd vote for it." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "But the reader board is not an issue. Its allowed by the Code, so, its not at issue." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "I agree, but that doesn't mean that I have to vote for it. COMMISSIONER VANDERP'OOD, "Thats true." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Well, also, if you want to go strictly by the Code, there is no criteria in the Code that allows us to permit this exception. It doesn't meant any of the three criteria." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "Well that may, thats not necessarily true." COMM'IISSIONER NEWTON, "Now wait a minute." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 24 t COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "There are three criteria. (pause) VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Bidding my time here. I guess my feelings about it, let see, while I extremely uncomfortable about the reader board, based on my own experience with the Landmark sign on I-5, I do feel the other Commissioners comments are correct that we don't have anything in the Code that would forbid them, there not outlawed, they maybe should be, along highways. But, I cannot approve the dimensions that they are requesting. I would be willing to approve the 90 foot height, 22 foot height with the 90 square feet. I realize that that probably is going to affect dramatically the design of the sign. The sign as it is designed right now, so I'm going to, but thats it. I don't think we can approve it any larger, there isn't any criteria in the Code that would allow me to make that decision. So if, yes. COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "I have another point that I would like to make. In the staff report, she indicates that criteria "c." does not apply, and I tend to kind of disagree with that in reading it, because access to Park 217, which is located on Garden Place, is through, you know is indirectly off of 217 to C_. Pacific Highway, or to Hall Blvd. . The businesses are located on Garden Place, obviously, theres no point in putting signage there. I think, in a sense, I could, "c." to me does somewhat apply in this particular case. Because there is access to the business from other streets." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "But they have signs on those other streets." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "This is true. But, we talking an exception to a sign size because they need a off site sign, they need a sign on a separate access. This is my interpretation." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "What, could I ask staff, why it says that criteria "c." does not apply in this case." SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "The way that we read the Code, that criteria applies to the number of signs not the size. That if you have another entrance Csomewhere . . . . . . papers being moved . . . . then you could be considered for another sign, TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 25 { but then you would have to look at the other criteria, about, are there things in the way, or does some other constraint. Then you start talking about increasing the height and size." C"ISSIONER NEWTON, "So "c." is really not clear enough." SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "Oh no, we feel that its not relevant because there is a sign there and we're not disputing whether they can have a sign there, the question is the size of the sign. That criteria was relevant when they asked for the sign originally." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, ,But if they would have, if they had come in an asked for, if there wasn't a sign there now, and they came in and asked for a sign at this site." . . . . . several people talking. . . . COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "I think what he is trying to say is, "c." has to do with, if they want an extra sign, and we had someone else come up, Burger King or something. Whos access is was actually on a side street but we want to put the sign here, because nobody, I mean, you know, by the time they get into the side street we don't need a sign." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "I understand what he is saying." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "But her point is that, that exception doesn't say that. C doesn't say this has to do with the number of signs rather than there size." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "You have a question?" CONMIISSIONER FYRE, "A question of staff. Staff, assume that we have a motion and we approve this for the reduce amount, 22 feet by 90 square feet, can the applicant's then go to City Council, if we have approved that. They still can." C TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 26 SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "Sure they can still appeal your decision." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "It would be a denial of some kind." COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "I would like to make a motion, if I may. I would like to make a motion that we approve SCE 11-86 with the following conditions. That the sign be no more than 90 square feet on a face. 22 feet maximum height. Minimum of 20 foot setback. And no column letter or signage. That mean nothing. . . . . . . COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "No Trammell Crow Company, no phone number." COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Yes, nothing below the reader board. Nothing here. No matter if its illuminated or not, no signage, no lettering, no logo, no nothing." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Second." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay, uh, COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Excuse me." } i VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Were there more conditions." 's COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Oh yeah, the fifth one, and this is a little, I know that they have a electronic reader board and they can appeal this if they i don't like it. But I would like to see, adhere to future electronic message board flashing criteria ordinance. Now that, down the road sometime we' ll have an ordinance that says don't flash eight times a second or whatever. But thats just a, I'm just trying to satisfy the concerns for the electronic reader board flashing rates, so I threw that in." i VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "I'm concerned that, whether we can put a condition in i about something that doesn't exist yet." t C COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "I'm open o." � TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 27 if you would like, ��I would it would be appropriatethey SENIOR PLANNER, ld imagine® s what kind, it sounded like to ew waatt the licant, as far a and just to decide to ask the apP may not be objectional, were proposing, wasn't, intervals going to be." COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "I would rather have the condition." ,Well, we'll make a condition that it can blink no more VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, see, I mean who going-than, but who monitors that though, we can't put an ordinance on ,,We can't, like to say. I put it like COMMISSIONER BUTLER, something that there is no ordiai st but I would say, thats why the law, or against the Code"' this, now, is that, is that ag SENIOR PLANNER LIDEN, "I don't know." N, "I just think it would be awfully hard to figure out COMMISSIONER NEWMA what it meant." several talking • • • mean anything until an "It doesn't ordinance is passed COMMISSIONER FYRE, he ordinance is passed the ordinance would be in anyway- Right. And when t yway at that point anyway- Its somewhat redundant." e "It will bind them anyway. 11 COMMISSIONER NEWTON, But I COMMISSIONERt BUTLER, "It won't bind someone who is grandfathered. wanted. . ." 11, would suspect that when the Code comes to a COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD• going to grandfather in." reader board situation, there not g COMMISSIONER NEWTON, "Yeah, why grandfather them." TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 28 COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "There not going to let them grandfather in." Several talking. . . . COMMISSIONER FYRE, "I think you intent is good, but the execution might." COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Then I'll delete that part." COMMISSIONER NEWMAN, "Good, because I didn't second that part." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay, any further conditions?" COMMISSIONER BUTLER, ,No, thats it." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay, we have a motion that has been seconded, any further discussion?" COMMISSIONER FYRE, "Yeah, I just have one further comment. I have this ' oing to vote for this, just so we can move this on. I have a feeling, I m g feeling this will be appealed to the City Council, based on the City Council's tract record, that it will probably be approved the way they originally submitted it." COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Well I'm using the findings on these, they can do this anyway with this setback. I am the one who is for the Code, and I'm stretch, I not really stretching it here. This is all legal ." COMMISSIONER FYRE, "I know." COMMISSIONER I NEWTON, "Lets figure out how we want it to come out and approve the opposite. Then when it goes to City Council, we'll just be reversed. C"ISSIONER NEWMAN, "I would just like to get a comment in the record, um, that I seconded this based on my understanding of the Code, that this is the most generous that we can be, and I am in full sympathy with the problems that applicant faces. But given the Code the way that it is written, this is the Cmost that we can give them. TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 29 COMMISSIONER BUTLER, "Oh one more condition, add the etc. that we normally add to get the final order signed." VICE PRESIDENT OWENS, "Okay, all those in favor, say Aye. COMMISSIONERS Owens, Butler, Fyre, Newman, AYE. CONMIISSIONERS Vanderwood and Newton, NAYE. VICE PRESIDENT, "I guess the motion passes." COMMISSIONER VANDERWOOD, "I would like to add the comment to my naye vote that I am in favor of the proposal as submitted by the applicant. l_ r �, TRANSCRIPT SCE 11-86 PARK 217 PAGE 30 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 6, 1987 1. Vice President Owens called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The meeting F was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL ROOM - 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Ow nand Newton.oners Butler, Fyre, Vanderwoo Absent: Commissioners Moen, Peterson, and Leverett. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden, City Engineer Randy Wooley, Assistant Planner Duane Roberts, Assistant Planner Tom Dixon, and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Butler abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Duane Roberts introduced Jean Harrison of the Washington County Block Grant Program. She gave a presentation on the status and goals or the block grant program and requested input to identify needs in the City of Tigard. RECESS 8:05 PM RECONVENE 8:14 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 10-86 OREGON KI SOCIETY NPO 6 4 For a Sign Code Exception to allow 45 square feet of signage where only 30 square feet are allowed on property zoned C-P (Commercial Professional) Located: 12170 SW 68th Ave. (WCTM 2S1 1AD lot 1400). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for denial of the Sign Code Exception as proposed. He stated that staff would support approval of a modified version which would allow a freestanding sign with 11 1/2 sq. ft. of lettering and 17 1/2 sq. ft. of sign if the additional 6 square feet does not contain lettering or logos. Discussion followed regarding how to determine te fsizeor th f the h the nSand what the applicant could have received app te Development Review process. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Louis Sloss, Vice President, Oregon Ki Society, 8102 SW 5th, Portland 97219, explained that they where only requesting approval for 13 1/2 sq. Cft. sign area and 30 square foot for the wordage. However, he would be willing to limit the lettering to 11 1/2 square feet if this is the maximum the Planning Commission could approve. PLANNING 0"ISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1987 Page 1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Further discussion followed regard'ng how to compute the size of the sign, what could have been approved by the Director, and what options they had for approval or denial. * Commissioner Newman moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve SCE 10-86 with the condition that the sign does not exceed 17 1/2 square feet in size and the lettering does not exceed 11 1/2 square feet, based on staff's recommendation and the finding that this would be the maximum the Planning Director could approve through the Site Development Review process. Also, for staff to prepare the final order and for Vice President Owens to sign off on that final order. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Newton voting no. 