City Council Packet - 03/26/1990
TIGARD CITY couNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
RDGUTAR NE ETIM AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate
MARCH 26, 1990 6:30 PM sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's
TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or
less. Longer matters can be set for a future
Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the
City Administrator.
o STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.)
1. BUSINESS MEE'T'ING (7:30 p.m.)
1.1 Call to order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA, (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
3. 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:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 26, 1990
3.2 Approve Revision to Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Project List
Adding the Grant Avenue Storm Drainage Improvements
3.3 Approve Request for a Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Portion of
Greenburg Road - Resolution No. 90- /2-
3.4 Local Contract Review Board Action: Award Bid for Hall/Durham
Intersection Improvements; Authorize City Administrator to Sign
Contract with Gelco Construction C3capany
3.5 Approve Tri-Mat Agreement for Greenburg Road Transit Improvements;
Authorize City Administrator to Sign Agreement
3.6 Approve Appointments/Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) #3-
Resolution No. 90-
4. PUBLIC MRIM - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 89-14 VARIANCE 89-33 LANDMARK
FORD - NPO #4
A request for approval of a Sign Code E5cception and Variance to allow
four freestanding signs with a sign-face area of 510 square feet where
two signs with a maximum sign-face area of 230 square feet are normally
allowed. Three of the signs are to be freeway oriented. The individual
dimensions of these signs are as follows: 64.65, 154, and 287.13 square
feet. The fourth sign is a monument sign, 40 feet in size, to be
COUNCIL AGENDA, - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 1
t'
z
located on a different frontage. Note that the measurements given are
inclusive of only one side of double-faced signs. ZONE: C-G (General
Ccmmrrcial) LOCATION: 12000 S.W. 66th Avenue (WCIM 2S1 lAA, Tax Lot
100)
o Public Hearing Opened
o Declarations or challenges
o Sunwtion by Community Development staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Reeo~daticn by Community Development Staff
o Council Questions or Comments
o Public Hearing closed
o Consideration by Council
5. Urban Planning Area Agreement - Update & Discussion
o Staff Report - C=nmity Development Director
o NPO Cozmnent
o CPO Comment
6. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-02 NORTHEAST BULL
MOUNTAIN TRANSPORT MOM STUDY REPORT, NPO #3 AND 7
Consideration of the recommendation of the Northeast Bull Mountain
Transportation Study Report. The Report recommends that the City's
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be amended as it pertains to the
collector street system in the northeast area of Bull Mountain. The
Report further recannends certain design considerations for the roadway
system in the northeast area of Bull Mountain. The area considered by
the Report is generally bounded by Bull Mountain Road, 141st Avenue,
_ Walnut Street, 121st Avenue, Gaarde Street, and Pacific Highway.
o Public Hearing Continued from February 26, 1990
o Review/motion by C7cmnmw ity Development Staff
o Council Questions or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by council: Ordinance No. 90-
7. NON-AGENM ITEMS: From Council and Staff
8. EXECUT IVE 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, current and
pending litigation issues.
9. ADJOXRUqv=
cca326
i.
C_^
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1990 -PAGE 2
Y.°
~h.
• 1~
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990
o Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Council President
Valerie Johnson
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council President Valerie Johnson;
Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz.
Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Phil
Grillo, Legal Counsel; Keith Liden, Senior Planner, Ed Murphy,
Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community
Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder;
and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
2. STUDY SESSION
a. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the staff report submitted
for the Landmark Ford public hearing item. There was
discussion on the public hearing process, the proposed
options, and the Planning Commission recommendation.
b. Council discussed the staff report concerning the Urban
Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) agenda item. The Murray
' Boulevard Extension history was reviewed. Former Mayor
Tom Brian was present and advised of his recollections
with regard to the Murray Boulevard Extension and
negotiations concerning the UPAA.
Community Development Director gave a brief synopsis of
his understanding of the history of the UPAA. A staff
report was submitted to the Council with an outline of
the UPAA's history.
Council discussed the proposed alignment as contained in
the Comprehensive Plan and the UPAA. It was also noted
that a regional plan prepared by Metro also showed the
Murray Boulevard Extension.