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 11-86 CROW-SPIEKER-HOSFORD / HE ATHv=SIGN CO. NPO 0 5 For a Sign Code Exception to allow a 115 square foot, 25' 2" tall. freestanding sign where a maximum of 70 square feet and height of 20 feet is permitted on property zoned C-G (Commercial General) Located: 12100 SW Garden Place (WCTM 2S1 1BB lots 400 and 1400) . Senior Planner reviewed the history of previous proposals and approvals. He made staff's recommendation for denial based on the finding that the increased height and size are not warranted. Discussion followed regarding whether the the word; Trammwell Crow and the phone number should have been included in the measurement of the sign, and what the maximum size and height the Planning Commission could give approval for. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Allan Conant, Heath Sign Co. , 175 NE Columbia Blvd. , Portland, 97211 explained that this sign had been especially designed to accommodate the size and location of the development and its orientation to the freeway. The electronic message board is needed because of the it existing businesses and possible 3 additional business within the development that cannot be seen from the highway. He reviewed what other jurisdictions allowed for freeway signs and requested approval as proposed. Discussion followed regarding how fast the sign should change, how it would change, and what height would be appropriate for the sign because of the topography of the land. o Mark Rockwell, 164 SW Kingsgate, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Project Director for Park 217, explained that their biggest problem is visability. The electronic sign would be the most effective and tasteful way to advertise. Also, the height and size is the smallest they could have and still be effective. He stated the sign would be use to provide public services information 25% of the time. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1987 Page 2 Discussion followed regarding including the develoment's name within the electronic message portion of the sign to decrease the size of the sign. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Newman, Fyre, Owens, and Butler supported approval of a 90 square foot sign with a maximum height of 22 feet, if the sign is set back 20 feet from the property line. 11 o Commissioner Vanderwood felt the proposal had merit and G'ommissioner Newton supported the 115 square feet, however, felt the flashing would be distracting and a possible safety hazzard. o Discussion followed regarding the approval criteria. _ * Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to approve SCE 11-86 with the following conditions. 1. The sign face will not exceed the maximum of 90 square feet. 2. The sign height will not exceed the maximum height of 22 feet. 3. The sign will be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. 4. There will be no lettering or signage allowed on the column of the sign. Also, for staff to prepare the final order and for Vice President Owens to sign off on that final order. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioners Newton and Vanderwood voting no. Commissioner Vanderwood requested to be put in the record as being in favor of the propobal as submitted. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 9-86 RUSS KRUEGER / CODE AMENDMENT Request to amend Section 18.54.040, 18.56.040, and 18.58.040 of the Tigard Community Development Code to allow Children's Day Care as a Conditional Use permitted in the R-12 (Multi—Family Residential, 12 units/acre), R-25 (Multi—Family Residential, 25 units/acre), and R-40+ (Multi—Family Residential, 40+ units/acre) zoning districts. Senior Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for approval. Discussion followed regarding what affect this proposal would have on LCDC's housing goal. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Russ Krueger, 1335 SW 66th Ave, 0402, Portland, 97225 explained that there is a need for children's day care in the area of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road and that this would be the most logical way to allow for this type of use. CPUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1987 Page 3 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 JANUARY 6, 1987 - 7:30 PM TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 11-86 , REQUEST: To allow a 115 square foot per face, 25'2" tall, freestanding sign when a maximum area of 70 square feet per face and a maximum height of 20 feet is permitted on property zoned C-G (General Commercial). — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (General Commercial) APPLICANT: Heath Sign Co. OWNER: Crow-Spieker-Hosford #67 175 NE Columbia Blvd. 10300 SW Greenburg Rd. Portland, OR 97211 Portland, OR 97223 �.. LOCATION: 12100 SW Garden Park Place (Park 217) 2. Background The Park 217 project received City approval in 1978. Phase I of the project was completed in 1980-81 and Phase II was approved by the City in 1984 (SDR 13-84). As a part of the completion of Phase I, an off-premise sign was installed at the corner of Pacific Highway and Garden Place and a second sign was constructed on the Hall Blvd. frontage. In 1985, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Code Exception (SCE 1-85) to allow a third freestanding sign along the Highway 217 frontage and the modification of the existing free stwnding sign on Pacific Highway. Also, the ability to place an electronic message board on the Highway 217 sign was approved as part of SCE 1-85. In August, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Code Exception to allow the enlargement of an existing 37.5 square feet freestanding sign on Hall Blvd. to 61.75 square feet (SCE 9-86). 3. Vicinity Information The Park 217 development is an "L" shaped property which is adjacent to Highway 217 and Hall Blvd. One parcel lies between the project and Pacific Highway. The properties to the north are also zoned C-G (General Commercial). The area west of Hall Blvd. is zoned CBD (Central Business District) and the land to the south is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 �. units/acre) and I-L (Light Industrial). STAFF REPORT - PAGE 1 (' 4. Site Information L The applicant proposes to remove the old freestanding sign and erect another sign in the same place with larger dimensions than originally approved as part of SCE 1-85. The originally approved dimensions were 10 feet in height and 45 square feet in area. The new dimensions will be 25'2" tall, 115 square feet in area per sign face and an electronic readerboard will be added. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Building Inspection Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: The proposed sign does not meet with prior efforts to control sign size and height. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: We recommend that the State Highway Division have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. The State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: I do not support the installation of a variable message sign visible \. from a high-volume, high speed arterial. The motorist distraction presented by the various messages are a safety concern (example: I-5 Ford dealership). In addition, Park 217 has guide signage (directional signs) on Highway 217. Denial is recommended. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission 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 18.114.145) must be satisfied: a. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would 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 code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because �. of the topography of the site. STAFF REPORT - PAGE 2 C. There is an access drive which services the business or service from a street other than the street on which the business is located. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exception of those on the subject property) which block visibility from I-5. The Park 217 property is lower than the freeway (about 10 feet) but the sign is clearly visible from Highway 217 in both directions. There is no Sign Code Exception approval criteria Sign Code Exception to allow an increase in sign area. 2. Criteria c does not apply in this case. 3. The applicant will have the option of erecting a freestanding sign with 70 square feet in area per face and 20 feet in height as specified by the Code in Section 18.114.130(d). Prior to sign erection the applicant should obtain a sign permit. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning staff recommend denial of SCE 11-86. S PR P RED BY: eborah Stuart APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development (DAS:cn/2836P) STAFF REPORT — PACE 3 i 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The property owners of Trammell Crow request an exception to the Sign Code for height and for square footage. The property's main exposure and market Area is Highway 217. At the proposed sign location, the property is approximately 15' below the grade of Highway 217. We are requesting an exception of the height to compensate for the landscape of the property (below grade). The additional square footage required (115 square feet total) is minimal, but needed as the project encompasses 23 acres and has a potential for 20 separate businesses. There are presently 11 businesses. Allowing the height and square footage will allow the present businesses and future tenants the much needed exposure to Highway 217. Wr p, NWr IWESr) ,. .. v o .fi , •y �! / J- 111 •I�1 I • •`` • t' ' :�• v It• 1 I •�{� :'�'► • y F'f[�`'' calx sutw O eft"E • ; - n �eR • f `; .1. wwr go PAClck#lwy(a'Esr) L ,• T -fir �i�X '-+t D '� �_•;W/~ I � i Ill II.�ll• �.► \. .; �• �.��. � •*� � �„�.., a�1r'' •+ • ��x. .Y rtJ�.'ONt E i Ayala � y C ror � ho�o EXh � e � � 5 See EDunL i �3) IIdB� DAKK 2 1 L�dL 11c Ion I .w� ,�11r!_r�11rr1i11t Ilriyl rir�lEr r�111.+Ir�l♦i i)r Ijl T f]l 111 Ili T 7+ I + I l r i - I � III I � j I �i�J I _� r� jrf� l �.-i+�l � i.� I��i+ill+l+ir(+a+�+i6�+I+�+Irlrh�i�llrl+lr"rlelrlrir,jrlr�rirlr�t�i+r�rlrirlr�r�r�r+r NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED I -- -_--..... 2 - 3 4 _.. _ 5 6- _ 7 B 9 0 i I 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN -.- THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL DRAWING. -�---- - -- - -. OC 62 82 zz 9z sz bz ez Zz IZ Oz 6i 81^[I 81 s1- til E1_..Z.I1_i ol._ 6 8 1g--- sin ROW* i+rrlualuuluu6mluul+urlrl�Aa_- J - r ___ ___:.._._.____-.--_ i N -, __ 7: , 1990 -- 14:f%ro IfosA.. TC1�P�11 ASA ao CAf5 Pr DK.G VtAy 1 -14"C A t T EX CUi U��GN-2� 0 DWA\,l PT. Vv"i-4rT'E. �--ro 1`14--MCH -cx CCLC>lz G-N-2-776m-4 i i g. . .. T✓—, CC Cwt^C�� i+1`�1 �'7�Q4 v `� = �'>�a v 33r�'°i Poch-cam L-TMs�140)sem-,� Y �r�-2� (sem• ). s- " 4bL4-G 1'r-gW, mgv, p ' 6RPty 6th-27 f W Iwtatt6). S'EsX e[x�T iLT C 'O -S C1J. 100 �. OTC M3 Pt. rr BE IMLL B6Kr.2 17 Z-1 17 fl _ I i i i t ++� a L oemoK neoieavw� Axlz. 8Y ,owx.... sir -.. asor�eare�ow _ APMOVAU g a Dou�� F�4C1�S> I L,W 1rI lN�'� �• � ,� o -. ��} , o _ a=g� o pRp PROD € t "amu'" a s. s•,, , x w �.�j' d►T3C N ALL, __--.�ra.r-;�_,-. - "''s��'....a.........;;��. .�._� ..-_.. .'�-"'"..�_'s_" ...�-..=Fi ..--........�� .-,v��:.-. �'�•.a..:..:;e''�^!!'�rt.:[b"r" "'".e�•v^.�.-.-n a,:�::-a.::.ng+,r.•..r:�r2'•r,, �. +E' BE YERIF4ED-BEPORE t1CTlO ,111111►I fill 111 I111111111111111111111111111111111111 111ir r! (m I111 II-ri ITi �1IIlII I l It 1 I I I r I III 1 I rfl t I III I I Illil)1!1111 IIIA I I I'I Ill III Ill Illilllilll Illll NOTE IF THIS MICROFILMED ..- I 2 3 4 -_ _ 5 6 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ThE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. __ a OE 6Z 9Z LZ 92 SZ b2 6Z ZZ IZ OZ 61 91 LI 91 S-I' Irl EI ZI II 01 6 B L 9 S 4 E 2 I— r /nlnlduuhw6mlwdx111NuIInl�mdiul�IuduuluuJt�uduulul>hlv�nulul�lni�W�tW11111�IN1quIlUf111�11>it�tEitnlntllun�ilulludunlNalunlulhullludmllnuluuluuluu6lull�IlalduuhluhnlllnlluulupJlllllWllm►� • MARCH 1 7 ; , 1990 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TMC Amendment PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A Plumbing Code PREPARED BY: Brad Roast DEPT HEAD OK1 CITY ADMIN OK ' REQUESTED BY: Brad Roast POLICY ISSUE Should the City of Tigard adopt the State of Oregon 1987 Edition Plumbing Specialty Code, to keep city codes current? INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has adopted previous editions of the State of Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code to retain jurisdiction over plumbing code enforcement. This code has been revised and updated by the State of Oregon and needs to be incorporated in the TMC. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED a). Adopt attached ordinance as part of T.M.C. Title 14 (Exhibit "A" Plumbing Code Ordinance) consistent with State statutes (ORS 447.080). b). Reject adoption, risking loss of jurisdiction over plumbing code enforcement. FISCAL IMPACT a). Adoption — none. b) Rejection — potential loss of permit revenues ($50,000—$80,000/year) . SUGGESTED ACTION Motion adopting alternative "a" as part of TMC Title 14. BR:cn/0818W MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council (� March 6, 1987 FROM: Jill Monley, Community Services Directo'j SUBJECT: Northwest Regional City Managers Conference I am requesting your approval for my attendance at the Northwest Regional City Management Conference in Spokane, Washington. It runs from March 31, through April 3, 1987. I would like to go for Thursday, April 2, and Friday, April 3rd. The Thursday session focuses on Media Relations and Compensation Issues in Financial Planning. The Friday program separates participants by state wherein the Oregon Section will conduct its business meeting and share Oregon issues. My attendance at the conference benefits both the City and my previous employer, the ICMA—RC. Because of this mutual benefit, I am suggesting that the ICMA—RC pay travel costs and the City pay registration and subsistence. I estimate costs to the City to be about $160.00. } do:1320p _y NORTHWEST REGIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MARCH 30 - APRIL 3, 1987 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON PRE-REGISTRATION FORM Name J121 Mon 1e , Copununit Services Director Phone 503-639-4171 City of Tigard, P.O. Box 23397, 7'i ard, Ore on 97223 Address Spouse's Name (if attending) Children's Name(s) and age(s) ElPayment XX Will Pay aet Enclosed Conference Cost Number TOTAL Le istration Prior to !larch 20 75.00 1 75.00 Association Members (OR, WA, AK, ID, BC) 85.00 Non-Members 15.00 Spouses/Guests (not children) After March 20 85.00 Association Members (OR, WA, AK, ID, BC) 95,00 Non-Members 15.00 Spouses/Guests (not children) /l Wednesday, April 1 9.25 Luncheon and Presentation Thursday_Ap�_il 2 9.25 1 9.25 Luncheon and Presentation (don't miss this onel) 21.50 1 21.50 Annual Banquet TOTAL II29e�� .105.75.. CHECKS PAYABLE TO: WASHINGTON CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION MAIL TO: John Lamb, 4719 Brooklyn Avenue N.E., Seattle, Washington 98105 The following events Mill be offered without additional charge as located and scheduled on the agenda: Thursda Evenin ar y rd Reception - Hospitality Room Wednesda Mornin ont nentsI Breakfast for Members Wednesda Afternoon ver rontpark Guided Tour (IMAX, Carousel, duck feeding) Wednesday Evening ( W tton (Bring a bottle of your area's finest), Entertainment 1. Thursday Mornin z ont nental Breakfast for Members * Historic Tour of Spokane Thursda Afternoon o ey a No charge except for medical attention to Oregon team.) Thursday Evenin re- anquet Reception - Partially hosted bar * Ofnner, Wine and Entertainment Frida Mornin ont nental Breakfast for Members Pay-As-YOU-Go Items: WednesdaEvenin uy e ming (menus will be posted at registration) Thursda Afternoon orsebac —riding (transportation provided) ty room s "III childearesprofessionalssdiwill be rectly.ofTheeservicel�willtbeiavail bletonhWednesdayaandtThursdaycompensate the from 9:00 a.at. to 10:00 P.M. With enough parental help, all children will go on the Riverfront Park guf,ded tour. CAVANAUGH'S INN AT THE PARK CAVANAUGH'S RIVER INN Spokane's premier convention and lodging facility,overlooking On the banks of the Spokane River, a resort •type atmosphere downtown and Riverfront Park. with urban convenience.Across the street from INN at the PARK. ❑ 275 Deluxe Rooms Including 24 Executive Suites ❑ 250 Guest Rooms ❑ Sculptured Swimming Lagoon ❑ 2 Pools • 1 Covered ❑ Indoor Lap Pool,Jacuzzi,Sauna and Fitness Facility ❑ Tennis Court ❑ 5-Story Tropical Atrium Lobby ❑ Free Parking ❑ Windows of The Seasons Fine Dining ❑Jacuzzi &Sauna ❑ Atrium Cafe Sc Deli ❑ Cavanaugh's Landing Restaurant ❑ 2 Lounges . Park Place with dancing nightly. ❑ Entertainment Lounge Cesares Lounge- 7th Floor, Executive Wing ❑ Free Parking ❑ Free Parking ❑ Meeting and Banquet Rooms ❑ Convention and Banquet Facilities W. 303 North River Dr.* Spokane, WA 99201 N. 700 Division is Spokane, WA 99202 For your convenience,the preferred check-in time is after 4:00 PM. Rooms held until 6 PM unless arrival is guaranteed with first night's Early arrivals will be accommodated as rooms become available. deposit or major credit card. No charge for children under 17 staying in the same room with an adult. Guaranteed rooms will be held until 8 a.m. the following day. All rates subject to Washington State taxes. Cancellations must be received at least 24 hours in advance. Check-out time is 1:00 p.m. Toll-Free 1.800-THE-INNS Please make reservations by March 10, 1987 to ensure availability. NAME JILL MONLEY CITY OF TIGARD PLEASE CHECK SINGLE OR DOUBLE& Ilona.PREFERENCE ADDRESS P.O. BOX 23397 INN AT THE PARK RIVER INN SINGLE(I Pervui.I bed) S— 4Q_n0 ❑ f aQ nn DOUBLE:(2 per,..I bed) D f 56.00 fl f_--16.110_. CITY TIGARD STATE OREGON ZIP 97724 DOUBLEIDOUBLE(2per..m..2bed+) D f SR-nn ❑ f Gr+ nn EXECUTIVE w1Nc 503 639-4171 SINGLE. D f-- CELEPHONE ( ) DOUBLE: D f--.- . 4/2/87 DOUBLEIDOUBLE: ❑ (----- ARRIVAL (DATE)TIME) A'M' DEPARTURE 4/3/87 SUITES and SPECIAL REQUE-STS Contact Hotel Directly If your specific request cannel be honored.reservations will be made at the nearest NO. IN PARTY 1 ADULTS 1 CHILDREN NZA available room type and rate. — (UNDER 17) DEPOSIT INCLUDED AMOUNT f —O— Charge my CREDIT CARD D VISA D MASTERCARD SHARING ROOM WITH D AMERICAN E XPRFSS I AM AFFILIATED WITH:(NAME OF CONFERENCE) MA/0R CITY MANAGERS essOr.TATION CARD NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE: DATE(S) 3/31 - 4/3/87 SIGNATURE NORTHWEST REGIONAL CITY MANAGERS CONFERENCE March 30 - April 3, 1987 Spokane, Washington SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Tuesday, March 31, 1987 5:30 p.m. Early Bird Reception Wednesday, April 1, 1987 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m. Registration 9:00 a.m. Introductions by Mayor and City Manager 9: 15-10:15 a.m. Keynote Speaker - The Future of the Pacific Northwest Economy John W. Mitchell, PhD. Senior Vice President and Economist U.S. BANCORP 10:30-11:45 a.m. Panel Discussion - The Future of the Pacific Northwest Economy Moderator - Ehman Sheldon, City Administrator, Deer Park Michael J. Parks - Editor of Marple's Business Newsletter Ron Garzzini, City Manager - Seward, Alaska Dave Soulak, City Manager, Palmer, Alaska Pete Kerwein, Washington Water Power Noon-1:30 p.m. Lunch Panel Discussion - Federal Trade Economy Moderator - Bill Pupo Bob Gordon, Federal Lobbyist for Spokane Don Jones, Assistant Executive Director for NLC Representative from Trade Commission either Federal or State 2.00-4.00 p.m. Oregon City Managers Presentation The Benton County and Corvallis Experience in Economic Development Partnership Keynote Speaker - John Anderson 5:00-6:30 p.m. Oregon/Washington Wines Reception 6:30 p.m. Open - Restaurant Excursion 1 5 s 1 ,._ Thursday, April 2, 1987 8:00-Noon Registration THEME Developing Professional Skills What Makes a Good Manager and How Do You Stay That Way? 9:00-10:00 a.m. Keynote Speaker - Dom Portolese Emerging Trends in Management 10:15-11:45 a.m. Concurrent Sessions Media Relations Moderator - Pat Dodge, City of Medina Chris Peck, Managing Editor, Spokesman Review Newspaper Dean Mell, News Director, KHQ-TV, Spokane Stan McNutt, City Manager, Des Moines, WA. Michael Casey, City Manager, Grants Pass, OR. The panel will address how to get information to citizens through the media, dealing with coverage of major stories about municipal problems, and getting the right amount of coverage on issues. Council Relations Moderator - Don Morrison, City of Tukwila Vicki McNeil, Mayor, Spokane Terry Novak, City Manager, Spokane Mike Gleason, City Manger, Eugene A panel of seasoned officials will share their observations, wisdom and techniques for improving Council/Mayor relations in both city manager and general management organizations. Community-Manager Match Moderator - Mike Webby, City of Kent Tom Waldron - Personnel Consultant Glenn Reed - City Commissioner, Bend, Oregon Dick Cushing - City Manager, Olympia, WA A panel including a headhunter, an elected official and a seasoned manager discuss the key factors involved in matching a manager with a coutmuni ty. `1 2 Noon-1:30 p.m. Lunch Speaker - Marilyn Grey - The Real Expert (Spouses Invited) 1:30-2:30 p.m. Planning Financial Future Moderator - Tom Fitzsimmons, Thurston County Managing Compensation Issues - Personal and Organizational Also Presentor: Jack Webb and Waddell S Reed, Inc. 3: 15-5.30 p.m. Volleyball - Either at Cavanaugh's River Inn or YWCA Depending on Weather 6:00 p.m. Reception 7:30 p.m. Banquet Speaker - Buford M. Watson, Jr. President, ICMA Friday, April 3, 1987 9:00-10:15 a.m. Business Meetings - Bill Pupo 10:30-11:30 a.m. Joint Meeting - Bill Pupo SPOUSE AND DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES �J Wednesday, April 1, 1987 - Walking Tour of Riverfront Park _ 1:00 p.m. Depart Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park: walk through park to carousel with pop and popcorn; feed the ducks; walk to the Joy of Running; Sky Ride (if available); walk through theme stream across suspension bridge to Canada Island to IMAX Theatre. 3:00 p.m. View both IMAX films - "Grand Canyon" and "On the Wing" 4:15 p.m. Return to Hotels Thursday, April 2, 1987 - Historic City Tour 9:00 a.m. Depart Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park for City Tour 11:30 a.m. Return to hotels or drop off downtown 1:30 p.m. Horseback Riding - bus leaves hotel 4:00 p.m. Bus returns to hotel 3 CITY OF TIGAW EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in our personnel file. DATE OF REQUE T: 3�ot 1R- Requested by: , iLL Konl ey Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: ( X1 Employee request attend WA S K [ ] Employer required attend o Joky, LAtA R For check run of 3 11 9�f-i 4t11q 6gpeieLg it AVE. Atf. [ X j Mail check ASA"P 569 fTtE. WA 4 S/OS [ -7] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: W' 'Zl S A) PAYABLE TO: 0-AVAPAIA(jC hl 't IA1AI AT Tke PA 2K W.. 30 3 N&j' 1k ejkA AQA - SoA.I .+ ..o - „i,. 4gao1 Title of Program: 017e4 A{! A 1h6;5 4d:WT 0,VWPK &We-E Institution or organization Registration Deadline ��p`$7 Training Dates From: To: Describe the purpose: Is this related to [X] current position ( ] reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: TRAINING COSTS: [xJ to be advanced [ ] to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition...... ......... .. ... .... . 10-1200- 4"00 /O S.1S Books.......... ......................... ... ..... Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc. )... . 7139 IC - C Lodging........................... . ..... . .. . .. .. 10-1,20Q-&4#00 SR 9,o 0 Per Diem....... ............. ......... ... ... .... . Other: Total 7S zs:as::ssasasaaas:aasaasaaaxsx==x======c===e.xc=========x==zxaaazsasaaasaa�azss Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditures �e o y ehalf. Employee Signature: Date Appropriation balance: Manage ( ) approved ( j disapproved Dept. Head: [ ] approved [ ] disapproved (explain): Approved at March , 1987 City Council Meeting. CatherIne Wheatley Deputy Recorder Finance Director: MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council March 6, 1987 FROM: Donna Corbet, Executive Secretary JI-11 SUBJECT: City Center Plan Task Force and Other Board and Committee Appointments The interviews for the City Center Plan Task Force are being held Tuesday, March 10, 1987. The Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee will have recommendations for appointments for this and the other board and committee vacancies to you at the March 16, City Council meeting. These recommendations will be hand carried. dc: 1312 � m �wL CL-<5r— A_) CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: Februar 27 1987 AM- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Stret Vacation PREVIOUS ACTION: Re uest SW 130th Ave. near PREPARED BY Rand Clarno' Hill REQUESTED BY: Russ Kreu er CITY ADMIN DEPT HEAD OK POLICY ISSUE Council initiated Street Vacation request — consistent with Council policy as adopted by Resolution No. 85-30. INFORMATION SUMMARY from requesting vacation of a portion of SW 130th Avenue ( a Mr. Russ Kreuger is reqine of Ash Valley Tract, the north line of Lot 6 to twills allowouth lthe area to be used for development recorded plat) . This request the of Ari Green No. 2 Subdivision. Council initiation oroval for then preliminary recommended since the vacation was a condition of app plat of Ari Green No. 2- Mr. Russ u sKreu er world be responsible for all fees associated with the cost of the vacation If the attached resolution is approved, the public hearing ro le tye scheduled for 4/27/87. The City Recorder will mail noteition ce to each p p would normally be required to sign a vacation p ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve attached resolution calling for public hearing on 4/27/87• 2• Take no action at this time and require property owner to circulate petition. FISCALIMPACT 1• Fees paid by applicant. 2. Fees paid by applicant. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends alternative #I- RC:cn/0792W I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON / L/ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 2 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Training PREVIOUS ACTION: Request — Poli u ervision of Critical InciAebtg PREPARED BY: Robert Wheeler, Lieutenant DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Robert Wheeler, Lieutenant POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Dan—cor LTD is holding a two day Police Supervision of critical incidents course in Beaverton on April 6 and 7, 1987 from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. The course is designed to teach supervisors to swiftly deploy personnel in high risk situations, so as to minimize injury to the public and the Police, and allow for apprehension of suspects. Given a potential increase in call load this same increased potential in violent type calls exists. Also the criminal element today is becoming more aggressive by taking of hostages during criminal acts; and new techniques are being employed to deal with these incidents. This seminar will be of great value to the department. The supervisors attending this training will be instructing the respective personnel on their shifts. J ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the requests. 