Former Mayor Tom Brian advised that in 1982 the County
expressed their desire for a five-lane extension of
Murray Boulevard. He noted the City of Tigard disagreed
with this and a compromise was eventually negotiated.
The Scholls to Gaarde to 99W connection was also
discussed at the same time. It was decided at that time
that the City of Tigard would want the streets developed
only to handle local traffic; not to provide a favorable
alternative for regional traffic. This would protect
the neighborhoods and also serve to show the need for
improvements to Scholls Ferry and the Westerly Bypass.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 1
INN
City Engineer reviewed the proposed ordinance which was
included in the City Council packet concerning the N.E.
Bull Mountain Transportation Study. He noted the
ordinance adopted those areas where agreement was reached
with the NPO. Legal Counsel advised that findings,
addressing the State Planning Goals, would need to be
prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as
proposed by the ordinance.
3. VISITORS' AGENDA:
a. Don Bowman, 15905 S.W. Greens Way, 'Tigard, Oregon 97224,
encouraged the City of Tigard, upon completion of the
Durham Road project to give consideration to limiting
through traffic on Summerfield drive. He noted with
surrounding build-up and increased density, there was too
much traffic on Summerfield. In addition, the 9-hole
golf course crosses seven different streets.
Council consensus was to direct staff to review the
traffic situation on Summerfield Drive by the end of
1990. In addition, council President Johnson asked that
Mr. Bowman be notified of any development of new
information with regard to this issue.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 26, 1990
4.2 Approve Revision to Storm Drainage Capital Improvement
Project List Adding the Grant Avenue Storm Drainage
improvements
4.3 Approve Request for a Transfer of Jurisdiction for a
Portion of Greenburg Road - Resolution No. 90-16
4.4 Local Contract Review Board Action: Award Bid for
Hall/Durham Intersection Improvements; Authorize City
Administrator to Sign Contract with Gelco Construction
Company
4.5 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for Greenburg Road Transit
Improvements; Authorize City Administrator to Sign
Agreement
4.6 Approve Appointments/Neighborhood Planning Organization
(NPO) #3 - Resolution No. 90-17
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten to
approve the Consent Agenda.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
Council President Johnson noted that Consent Agenda Item No.
( .6 appointed Martha Bishop and Nancy Smith to NPO #3, both of
` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 2
k~
~r
Vin.:
whom were present in the audience. She welcomed the new
members into the NPO and thanked them for their participation.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 89-14 VARIANCE 89-33
LANDMARK FORD - NPO #4
A request for approval of a Sign Code Exception and variance
to allow four freestanding signs with a sign-face area of 510
square feet where two signs with a maximum sign-face area of
230 square feet are normally allowed. Three of the signs are
to be freeway oriented. The individual dimensions of these
signs are as follows: 64.654, 154, and 287.13 square feet.
The fourth sign is a monument sign, 40 feet in size to be
located on a different frontage. Note that the measurements
are inclusive of only one side of double-faced signs. ZONE:
C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 12000 S.W. 66th Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 1AA, Tax Lot 100)
i
a. Public hearing was opened.
i
b. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the request and process to
date. This application was reviewed by the Planning
commission on December 19, 1989 and January 30, 1990. 1
The Commission determined that the original proposal s
reviewed on December 19th and the amended request f
evaluated on January 30 were not consistent with the
Community Development Code criteria for granting a Sign
Code Exception or a sign Variance. The Commission did,
however, grant an amended approval which contained two
alternative sign programs (see page 7 of the Planning
Commission Final Order).
Contained in the Council packet was the following
information:
- Copy of a draft resolution upholding the
commission's decision
- Final Order No. 90-03 PC (Exhibit "A")
- Applicant's Notice of Appeal which includes a
complete summary of the sequence of events
leading up to the Commission's January decision
- Reduced drawings of the freestanding signs
approved by the Commission
- Transcript of the December and January Planning
Commission hearings
Senior Planner reviewed a chart, which included the
following information:
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 3
w, .