2. Deny the requests. FISCAL IMPACT 1. $500.00 2. —0— SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Staff recommends approval of the requests. sb/0857W ,• C1 1 i OFTIGARD EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST : E This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST:-,--,Z /S 7 Requested by: 4-. Rote,ar tytjeCtkJ Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: DjgV- J [ ) Employee request attend Employer required attend For check run of ( ) Mail check ( ] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No.: Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: PAYABLE TO: ssssssssssssassss:ass:ss:sasssssss:assasss=sasssssassassasssasssssssssss:sssssa Title of Program: �i,ce S«�r��ciu.✓ o�= ('R/���A L �c.a�,.Zs C'ok.�se.. Institution or organization' An/-woe L-l-j - BPwu-c., 401_Z Registration Deadline Training Dates From: V--6-j•7 To: 9- 7- F7 Describe the purpose: Is this related to � current position ( ] reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: (" - -� �. �?v� �SraK /►u o,z �c�c.�•�....� A$ Gu¢(I yf Qn�+w l -�r-�cc,LCL^f c� ' r i••a� L�t�i I d,.{mac G.✓fi¢rt� S¢.ac t•cJc Co^r�Ca�,..M..��-i 9��vA�� � ��l�.t l �a c4• T�.�s iS /SAN ��c c¢/lz.�� Co�.ny e. TRAINIU COSTS: ( C] to be advanced [ ] to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition0 0.0 0.................... 10 16.7 a0 Books....................*.9..................0. Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . Lodging.................0...........0.0..0.... .. Per Diem........................................ Other: 0 Total f Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditures mode on my behalf. Employee Sig tune: Att :56;-, Jd_ ," /fAleWeboy Date c2,1,4.p8 Appropriate ante: y/Hanager: ., C] approved ( ] disapproved Dept. Head: ( ) approved [ 17 isapproved (explain): C L �'t I r f C_1 Finance Di ctor: w� 00 uc N -Cyd X U d. 1 .o' = e cn o d a ® _ C A �o d CP o .o S ~ b •� LfA o"i sit : o = 3 -o CL ?� o► .O tj A N C O a c o -� N oa o� .� y w o o °_ ° R .t A ° .Y ° max° ® p O to to N 3 0 a �`� .v .. A y -p v +. a w ° E a p� _ a■nl ¢'Ec_ �°c -o° }v'i w _. cv, ooaNNv, o E WZ c-°'p R o i Oo3o �, d � ', 0in m Ed .c .. � W J� N N ... °.' o � $ vi �� W O H A CL U) vi v coig Oi d pNj .L u H v O O > w v) v03to �V L� � x `" c m m.2 � s � " Ro10i0p1uy AEo0 ¢ V A s. 3 O C► S .0. A y b s0+ H L1 it u CN Ns 0. 0 U I QJ A W ¢ to A V :oi vOi ¢ a � ^ N E � s � s 3 .6 o E 9LOL6 u053-10 `uol.zaneag 09ZZ-Q7,9-£0G SSLt, X09 'O'd Suiuleij puels!3 §«}l •IsS '.IQ 4191i'J 'M'S SSL :suoi;en139ag auogdalajL -Ida(] 30i10d uol.1aneag :o} uoljeAJasab puaS # lap-lo jo pasol�u3 lunouid auoydala.L A:)uasV/uoilezlueS.ip �Il ssalppv apoD d!Z auueN •p17 JoDueQ of algefted s5pay� uo. im yjun popnput moo9oNVI4 JNIATHE 00'SZI$ :aa3 :u3MI(1b3M NOIIVHISIg3H Q30NIVAGV 'w N C G d T C °; 0 .o O • H c d Q, d R ;, .: to Oo ' +L+ = o°f N ° C ¢Cd e •'� }d" 4.0 W a) a a •�-� V '� sem. � O. �• R "' �: +�' (� •d � � • ++ �, C 3 W c U C C Id a • Z 'v xo sem. 3 G C vi ° �" i•+ (� W oNi .a V) u i w U u C =' •� y v W • U) d _C ® R3 R R3 vi > x cn 3 a � � W m C 4 � J uQ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 06 v C Z r`or ULI W E V a c c vo V a V .a V Q U a1 U V `0 •..1 ocio►oNN Eg o ' c •k, � F- � _ E oar � � as C-L Qf+ Uc o cv oai � A deo M c omm c o QWr�.� d - °' d csN �� rn ° a or (L] O D U A p c or t c of o U . •ii OC u E OC 41(, d o c r�=' c U �.• m'v ' .. a .O v_ C&A •ya �. z EQ EZ � � � Ucfl � t vpi0roci RiU ao '� E .x do ';� � Ao � y� 'E or U ca u qq Y _ .o d o .a A d__ c c q�r O O A 07 OI � d H [1. C V ^ '►~• N 'V VJ t" (.V d O -y- g y A •O d A y C (fl O t- a. J F- Q7 W yyy pp oo 8 cn N M M O �• ch p 8 -' N C U N Cj in co 0 0 o� EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST This foam is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other `7forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST: 02���oTP�� __ Requested by: ,1 6e/:7- WtIce(CA Vendor No. : ( j Employee request attend PAYABLE TO: DAN- 4g/t � Employer required attend For check run of [ ) Bail check (�j Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. :.�_ Vendor No. :__,___ PAYABLE TO: PAYABLE TO: Title of Program: S f- �c L7Sa z Institution or organization - 'cI;P Registration Deadline Training Dates From: y-6:,EZ To: '/-7F'7- Describe 7Describe the purpose: / ��P e ✓3���e�r Is this related to �() current position ( ) reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: `1i -hU/ivi,a &#// �-e4c ^ 44-- C S�.{Qa.ev'�ra►2 Mcg-�o-�CS otz c�.�pe•/`'/�•••+�' d -11 uJIM CV4" // S¢acL�,c CeYr�,.y:,,,n�.•v.T-i 9l vsQ� /,a,�l��l Face • 7 ;.5 1'-5 AN �Xe¢/tu•/� TRAINIM COSTS: [ ) to be advanced [ ) to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition.................. ...... . f1--lZ2e)^ 5�.__ Books........................................... Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)--- - Lodging................................. .... . ... Per Diem................................ ....... . ._-- Other: Total $ c5. Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expendituLe m e on my behalf. Date o2 0 8 Employee Signature: Appropriatio ance:�2 ;, y/Kanager: �. WA approved ( ) disapproved Dept. Head: [ ) approved ( J isapproved (expla?r).: AT " d � r r t JL 0i - . . U r mance Director: w� ir L' y rOlow) V to V �1 WasE" � a u� O C; � � � °a� vl... C -p •- qw u y x ® U � d o � � � •c a3po X01 � � = oLO Ud CL ib d ° c � Q� o o sn c s y > E o y sr cn o .0 w O �, �n .^' 30 a '° •'° � '° = moo -x � �• 1. N w °''c a D C CL -0o�=i o=i >; O R oEi °_' —ori 0 vii 0 cc [�] `■■i rn d of fl.o Z .r d -- .fl .c �- cn = -v >, -o v F�/�� c�-� rc c� c� 7 Q• o " i '6 — •° .� ra o, o O c=a �!'S w N ¢ v r' � � � w 'Ong 3 to O �. —oaiF- vi t� a . . V) °' 0 .° -a te VS � N0 to - - to cam °•' .� �,•.o �.c �, � d = n� >'� . m � L = O �a o� v v ro O Ol * o=i W 7 w s. v0i W ¢• a V �' O d s d Q a o = oUi cn E F� :c .. .z 3 -0 o E ¢ 9LOL6 uOSa-10 `uo;.Ianea8 ' • SSL xog 'O'd 09ZZ-SZS-£Cr15 SSL Su�uiezl `pue�s�3 Sum -46S ;dao a:)ilod uo;.Ianea8 :suo}IeA laS3H auoydalal :04 uoi}eniasag puaS # japip aseq:)and io pasopu3 ;unouiV( auogdala,L A3uaSy/uoi;eziue5.ip apoo diz Apo ssaippv aweN •pj-•j ao3ued o} algehed sM:)agD uopin, q," papnput HOOSGNdH ONIA31HO 00*9M :aad :Q3MIf jb3a NOLLVH16I99H G93NIVAUV °N' o d dOWN w 0 .2 O w ¢ O o ° "u 5 0 c ° .� (!� c`�i D chi F' - W c � .Y d d � O O O y '� 0� it •}r • Z 0 o �• .. •0 3 = C WoNi .e N u C C C 7 y o� 7 Lta J E— 3 J J J a U OC W Chi D • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y y fl. � R of s ti n 0. op c c iTi or '° y c p c ��+ `o ,,;oo a a = i =_ Lia v a c c w �p 6Ja s d c a a c d •c v E Q v U .� �' y E =v •o o 5 $ c •^� .'� F- o _ or = d o� c o N c. �� i° `o E p x � y 3 •- 0' or y :4 CL °' _ o+ E- o a 'o = `�+ _o a Q.I..i / y o C a = y a- y OCG y o Q W V d o=i N ` '~° t y to U y U iT 'o $' A y -n = d a c z -a a d ; o U t/j o = Q c+ ro W e °' c v o U ..'rL' cc u' E cc u] U cp E � m of rrA. E o U = q V V U C .� to -p to A C �►U rw p •n -l7 U t to O1 C a . �► o+ ;� ° E y .� cA :° o o u q` V .� td y Q rEo v o "' V o o y a E d , V an g y o U dd w C A C V C .. in .r (A w Jfui O� d y — c = > a .� t= cB y o E- m U. cB -j 88IT 8 S cli C4 U O0 � ^ 8 8 ^ v7 8 9 c M j .N-• ^ ^ �O C ^ C17YOF MIFA D EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other 7• forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST: ���T�_ Requested by: -1Qo6e�ti Gyl�eeLe/t f Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: D,94- Cci� ��-� ( ) Employee request attend Employer required attend For check run of [ J Mail check i ( ] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : Vendor No. : ! PAYABLE TO:� PAYABLE TO: 7 f ass++a+sass+:::+sssasssa:a+aa+ass:asssassssass:s+ssssssas+:sass:::::sass:+:sass Title of Program: Institution or orga^ization 1A,4-Pno L-- - /3vwut.2�io./ Registration Deadline Training Dates From: j/-6-J'7 To: 9/- 7- P7 Describe the purpose: i Is this related tolwy r ju current position reasonable promotion orJ transfer? Explain: O,z vc %/ TViE( .• nr.-,7' f d����m CV1•�. � I � �1�..rs ,Jas 11-11 ,�1 �� .u•e -,l ti d 3 Z • > SeAf I�C Co-+�gin�Ma.u.T/ 9t4e V4T� -/,- 1,04 44,, r—nee_ . TA;s iS /1.v �Jfc¢/tL•/� CO�r/�j e, TRAININd COSTS: ( ] to be advanced [ ) to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount 1 O Registration or tuition........................ . L1/2 «11-100 / ` Books.... ....................................... Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . Lodging...................................... . .. Per Diem....................................... . Other: Total $ Xa6 ; Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditu es m e on my behalf. Employee Signature: da-: e �, �/l,.,cs, Date c2lgvZ 8 Appropriatio anceeS(2� y/Manager: ., ) approved [ ] disapproved Dept. Head: [ ) approved [ It isapproved (explain): 2� e t ,r Uj iJ Finance Director: i w� V to c U 060 0.0— =,, v a a p� Lf) o ., v �a �b U IN 0 cc 06 c CIO LO ct ¢ C lb 4 d o, a �aod -� N �.ad � dN �' oa -C no a 0 O N ° c u r-s > E oi N w � oo0 in U) °N' ° > ._ �. ,, y ,. _.. ._ O o� c 0O' LC a ° � ocdCL '-' 'd '3Ed � � Nd or a C is v► d W 0 = -D d E °: E N UE-' 'n O ca O •bo :>,.- O y U c� c4 O O O O pod Z N .O a i] O ''' w .� m C O d O O to t� W •U 'O v01 r d s. E c 0 fn u '° '� ro -0 CL vi vOi U) a oNi s `° ° " o O 'N v O to C � V Oo s . .o N ori " ca a.'°- o E O Cf d C .L 7 O. d W E Q w � ¢ .cr = ovi dE � :� � s 3 .aoE ¢ � avww o) ,.. .a �. 9LOL6 u063a0 `uoI.13nea8 09ZZ"9ZS-£OS SSLtF X08 'O'd 6uiuiex•L `puels!3 su)j '16S '.XQ gl!}3!lo 'M'S SSLt, :suopenaasaH auoydalal -Ida(] az)!lod u01laneag _. :01 uoi;enJasaa puag # japa0 asey:)jnd io pasopu3 junowy auoydala,L A:)Uasv/uo!;ez!ue6l0 apoZ) d!Z ssalppv aweN •pq ioOueQ of algeAed sN:)ai{:) uoilm; y;im papnput MOOSONVH ONEGIMS 00•SZI$ :aa3 :Q3HU1b3a MOI.LVHISI93M G33MVAUV U) Ln d .. a W) $ CL W dg d "No C Er i , d C oa (� o C cu � �• v A c d d W _vQ a .V a A m f.L � O � N CL V4w E R 7 06 w L *• pa �+ F 'cN.0 0 c 'a� Cn `t/� D t� F o W c U O O ►�•a �v w fj' o tod ujN � � _ � LtoM �_ to a oto 3 � V .°� .�.1 J D U OC t] CO O • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H N p y O O CJ, n of c c U oyi rnH t m a a o C (� E to E a O O 1-4 'fl V 7 'a t_, Z a U) MA d C O in Of ►A. = C W ca : a C og N W E d v a w pc ! •C C cn yU E ,,,a A v ¢� v U c o, w � �m y E a 'O ,O O C C C = � 9 O _ y � Ow a� C o vNi "' ✓ m,, O E •O C]. 8 p o, •w D. O 7 m Q d � d ( V n O N C ro �j R to w •�.® U o � � �� ^mac°. i° oma �' o Q Ww�.� :' oma, N Rs dcn' V °' y v - ¢ W ? O c A fl '-' A o, C w cK c d OV Mr LCu Eac W Vu7 d o �.AE= R a •►"�". y A E o V = R " " V c -°'o E A -0 to c T(,� ►- � � E 'a � t rn d .L � a c U A E U 10 ►- t V V d d >C d O in V A O N •E y U O O 'u d 0, (y V) C U A `� fl � V) ��- IA LU d d 0 H — C � 7 v a �� ►- N V (A = d ''5F" � t=° � 5a .� F= c� 5 d 6P F- m U... D _', •3 � a 3 O LO o p S cn S S a O M 0 66 6 6i Li, O O •• N .-i N V m cn c i co o c � 1, s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A Safety Town—June 22 to July 2 and July 6 to Jul 17 1987 PREPARED BY: Doris Harti _ DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Safety Town Committee POLICY ISSUE The City has allowed special non—profit groups to be named on their liability policy for specific community events. INFORMATION SUMMARY A request has been received from Gail Patterson, Coordinator of the Tigard Safety Town, for liability insurance coverage to be added to the city's policy to cover The Safety Town activities to be held June 22 to July 2 and July 6 to July 17, 1987. The activities are similar to past years in that it provides instruction for children ages 4 — 6 years, in all aspects of safety. Tigard Safety Town will pay for the additional premium. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~� 1. Approve request 2. Deny request 3. Committee presentation to consider request FISCAL IMPACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Council Action: Motion to approve the addition of a liability rider to the city's policy and Tigard Safety Town Committee to pay the premium. dc:1308p i 1 RECEIVED M.Ar; p N 19x7 CITY OF T!GARD `"5. Hart i g The oast month's. my board and T have been b'_l::v alanning trr' %B and Saf e?tv Town. 1987. T i�and S of etv Town 3-s a summer orooram wn:.ch teaches children 4 to S ve?ari old about all +•/pea of aafety. It iaS ta!lC7nt :.n ci +un and :.nter"eStina WdiV With the heal❑ +ram the Community. We would 1AJ,0 oermission t have the Or:7ar'am eiQaln-tfar thermanth� needned az ar:?teCtlVe :.nsuranCe rider fa rover w. Safet✓ Town w� l 1. be at Mary Woodward El ementry Sessions this year- are? planned +or ,:lune to �J�.I2 and July to July 17. Morning and afternc•on ClaSse are a+fered. 7-jease noti+`✓ me 7.+ ✓cu have anv aut.?stuns or C:onaernS. CThank vau far• Vour time. �inr_sr-nly. mai'. Patterson afety Town Coordinator. 1987 il"0�0 SW i f3th Ave. ioard. Or"eoen 9722= THINK sAFE1Y� a NATIONAL SAFETY TOWN CENTER® The CENTER is a non-Profit,tax deductible,public supported organization to promote the importance of early childhood safety education. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 16 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: C.I.P. Status PREVIOUS ACTION: _ Report — February_, 1987 PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK_LiltftITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE A report on the status of the various projects in the CTP and LID programs. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the monthly report on CIP projects as of February 28, 1987. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive information report; no formal action required. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Receive reports; no action required. RRW:br2503P/31P a CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT February 28, 1987 ST—3 North Dakota Street Resurfacing and Reconstruction (90th to 95th) Construction will resume in the spring. ST-6 — Tiedeman Avenue Realignment Consultant working on final design. City Engineer working to resolve a problem with an existing sewer line. ST-7 — North Dakota Street Realignment at 115th Avenue Final design complete. Attorney's office is preparing the required right—of—way documents. ST-8 — Realignment of 79th Avenue at Bonita Road This project is being constructed in conjunction with development of Mara Woods Subdivision. Construction has begun and is proceeding as weather permits. ST-11 — Traffic Signal at Greenburg Road and Tiedeman Avenue The State has started design and estimates they will be ready to advertise for bids by July of 1987. ST-13 — Traffic Signal at Burnham Street and Hall Blvd. This project is being designed by the State. They estimate they will be ready to advertise for bids by August of 1987. ST-14 — Traffic Signal at Hall Blvd. and McDonald Street This project is being designed by the State and additional right—of—way is required. They should be ready to advertise for bids by the fall of 1987. ST-15 — L.I.D. No. 85-1 Hall Blvd. Street Improvements Final assessment roll was adopted on February 23, 1987. ST-16 — L.I.D. No. 35, S.W. 68th Parkway Construction complete. The consultant is preparing the final engineer's report. ST-17 — L.I.D. No. 40, Dartmouth Street Extension Engineering design work is approximately 60% complete. Attorney's office is working on the right—of—way acquisition. The State is preparing an agreement for signal revisions and associated work at Pacific Highway. *Projects which were previously reported as complete have been deleted. ST-18 — Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane Intersection Improvement The State has scheduled this project for 1990 construction. Preliminary engineering study for the project has begun. 135th Ave./Murray Blvd. L.I.D. In February the Council received the Preliminary Engineering Report and set the public hearing for March 16th to consider the LID formation. (RRW:br2503P/31P) SS-1 — Sewer Master Plan The master planning work will proceed as soon as the new aerial mapping project is complete. SS-2 — Pinebrook Sewer Trunkline Repairs Completed. SS-4 — O.E.A. Trunk Access Paths The work has been delayed to better coordinate with private development in the area. SS-8 — Elmhurst Sewer Extension (LID #42) Still working on acquiring the required easements. SS-9 — 89th P1. Sewer Repair Scheduled for 1987. SS-10 — Industrial Area Sewer RR Crossing Scheduled for 1987. SS-11 — Sewer Capacity Upgrading Projects will be defined during the CIP update. (RRW:br2503P131P) C SD-1 — Gaarde Street and Canterbury Area Drainage Improvements Construction plans are complete. We are working on acquiring the necessary easements. SD-2 — Gentle Woods Channel Improvements Due to difficult access for construction equipment, we are re—evaluating the repairs to be done. SD-3 — 100th Avenue Storm Sewer (Murdock—Sattler Scheduled for 1987 if funding is adequate. SD-4 — Summerlake/Anton Park Drainage Construction plans have been prepared and easements are being acquired. Construction schedule will depend on weather and easement acquisitions. (RRW:br2503P/31P) CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS As Of February 28, 1987 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS PROJECT COMPLETION DATE >1 tr o u C •./ ro •.+ y u C N V! W U C .� Q+ ro u m u N w° -- - _ --- ST-1 - Fairview Resurface +:�' Completed ': :.• ••':•:}':;{:•: Lti%tip•:'%'' '%'':::':':': ,v,} r•'••• }xti'• Com leted - ---•- ST-2 - SW 68th Parkway Resurfa ,;{••..•::• :;;•:�••:•f: •••---- -- :�•::ti ,;•:•:; 6/30/87 - ST-3 - No. Dakota Resurface -- -- ST-4 - 104th Ave. Reconstruct ;r:;x '•`•.ti Completed - - ••i• R •f ___ Project Post oned-- ST-5 - Commercial St. Connect. —�-- - -6 - Tiedeman Ave. Realign. }frf 8/30/87 • { _ ST-7 - No. Dakota Realign. ;r 6/30/87 ------ -- --•- -' - Construction by fPrivatd Dave to r ST-8 - 79th/Bonita Realign. 4/300/87 ----------�••-- - ST-9 - Main St. improve. Study ti rrCom leted Prelim. Vii'l q�t��tl;• f:r : ST-10-- Hunziker Realign. Study Completed Prelim, t�iyr��Nl?ail •:' 112/31/87 ST-11- Greenburg/Tiedeman Sign •r•" - -• - ST-12- Scholls Fry/No Dak Sign ',.=� Completed __�••_. r ST-13- Burnham/Hall Signal 2/29/88 5/31/88 ST-14- Hall/McDonald Signal - ST-15- Hall LID #85-1 I Completed , ST-16- SW 68th Parkway LID #35 Completed ST-17- Dartmouth LID #40 9/30/87 - T-18- 99W/Canterbury Improve. 1990 - r_ 10/31/87 ---- 135th Ave/Murray LID_ CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS CAs Of February 28, 1987 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS PROJECT COMPLETION DATE L C 0 ip •rl C 4 I N N U > L C � W U r,•; SS-1 - Sewer Master Plan ;; 6/30/87 SS-2 - Pinebrook Trunk Repairs SS-3 - SW 69th Sewer Extension Com leted SS-4 - OEA Trunk Access Paths SS-5 - Watkins Ave. Sewer Repa Completed C6 - 100th/Inez Sewer LID --- LID Defeated SS-7 - 74th/Cherry Sewer I.ID --- LID Defeated SS-8 - Elmhurst Sewer Extensio �'r},:•,: 5/31/87 SS-9 - 89th P1. Sewer Repair 1987 SS-10- Industrial Area RR Xinq 1987 — SS-11- Capacity Upgrading 1987 . i i i CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS CAs Of February 28, 1987 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS PROJECT COMPLETION DATE L C �C •ri C S+ UU) U) u 'E � � •.i 'L) � .tea •.�i ro •.oi+ u � u L C •.i U) > L C aw wc�' aw° v SD-1 - Gaarde/Canterbur Drain, ( ? SD-2 - Gentle Woods Channel lm SD-3 - 100th Ave. Storm Sewer 1987 SD-4 - Summerlake/Anton Park 6/30/87 i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and Council March 3, 1987 i 's FROM: Randall R. Wooley SUBJECT: Scholls Ferry Road (Murray Blvd. to Fanno Creek) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UPDATE (FOR YOUR INFORMATION): The State Department of Transportation (ODOT) has begun preliminary design for the Scholls Ferry Road MSTIP project (widening and signals from Murray Blvd. to Fanno Creek). Updated cost estimates indicate that available funding may not be adequate to provide all of the improvements we would like to see. Currently ODOT is reviewing traffic projections and possible phasing of construction. In April they expect to have sufficient data to discuss phasing and funding alternatives with the various jurisdictions. At that time, we would expect to report to the Council and present available options. So far, I am still confident that the project will be under construction in 1989. To bring the project within budget, we may be looking at phasing of some improvements. Possibilities for phasing include such things as the additional turn lanes proposed for some intersections or sidewalks along undeveloped properties. It may be possible to delay some of these improvements while still substantially upgrading the capacity and safety on Scholls Ferry Road. RRW:cn/0837W 4 o� MEMORANDUM TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL March 13, 1987 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VARIANCE V 29-86 and LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 14-86 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION / BOND PARK # 3 Attached for your review is: o Letter to John Schwartz o Notice of final Order o Planning Commission Final Order o Planning Commission minutes (draft) o Memo to Planning Commission o Site Map o Director's Amended Decision o Appeal letter C; John Schwartz, Tigard City Council On March 3, 1987 a group of Tigard citizens presented an appeal of the denial of Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86 to the Tigard Planning Commission in which we do not believe we received a fair judgement. I want to stress that this is not a case of sore losers grasping at straws. We genuinely feel the commission's actions which lead to their decision were inappropriate. We have two primary concerns: 1) We stated in our letter of appeal that we wished to add a stipulation to the purchase of the property which would prevent us from attempting to subdivide our lots. This would prevent random development in the future. The first planning commissioner to speak stated that he wanted the stipulation added as a condition of approval of the appeal. The second commissioner stated that he wanted a stipulation added that would require us to pay for curb and gutter should 81st Street be developed. Both of these stipulations were perfectly acceptable to us. We welcome direction from the city on ways to help insure good management of our property. Now the problem, when the motion was made for approval of the appeal the commissioner making the motion neglected to add the stipulations. He did not feel they were necessary and stated that the appeal should be approved without them. We thank the commissioner for his confidence, however it was obvious to us that at least two of the commissioner's would not approve the appeal without them. We feel that since the "no future subdivision" stipulation had been part of our appeal that it should have been included in the motion. We also feel the "curb and gutter" stipulation could have been added. It may very well have altered the outcome. 2) The Planning Commission heard public testimony from six applicants speaking in favor of approval. It also heard unsolici ale testimony from NPO 5 and from the adiacentroper owner—Dorthy 4Ts-;e-n:tNe�d. TMechaigriman s ned by 53 interested neighbors was also of the Planning Commission spent a considerable period of time addressing each point of accountability required for a variance to be approved and gave a complete explanation of how he felt we had met or exceeded each of them. He also provided a detailed explanation of why he felt our appeal should be approved. Conversely no public testimony was presented against the approval of the appeal. The commissioner who made a motion for denial gave no support for her position saying only that it was bad planning and that our appeal meet none of the four points of accountability. These statements, when made without qualification, are meaningless and yet became the grounds on which the motion to deny our appeal was approved. No further explanation was given. Considering the vast support for this variance we, as good citizens of Tigard, feel we are entitled to such an explanation. We ask that you review this situation. Great neighborhoods are one of Tigards best qualities. This variance takes a giant step toward preserving one of them and deserves the attention of our City Council. Thank You. CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): VARIANCE V 29-86 / Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86 2. Name of Owner: Waverly Construction 3. Name of Applicant: same Address 10185 SW Riverwood Lane City Tigard StateOR Zip97224 4. Location of Property: Addressvailable Immediately west of Bond Park # 3 lots 58-69 not Tax Map and Lot No(s). 2S1 12CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3400,3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4 , and 4101. 5. Nature of Application: Aral of the Planning Denial to adjust one parcel of 1.84 acres and 12 parce s 8- 9 Bon Park ranging approx. , o Z,WO sq. t. in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 pare es o approx. to 12000 sq. t. in size; an or a Variance to allow of de s up to times a width of the 6. Action: Approval as requested property where 2 1/2 times is Approval with conditions allowed. Property is zoned R-12. _IM_ Denial (Uphold Director's denial) 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Full and mailed to: ..XX_ The applicant & owners X Owners of record within the required distance _XX_ The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON March 23, 1987 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with the procedures as applied by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Call LUBA at 373-1265 The deadline for filing of an appeal is Marr-h-23-,-}981 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the laity of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257P) CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION FINAL ORDER NO. 87- 05 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE (M 14-86/V 19-86) REQUESTED BY KENNETH WAYMIRE, ET. AL. The Tigard Planning Director issued a notice of amended decision dated January 6, 1987 approving a major land partition (MLP 11-86) but denying the lot line adjustment and variance portions of the application (M 14-86/V 19-86). An appeal of the denial was submitted on January 20, 1987 and a public hearing was held before the. Planning Commission on March 3, 1987. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. APPLICATION: Request by Kenneth Waymire, ET. AL. to adjust one parcel of 1.84 acres and. 12 parcels. (Lots 58-69 Bond Park #3). ranging approximately 4,200 to 6,000 square feet in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 parcels of approximately '9.100- to 12,000 square feet in size and for a Variance to allow -lot depths of- up to 4 times the width of the property where 2 1/2 times is allowed. The 0.54 acre parcel is then to . -'ivided into three parcels of 4,000 to 4,900 square feet in size. The prod.