Landmark Ford Request:
Sian Location Size/Height
Ford Brand I-5 154 sq ft/35 ft
Readerboard/ I-5 Existing: 151 sq ft/26 ft
Dahaitsu W/Addn. 249 sq ft/35 ft
Monument 68th/ 40 sq ft/ 6 ft
Dartmouth
Wall Signs All Buildings 6% or 10% of wall
area
Code Standards:
Sian Location Size/Height
One Freeway I-5 160 sq ft/35 ft
One Freestanding Different 70 sq ft/20 ft
frontage
Wall Any building 15% of wall size
Planning Commission Decision:
Sign Code Exception criteria allow 25% area increase.
If granted, total freestanding sign area = 287.5 sq. ft.
(160 + 70 = 230 + 25% = 287.5 sq. ft.)
Modified Approval Granted:
Option 1:
- One freeway sign less than or equal to 249 sq.
ft. and 35 feet in height
- One monument sign less than or equal to 40 sq.
ft. and 6 feet in height
- Wall signs with 6% or 10% limit
Option 2:
- Retain Ford Brand sign - 154 square feet and
35 feet in height
- Retain Readerboard sign - 151 square feet and
26 feet in height
- Wall signs with 6% or 10% limit
- One monument sign less than or equal to 40
square feet and less than 6 feet in height
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 4
C. Public Testimony
Proponent:
o Jim Corliss, 9750 S.W. Inez, Tigard, Oregon, advised
he was the applicant. He was asking for the Option
2 proposed by the Planning commission with the
addition of a Daihatsu Brand sign which had not been
addressed. The Daihatsu sign was the reason this
issue had been brought forward; this was a new
business representing an economic expansion. Three
new buildings, for a total of four, on their site
of approximately 11 acres will be constructed.
Mr. Corliss said one of the requirements for the
Dahaitsu franchise was for a sign. He said their
choice would be either to resign the franchise or
separate the new and existing busineses through
incorporation and release of a building. He said
he thought it was possible that the land could be
lot line adjusted and redivided where the land could
hold an additional four or five freestanding signs
and be within the sign code. He said they would
rather not do this, but were trying to get the
necessary signs up to conduct their businesses.
Mr. Corliss advised they would not install the
number of wall signs which were allowable within
the Code.
There was discussion among Council, applicant, and
staff clarifying the request. In response to a
question from Councilor Kasten concerning the
applicant's notation that he may be able to separate
the two businesses and, thus, have even more signs
than what he was proposing, Senior Planner advised
the number and size of size of signs was not
determined strictly on whether or not they were on
separate parcels. Staff would look at the fact as
to whether or not they were separate parcels along
with other factors such as was it all working
together as one development with common access,
parking, etc. An example of this would be a
shopping center. Very often, restaurants, banks,
etc. would be located on separate pads; this would
not entitle each one of those sites, by the Sign
Code, to have a separate sign. Therefore, whether
or not additional signs would be allowable, as
proposed by Mr. Corliss, would depend on how the
site was developed.
v
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 5"
Senior Planner responded to a question from
Councilor Johnson concerning previous council action
which approved an additional readerboard sign. He
advised that Council was using the Code in place
prior to the adoption of new sign standards.
Council approved the readerboard sign because the
Code did not adequately address signage for freeway
orientation. He also recalled that another part of
the Council decision was the other signs could
remain, but the approval would in no way affect
their status if they are nonconforming signs because
of the sign amortization program which was coming
up.
Councilor Schwartz also recalled Mr. Corliss had
declared a hardship because of visibility to the
freeway to advertise his business and that was one
of the reasons why the Council, at that time,
elected to give the second sign approval
d. Senior Planner Liden recommended upholding the
Planning commission decision and denying the appeal
for three basic reasons:
1. The Code was recently amended to address
freeway orientation to provide for more sign
exposure for businesses which have frontage on
C freeways.
2. The sign amortization program had been
conducted and a number of property owners had
been forced to remove signs that were not
conforming. It was the opinion of the Planning
Commission and staff if signs were approved
over and above what the Code permits, then it
would not be fair to all property owners.
3. The Planning Commission was about as flexible
as possible and yet remain within the intent
of the Sign Code. As it is, to implement
either one of the two options, sign code
exception criteria must be implemented as well
as relying on a variance to implement.