- ty is zoned R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units/acre) and is located immediately west of Bond Park #3 Lots 58-69 (WCTM 2S1 12CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101). A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background A Director's decision was released on December 19, 1986. The decision contained an error regarding the appeal date and the proposal description. This amended decision has been issued to correct the errors. Also, not all the property owners signed the application as required by Code. Bond Park III subdivision was approved in 1984 (File S 2-84). The western portion of this phase of the development (Lots 58-69) are involved in this proposal. 2. Vicinity Information Adjacent properties to the south, east, and west are zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and the R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) zone lies to the north. The eastern portion of Bond Park III is immediately east and the remaining abutting parcels are homesites that range in size from approximately one to 19 acres. Bond Street ends at the southeastern corner of the property and a 40 foot access easement runs along its western boundary (81st Avenue). t FINAL ORDER NO. 87 - 05 PC - PAGE 1 3. Site Information and Proposal Description This application involves a 900 by 90 foot vacant parcel and Lots 58-69 of Bond Park III. The applicant proposes to absorb the northern area of the vacant tract by extending the western boundary of the subdivision lots 90 feet to the west. The southern section of this vacant parcel will be divided into three ! lots and Bond Street will extend approximately 100 feet further west to provide access. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The creation of Lot 3 precludes the southerly continuation of 81st Avenue to provide access to Tax Lots 1900 and 2000 to the south. Previous development plans for the area have shown an extension of 81st Avenue and no additional access to Durham -Road, largely because of restricted sight distance in a this location. b. This access question may be resolved by indicating a feasible alternate method for providing suitable access for these southern parcels. C. The proposed lot line adjustment and resulting lot depths of up to 200 feet will potentially create problems relating to access if the enlarged lots are to be partitioned in the future. The Building Inspection Division and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District have no objections to the request. No other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed major land partition element of this application is consistent with Community Development Code standards for lot size, dimensions, and access. The lot line adjustment (i.e. , the expansion of Lot 58-69) does not meet the standard for lot depth which may not exceed 2.5 times the lot width. A variance has been requested and an analysis of the relevant criteria is discussed below. The following criteria are given in Section 18.134.050 of the Code for granting a variance: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; Y ' FINAL ORDER NO. 87 — 05 PC — PAGE 2 :; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. -Existing- . physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self—imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. One purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the: Community Development Code is to promote efficiaht development of land within the City. The Code standard that requires lot length not to exceed 2.5 times lot width is intended to maximize efficient use of land and allow for an enhanced ability to redevelop property. In the long run, the proposed lots will be undesirable because of the poor utilization of land, awkward lot configuration, and difficulties associated with future partitioning of these oversized parcels, particularly from the standpoint of access. In addition, if some of the properties are subsequently divided, the orientation of buildings may not be desirable with lots having a random pattern of abutting front and rear yards. The proposal will also create problems relating to the location of future streets on the adjoining property to the west. City policy calls for provision of suitable access for adjacent properties during the course of development. When the property to the west develops, some access to the rear of the proposed lots should be retained to accommodate future partitioning. Arranging a functional street system on this property will be troublesome when the number and timing for future division of the expanded lots will be impossible to predict. The Planning Commission understands the desires of the lot owners in Bond Park III to establish a buffer area between their properties and future development to the west. Although the creation of long, narrow parcels will achieve this objective, it will effectively foreclose future options for utilization of the property. Joint purchase of the entire tract as common open space area would also achieve the desired result and retain the option for developing the property later as a cohesive unit. If permanent open space remains as a goal, future sale or dedication to the City for park purposes may also be a possibility. It should be noted that if the "common tract" option is pursued, the partition proposal would need to be modified since this would establish a fourth parcel and a maximum of only three may be created through the partition process in one calendar year. FINAL ORDER NO. 87 — 05 PC — PAGE 3 The Commission also reviewed the possibility of only expanding the lots to the west by 10 to 20 feet. This action would have a detrimental effect upon the development potential for the remaining 70 to 80 foot by 650 foot parcel. The reduction in width would make it virtually impossible to develop independently. C. DECISION .The Planning Commission upholds the Director's Decision and -V 29-86 and M 14-86 are DENIED. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified f the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of March, 1987, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. Don Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission KSL:bs3055P FINAL ORDER NO. 87 -05 PC - PAGE 4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 3, 1987 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. The mmeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Owens, Butler, Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Newman. 3. APPROVAL OF MINTES Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Staff stated that Commissioner Newton had requested that it be made a part of the record that he would not have been able to partiticpate with agenda item 5.1 as his law firm now represents the applicant. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 VARIANCE V 29-86/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 14-86 WAVERLY CONST. NPO N 5 An appeal of the Planning Director's approval to adjust one parcel of 1.84 acres and 12 parcels (58-69 Bond Park H 3) ranging approximately 4,200 to 6,000 sq. ft. in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 parcels of approximately 9,100 to 12,000 sq. ft. in size; and for a Variance to allow lot depts up to 4 times the width of the property where 2 1/2 times is allowed. The property is zoned R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units/acre). Located: Immediately west of Park Park H 3 lots 58-69 (WCTM 2S1 1@CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101). Commissioner Newman stated that he would be abstaining from the procedure but had been out to the site and could provide technical information. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the Director's decision and made staff's recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. Discussion followed regarding the status of SW 81st Avenue. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Chris Carpenter, 8070 SW Churchill, one of the appealants, representing the applicant, Ken Waymire, explained the different options that they had reviewed and why they had chosen to add the additional property to each individual lot versus a common ownership. Discussion followed regarding the condition of the property, access, possible future development, and the easement for SW 81st Avenue. Q NPO COMMENTS Craig Hopkins, Chairpeson NPO N 5, explained that they had worked with the property owners since the beginning and were in support of the proposal as being good for the neighborhood and community. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Marsha Enright, 8020 SW Churchill, supported the proposal as it would provide an excellent natural buffer. o Mark Corigliano, 8030 SW Churchill, supported the proposal. Fie stated that common ownership will not work because of the legal problems. Also, they would not be able to individually use the property as they wish if it is in common ownership. o Julian Kaasa, 79014 SW Churchill Way supported the proposal as being the last opportunity to keep the property in its natural state. o Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 54th Portland, representing herself and two other property owners for Lot 200, was in favor of the proposal. She questioned the status of the easement for SW 81st Ave. , which is located on their property. She explained that at the time the easement was given the property was taken off the tax roll and now has been put back on. She also requested that the Commission waive the fee for the appeal. o Jim Breakey, 8040 SW Churchill, explained that they were trying to preserve the neighborhood as well as increase the size of their back yards. He felt this proposal is good for the buyer, the seller, adjacent property owners, and the City. He strongly urged the Commission to grant approval of this request. o Penny Love, 8060 SW Churchill Ct. , supported the proposal. She questioned the intent of the 2 1/2 times rule. She did not feel they were violating the intent of the Code. o Paul Widerburg, 8090 SW Churchill, supported the proposal stating that the existing yards are only 10 feet. o Discussion followed among Commissioners and staff regarding the background of lot 100, the easement for SW 81st, access to the area, description of the lot, reponsibility for doing public improvements, the types of improvements which would be required, and the possibility of future partitioning. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Butler asked why they just didn't set up so that each property owner would have two lots. He was concerned about the easement for SW 81st, otherwise, hr didn't see any problem. o Commissioner Peterson was concerned about the problems which might be created, but if you have 12 property owners who all agree never to divide their property, it might work. MUNN o Commissioner Owens was sympathic and understood their desire and WI reasoning, however, the code simply doesn't allow it to be done. The only criteria for a variance that might work would be criteria number 2 dealing with special circumstances. o President Moen had concerns that if SW 81st was improved with the development of lot 200, than we would be left with a 3/4 street with no way to require public improvement abutting lot 100. He felt that criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, could be applied to this proposal. o Commissioner Vanderwood opposed the proposal as being poor planning. She felt the land is developable and does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. She was also concerned that lots would be partitioned in the future and enforcement problems could result. o Commissioner Leverett favored the proposal. Commissioner Leveret moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to approve Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14--86 based on the findings that the proposal meets criterias 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion failed 4-2 Commissioner Owens, Butler, Peterson, and Vanderwood voting no. Commissioner Newman abstained. j * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to uphold the Director's decision based on staff' s findings and conclusions. Motion carried by majority of Commissioner present. Commissioner Moen and Leverett voting no. Commission Newman abstained. RECESS 8:50 RECONVENE 9:05 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 87-02 AND ZONE CHAS ZC •7-02 CITY OF TIGARD NPO's M 3, 5, and 6. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the history of the proposal and what is being proposed for each individual site. He explained that staff had been trying to contact to the School District regarding their comments as they felt the School District misunderstood that this is a trade off situation, moving densities not just increasing densities. He reviewed the NPO comments. He continued that all the proposals are consistent with the Tigard Muncipal Code and staff is recommending approval on all sites. Discussion followed on how best to proceed, how many units would be added if all sites were approved, and how this is trade off situation. Futher discussion followed on how these particular sites were chosen and what types of recommendations could be made. NPO COMMENTS o Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th (Member of NPO N 6) opposed the Albertsons' develop=ment. She wanted to go on record as being opposed to increasing the densities in the NPO 6 area. C .s AGEMDA ITEM 5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff J SUBJECT: Appeal of Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86. Bond Park III On January 6, 1987 the Director of Community Development denied an application for a variance and a lot line adjustment in conjunction with a minor land partition request which was approved for a 1.84 acre parcel and lots 58-69 in Bond Park V. The variance was requested to allow lot depths of up to 4 times the width of the property. Section 18.164.020 (&) (2) of -the Community Development Code states that "The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2k times the average width." The lot line adjustment was requested to adjust the 1.84 acre parcel. and 12 parcels into one .54 acre parcel and 12 9,000. =:12',OCP_.aquate;foot_-pa oal. Staff's justification for denial of the variance and lot line adjustment is outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the attached Amended decision. Also attached is the Notice of appeal which contains the property owners reasons for appealing the Director's denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold Staff's denial of the variance and lot line adjustment requests. a Exhibit "D11 •�...^. ."."_, 9e ee sea. a=t 91.01 + OORBUR uz° SPL• 9S o oU0 2x00 2400 c — — — ��9-ss -) -- -— ' 200 I 100 -- Sa \�57 s 56 ,. `V002 I W 23100 •1�' 1 } - --- — `Z .2600 60 '•s ^ 54 . w \ 901! :► N as 56 ` 3300 11.24 90 .2500 } *N= eeea - •�+ -- - -- 3400 ^�C �2 152 „ 62 : ill J • u i 3500 S 9.300 �o ' } --- SI •1 :r-`► 36C0- , 3501 ti 02200 o 94,16. --- 5 I God.} �` J\l o �l :� 2100 65 a 1 ! INltl��/1 049 s ^}-- ---- t-3800 } t{ \2 S 66 its 29 { i o 0 3900 .•�a�+CA, 1 ` 7 . 67 cf 7. 4401 atr I I 0 4 Ili"0%1 1=• > ;? ,�� 4400 SEE MAP I r.9;-7-.. Nlvl�— Q 4501 -.4500 r.t" I } LL1 69 73, I �-� I f t } yg' 4200' n 0 4600 0 102 S 70 00 S 74;. " 3 . Zac , , 90 9L 1 } N OOH _ 4300 0 L�7 0(n 517e �f I N!••�f 7 .071 _•_ — - S.W.2 BOND 2S 212 cj 45. -)4 zo 9f:. 14JJ 5200 5100 5000 4800 �--80 79 78 77 ' 76" 3 : N!e••:7t M yo` 94 94 94 94 9• iwl^ 1900 2000 /2/Ac I03Ac 1 . (LS 20,:Po) = • FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY.00 NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OT-IER USE. • „ 70.9• ME �1101 : tU-.Ic ^.tdAc : -Tist 7n0 170. - b•9) 'tl-5.71 •- 2999• -�- ROAD -' DURHAM - - ioLLD STATE HIGKWAY 217) 1"}+R��"k�''siF�.i7►' 'Wf�i,:y�M r �k.[.. .f• teu71'J �L_'Ls1�.Y,•'_vd�.:� j;ti.._•_ - 71 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 11-86 VARIANCE V 19-86 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 14-86 APPLICATION: Request by Kenneth Waymire, ET. AL. to adjust one parcel of 1.84 acres and 12 parcels (Lots 58-69 Bond Park #3) ranging approximately 4,200 to 6,000 square feet in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 parcels of approximately 9,100 to 12,000 square feet in size and for a Variance to allow lot depths of up to 4 times the width of the property where 2 1/2 times is allowed. The 0.54 acre parcel is then to be divided into three parcels of 4,000 to 4,900 square feet in size. The property is zoned R-12 (Multi—Family Residential, 12 units/acre) and is located immediately west of Bond Park #3 Lots 58-69 (WCTM 2S1 12CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described Partition application subject to certain conditions and DENIED the above described Variance and Lot Line Adjustment applications. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background A Director's decision was released on December 19, 1986. The decision contained an error- regarding the appeal date and the — proposal description. This amended decision has been issued to correct the errors. Also, not all the property owners signed the application as required by Code. Bond Park III subdivision was approved in 1984 (File S 2-84). The western portion of this phase of the development (Lots 58-69) are involved in this proposal. 2. Vicinity Information Adjacent properties to the south, east, and west are zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and the R-7 (Residential, 7 unites/acre) zone lies to the north. The eastern portion of Bond Park III is immediately ea,3t and the regaining abutting parcels are homesites that range is size fr.;r. approximately one to 19 acres. Bond Street ends at the southeastern corner of the property and a 40 foot access easement runs along its western boundary (81st Avenue). C NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION — MLP 11-86 — PAGE 1 3. Site Information and Proposal Description This application involves a 900 by 90 foot vacant parcel and Lots 58-69 of Bond Park III. The applicant proposes to absorb the northern area of the vacant tract by extending the western boundary of the subdivision lots 90 feet to the west. The southern section of this vacant parcel will be divided into three lots and Bond Street will extend approximately 100 feet further west to provide access. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The creation of Lot 3 precludes the southerly continuation of 81st Avenue to provide access to Tax Lots 1900 and 2000 to the south. Previous development plans for the area have shown an extension of 81st Avenue and no additional access to Durham Road, largely because of restricted sight distance in this location. b. This access question may be resolved by indicating a feasible alternate method for providing suitacie access for these southern parcels. C. The proposed lot line adjustment and resulting lot depths of up to 200.feet will potentially create problems relating to access'-if the enlarged lots are to be partitioned in the future. The Building Inspection Division and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District have no objections to the request. No other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed major land partition element of this application is consistent with Community Development Code standards for lot size, dimensions, and access. The lot line adjustment (i.e. , the expansion of Lot 58-69) does not meet the standard for lot depth which may not exceed 2.5 times the lot width. A variance has been requested and an analysis of the relevant criteria is discussed below. The following criteria are given in Section 18.134.050 of the Code for granting a variance: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to F� the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; C- q f NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION — MLP 11-86 — PAGE 2 ti } 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are r peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other }; circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. One purpose of ' the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code is to promote efficient development of land within the City. The Code standard that requires lot length not to exceed 2.5 times lot width is intended to maximize efficient use of land and allow for an enhanced ability to redevelop property. In the long run, the proposed lots will be undesirable because of the poor utilization of land, awkward lot configuration, and difficulties associated with future partitioning of these oversized parcels, pa:•ticularly from the standpoint of access. In addition, if some of the properties are subsequently divided, the orientation of buildings may not be desirable with lots having a random pattern of abutting front and rear yards. The proposal will also create problems relating to the location of future streets on the adjoining property to the west. City policy calls for provision of suitable access for adjacent properties during the course of development. When the property to the wet develops, some access to the rear of the proposed lots should be retained to accommodate future partitioning. Arranging a functional street system on this property will be troublesome when the number and timing for future division of the expanded lots will be impossible to predict. The Planning staff understands the desires of the lot owners in Bond Park III to establish a buffer area between their properties and future develorment to the west. Although the creation of long, narrow parcels will achieve this objective, it will effectively foreclose future options for utilization of the property. Joint purchase of the entire tract as common open space area would also achieve the desired result and retain the option for developing the property later as a cohesive unit. If permanent open space remains as a goal, future sale or dedication to the City for park purposes may also be a possibility. It C should be noted that if the "common tract" option is pursued, the partition proposal would need to be modified since this would establish a fourth parcel and a maximum of only three may be created through the partition process in one calendar year. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION — MLP 11-86 — PAGE 3 The staff also reviewed the possibility of only expanding the lots to the west by 10 to 20 feet. This action would have a detrimental effect upon the development potential for the remaining 70 to 80 foot by 650 foot parcel. The reduction in width would make it virtually impossible to develop independently. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves MLP 11-86 subject to the conditions noted below and denies V 29-86 and M 14-86. 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PARTITION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. 2. The partition survey map and legal descriptions shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval PRIOR TO RECORDING. The partition may be modified to include the creation of a large northern parcel to be purchased jointly by the adjacent lot owners. A maximum of 3 parcels shall be permitted. 3. Standard full and half-street improvement fronting applicants proposed lots including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the extension of SW Bond Street street frontage. Said improvements along SW Bond Street shall be built to City Local Street - standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements. 4. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 5. Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 6. 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 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a construction compliance 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 SCHEDULES BONDING, AND AGREEMENTS. 7. A one (1') foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" shall be provided at the terminus of the proposed SW Bond street street extension. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 4 8. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Bond C Street extension frontage to provide right-of-way of 25 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE ENGINEERING SECTION. 9. Lot #3 of applicants proposal shall not be allowed to obstruct southerly extension of (commonly known) SW 81st Avenue, said extension having been previously proposed by the applicant (Bond Park No. 3 preliminary plat submittal) to serve as the primary future accessway for T.L. #1900 and #2000, unless a alternate route is proposed by the applicant which is acceptable to the City. 10. Street Centerline Monumentation a. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerli-ne-centerline intersection. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2. Center of all cul-d'e-sacs; 3. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I,) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). 4. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 11. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. 12. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required. C NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 5 13. All property owners of Lots 58-59 of Bond Park #3 involved in this decision shall sign the application form on file at the Planning office or submit a letter acknowledging permission to submit the application prior to appealing this decision. 14. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XXX The applicant & owners ' XXX Owners of record within the required distance XXX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XXX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON January 19, 1987 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the deci ion may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.29A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 P.M. 1-19-87 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE //Z Wil i A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE APPROVED (KSL:bs2813P) I / NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 6 1 /16/87 w 1 C�IJ i City Recorderzoveo'l 11 City of Tigard 'r 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ClTo whom it may concern: Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86 was submitted to the City of Tigard by Kenneth Waymire. We the homeowners of lots 58 through 69 in the Bond Park 3 subdivision in the city of Tigard have just recently been informed that our signatures were required on the application for the above mentioned Variance and Lot Line Adjustment. As directed in the first paragraph on the { top of page 6 in the Amended Decision approved on 1 /6/87, this letter Is to acknowledge our permission for the submission of the j application. !� We the undersigned property owners of lots 58 through 69 of Bond Park #3 grant permission for Kenneth Waymire to submit the application for V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86. t Please append this letter to the original application. { Respectfully, i Paul & Calla Widerburg Mark & Barbra Corigliano 801�'._r1•_.W_. Churyh* ll Ct 80 0 S.W Ch hill C Garyl Helene Byrd S e & Mar En fight 80 W. G`hur i 1 W. - rch Ct - ---------- --- -- ----- Chris & Julie Carpe er Ryan & Leslie Grant 80 S.W_�hur--ill-Ct 801� S.W. Churchill Ct Tom & Penny Love John & Niki Goodwin 8� S.W. �+r -ill-Ct e5765 S.W. -nd Aver Don & Alice Kisslinger al & annie Nitso 8090 S.W. Ch rchill Ct S.W.. Bond Ave Ji Con r key Dave & Eileen Brookens �, 8 40 S.W. rc ill Ct 157 5 S.W Bon Ave 1/16/87 City Recorder City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION , on Variance V 19-86, and Lot Line Adjustment_ _M 14-86 from BOND PARK #3 PROPERTY OWNERS (Lots 58 through 69) This 'letter constitutes our appeal of the denial by the planning department staff of Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86. The original decision of V 19-86 and M 14-86 was signed 12/18/86 to become final 12/2086. This decision has since been amended and signed 1/6/87 to become final on 1 /19/87. We qualify to appeal this decision by being the property owners of the lots adjacent to and east of the 1 . 3 acre parcel described In the application (WCTM 2S1 12CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101) . While we as residents and taxpayers of the city of Tigard understand the need for efficient land use and planning, we believe the Planning Staff has overlooked several factors in their analysis of the proposed variance and lot line adjustment. Our grounds for appeal are that we find fault in the following justifications used by the staff to support the denial of the proposal . REFERENCE: Notice of Amended Decision - MLP 11-86 - Page 3 paragraph 6. "In the long run, the proposed lots will be undesirable because of the poor utilization of land, awkward lot configuration, and difficulties associated with future partitioning of these oversized parcels, particularly from the standpoint of access.` C. i City Recorder Page 2 City of Tigard Notice of Appeal Decision Statement: "poor utilization of land" Appeal : The lots created by the proposed lot line adjustment would not be oversized. Ten of the twelve lots would remain under 10,000 sq. ft. , a common size for a residential. lot. We do not believe lots of this size constitute poor utilization of land. If the property in the proposal were developed, the result would be a very crowded and undesirable neighborhood leading to the overall reduction in our property values. Decision Statement: "awkward lot configuration" Appeal : The 2.5 times the width rule may be a good guideline for general development of property however in this case it appears we are being unfairly penalized for our narrow lot widths. Since all the affected lots have existing homes, the only area affected by the proposed adjustment would be our backyards. The average backyard in our neighborhood is now less than thirty feet deep. The average backyard following the adjustment would be 50 x 110 ' ft. (5500 sq. ft. ) . This is neither oversized nor awkward. Decision Statement: . "difficulties associated with future partitioning of these oversized parcels, particularly from the standpoint of access. In addition, if some of the properites are subsesquently divided, the orientation of buildings may not be desirable with lots having a random pattern of abutting front and rear yards. " and, "The proposal will also create problems relating to the location of future streets on the adjoining property to the west." Appeal : We have taken steps to alleviate the problems associated with future partitioning of these parcels. The sellers and the buyers of this property have agreed to add a stipulation to the sales agreement to prevent future partitioning for sale . An exception to this will be made for the northernmost lot which is the only truly oversized lot and which has access via both 81st Avenue and Dorburn Way. With the stipulation that will prevent future paritioning for sale, access is not an issue; our lot lines would be fixed and the Gages, who own the adjacent parcel to the west, could develop their property as they see fit. City Recorder Page 3 City of Tigard Notice of Appeal The Planning Staff has suggested that the twelve affected lot owners purchase the property as a common tract. In the staff's opinion this would allow for future development of the property as a cohesive unit. While this is an option we will explore should this appeal fail , it is less desirable for the following reasons: 1 . Owning the property jointly will hamper our plans to expand our backyards. Our current backyards are as small as 25 x 43 ft. We would like to enlarge thew to a reasonable size but this would be difficult if the property were jointly owned. 2. Joint ownership of the land would create the need for a group organization to resolve any liability issues that may arise as a result of property damage or personal injury. For the protection of the property owner, this organization would be In the form of a Neighborhood Association or a Corporation. Substantial legal costs are involved in creating either of these options. If we are allowed to purchase individual parcels as proposed, we will be allowed to expand our yards to a reasonable size and at the same time preserve some of Tigard's most beautiful trees. O.qr neighborhood will maintain its charm and our property values will be sustained. We are good citizens of Tigard and anticipate remaining here for a very long time . We wish to create a nice peaceful neighborhood In which to raise our families. We have submitted this appeal because we firmly believe that the original proposal Is the best alternative for the City of Tigard, the surrounding property owners, and the involved property owners. Respectfully, Paul &Calla Widerburg Mark & Barbra Corigliano 8090 S./Wl.) �Churchill Ct 803f0 S.W. Churchill Ct C. � City Recorder Page 4 City of Tigard Notice of Appeal Gary & Helene Bickford Stevj & Marsha,,Enright 80-S.W. Chu ill t 802'Q/ S. Chu c 11 C -------- ---- - L ----- --- Chris & Julie Carpenter Ryan & Leslie Grant 80 0 .Wk. c rchill t 8010 S.W. Churchill Ct Tom r"Penny Love John & Niki Goodwin 80116 S.W. Churchill Ct 1573 S.W. Bond Ave Don & Alice •Kisslinger Micheal & Jannie N.itso 8050 S.W. Churchill Ct 15765 S.W. Bond Ave J & Conni Br akey Dave & Eileen Brookens 04 S.W r ill Ct 157,$5 S.W. Bond Ave • � MEMORANDUM /vOl� 3y.� 140P CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 31/( E? TO: City Council March 11, 1987 FROM: Mayor Brian and Councilor Johnson SUBJECT: Economic Development Committee Resolution Establishing Membership Criteria In filling appointments on the Economic Development Committee, we've run into difficulties due to the tight specifications within the resolution which defines the Economic Development Committee make up. It states the committee should be make up of nine people; no more than two non-residents, four members are from specific business areas, one specific mayor's designee, one commercial banking representative and three at-large representatives. We had many outstanding candidates for six vacancies, however, in trying to meet all the specific requirements, we were not able to fill the committee. We would like to suggest revising the requirements and simplify the make-up of the committee. This would result in the attached resolution, which gives strong preference to representation from the four business areas, but not require there be one from each. Then a commercial banking representative, four at large and -no more than three non-residents. In the existing resolution (Res. 83-103) the membership requirements are as follows: (no more than 2 members from outside the city) a. The Mayor of Tigard b. A representative of the Tigard Triangle Area. C. A representative of the Central Business District. d. A representative of the North Tigard/Cascade Blvd. area. e. A representative of the 72nd Avenue Industrial area. f. A commercial banking representative. g. An at large member. h. An at large member. i. An at large member. The proposed membership requirements would be as follows: (no more than 3 members from outside the city) Special consideration will be given to having one representative from each of the following areas: a. A representative of the Tigard Triangle Area. b. A representative of the Central Business District. C. A representative of the North Tigard/Cascade Blvd. area. d. A representative of the 72nd Avenue Industrial area. e. A commercial banking representative. f. An at large member. g. An at large member. h. An at large member. i. An at large member. EDC Memo Page .2 We are recommending that Resolution 83-103 be repealed and that Resolution 86-135 be amended to incorporate the changes described above. We would like to take action on this proposed change Monday, March 16 in order to complete all committee vacancy appointments on Monday, March 23rd. dc:1333p i t 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87— IN THE MATTER OF DEFINING THE ROLE OF THE TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 86-135 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 83-103 WHEREAS, the City of Tigard created an Economic Development Committee in 1983 to assist the City in developing and implementing an economic development program, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Committee has followed the direction of the City Council for the past three years, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Committee desires to expand its functions and take a more active role in attracting new businesses to Tigard, and WHEREAS, the City Council has indicated its interest in utilizing the Economic Development Committee as promoters of Tigard' s economic growth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. The City of Tigard hereby revises the composition of the Economic Development Committee to work with the Director of Community Development to prepare and implement an economic development plan for the City. Section 2. The Committee will consist of nine members, no more than three of whom may be non residents of the City of Tigard, to be appointed by the City Council. Appointments will be for two year terms except where an appointee is completing the unexpired term of a previous committee member. Committee members shall receive no compensation. Section 3. The Committee shall be composed of the following nine members: a. A representative of the Tigard Triangle Area, b. A representative of the Central Business District, C. A representative of the North Tigard/Cascade Blvd. area, d. A representative of the 72nd Avenue Industrial area, e. A commercial banking representative f. An at large member g. An at large member h. An at large member i. An at large member Section 4 The Economic Development Committee's original role shall be expanded to include: A. The Economic Development Committee shall develop and recommend to the City Council a philosophy statement and action plan to attract new busine3ses to the area. B. The Economic Development Committee will develop methods and recommendations to the City Council which serve to enhance the existing business climate in Tigard. RESOLUTION NO. 87— Page 1 • C. The Economic Development Committee shall facilitate cooperation with neighboring communities on the issues of: 1. economic development coordination 2. transportation and planning coordination D. The Economic Development Committee shall act as Ambassadors to the business community and promote doing business in Tigard. E. The Economic Development Committee will participate in efforts to revitalize the City Center. F. The Economic Development Committee shall assist the Community Development staff in the development of the Tigard Triangle plan. G. The Economic Development Committee shall continually monitor the inventory of the remaining buildable commercial and industrial land in Tigard and provide recommendations to the City Council and Planning commission. Whenever a proposal for increasing or reducing the inventory is presented, the Economic Development Committee shall suggest the initiation of the review of areas which have the potential for rezoning to commercial or industrial where appropriate. Section 5 The Director of Community Development and a representative of the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce will serve as ex—officio members. Section 6 The Committee is authorized to create special subcommittees and enlist the aid of private citizens to study special areas of concern and assist in the compilation of area inventories. Section 7 The Committee shall meet at least once in every calendar month at a specified time and place. PASSED: This day of 1987. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: !! City Recorder — City of Tigard i� RESOLUTION NO. 87— Page 2 3 /1�l mon - We the undersigned, wish to express our support of the Bond III residents ' petition to receive a variance from the Tigard city regulation limiting lot depth to 2.5 times the lot width . Although we will receive no direct benifit from their opportunity to purchase the additional 90 feet behind their homes, we agree with their desire to maintain the natural beauty of the neighborhood . As residents of the city of Tigard and Bond Park, we are in favor of preserving the enviroment that attracted us to this neighborhood . Therefore, we petition the Planning Director to grant the variance requested by our neighbors . 2. 3. A At AA 6. �4Ctri►�f, t.sC�t �»U�v fS075 SIU CLtic�cL���� G . 7. 8. 1 Sck) Chwtc[nl_c._ W&/ 9. 10. J 12. 13. C1 14. ct'-�� 16.17. �"c ([G 1l"> >'�l Ci:6U �r.5 C ,`_:cZ' c �,L t�[a •x% �ti:c 7l Z Y 18.4�4 do I tit/ 19� u c� .�•wt-rc�;�� (con't ) 20. ecl 21 . 22. 24 . 25 26 . r 7'127. 28. 29. —y 30 . AL 32. 33.344. 35. 37. �/ ' i s cmc 7 . �iJ• 9a 38. LL) , '.�T4 39. 40 770 41 ^7 7 7, ` �W 42. 43. 44 45. I (con' t ) 44#6 . �d SQ .5 L1/ c� a7lrarr . 47. 14925 �. W. `79 r� 48. IW/P /v` d'(Oh lym1 7/ 4 9. 1 7d ,�6&1 so. C,--J Si . 52. A&� 53. `` l Z3 S S w 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. I