Councilor Schwartz discussed with Senior Planner Liden
the difference between what the applicant was requesting
and the options proposed by the applicant. Planning
Commission, in Option 2, would slightly exceed the 25%
area increase allowable in a Sign Code Exception.
Councilor Johnson discussed with Senior Planner her
belief that previous Council action allowed outright
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 6
1:
permission of the existing signs. Senior Planner advised
that the Commission and staff view this application as
a new proposal and it was reviewed accordingly.
Councilor Johnson noted the applicant was asking for
an additional 57 feet of sign; freeway frontage has
increased by 250 feet.
Senior Planner noted, if the request was approved per
applicant's suggestion, additional. sign area would
approach 50% over the allowed size stipulated in the Code
(as opposed to the 25% allowed through Sign Code
Exception).
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. Consideration by Council:
o Council President Johnson reiterated her feelings
that Council had previously approved two separate
free-standing signs on this property because of the
freeway sight limitations, speed of traffic, and the
length of the frontage. She said to add an
additional 57 feet of signage when the business had
expanded by six acres with 250 feet more freeway
frontage and 40,000 square feet of building, was a
"deal" when it comes to sign clutter. Council
President noted she would support the applicant's
request.
o Councilor Schwartz advised he agreed with Councilor
Johnson on the surface of this issue; however, he
said he was concerned about precedent-setting
ramifications if the request was approved.
o Councilor Kasten advised he was sensitive to both
the pro and con arguments on this issue. He noted
the need to balance applying the policy for all
businesses and to logically review specific cases.
He said he was concerned about any message which
could construe this as a precedent-setting case;
but, in looking at the specific case, he could
support the applicant's request.
o Councilor Eadon said, in her review of the rendering
of the applicant's request, it did not offend; in
fact, it made sense. She noted she believed staff
made the appropriate recommendation to the Planning
Commission under the current Code. Precedent-
setting possibilities also were of concern to her
and advised, that if it was the consensus of Council
to approve the applicant's request, then she would
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 7
like to discuss limiting precedent-setting
ramifications.
Discussion followed. Senior Planner Liden noted that
any decision which allowed more sign footage than
permitted in the Sign Code Exception process would be
handled through a variance. Councilor Johnson expressed
her opinion that the variance process made it possible
for Council to review and made exceptions for cases like
the one before them. Councilor Schwartz expressed his
concern over not adhering to the Code as developed. He
said he would rather the applicant and staff do more work
to effect a compromise so that the request was not 50%
over what was allowable. Councilor Johnson disagreed
with Councilor Schwartz' recommendation for further
discussion of compromise and noted the steps the
applicant had followed to date on this request. She
recommended Council move forward with a decision at this
meeting.
o Motion by Councilor Schwartz to uphold the Planning
Commission and staff's recommendation. The motion
died for lack of a second.
o Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor
Eadon, to grant a variance to allow the addition of
a sign above the readerboard, so the total area
would be 208 square feet per side, as shown in the
second option proposed by the applicant.
Councilor Eadon noted her second to the motion and
asked for clarification from staff. She asked, if ;
the variance was granted, could it be written in
such a way to limit precedent-setting ramifications. i
t
After discussion, Legal Counsel Grillo advised:
t
The precedential value of a decision tonight, i
if a variance was granted, would be limited to
the facts in this case. Most situations are
unique to their facts and he suggested a
finding to this effect could be made.
With the clarification from Legal Counsel, Councilor
Eadon announced she would let her second to the
motion stand.
Councilor Kasten clarified that his motion was shown
in Option K which was dated September 28, 1989.
Councilor Johnson and Kasten clarified that the
motion was to approve a sign variance for the
r
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 8
applicant, retaining a Ford brand sign, retaining
the readerboard sign, adding the additional height
in signage of the Daihatsu dealership sign (Option
K) and retain the 40-foot monument sign on 68th and
Parkway, and limiting the wall signage as specified
in Option 2.
Councilor Eadon asked if there was consensus among
Council that the findings should reflect legal
counsel's statement that the criterion used was for
this particular case and would not necessarily set
precedent for future decisions.
Council President asked Councilor Kasten, as maker
of the motion, if he agreed to Councilor Eadon's
further clarification. Councilor Kasten advised he
agreed.
The motion passed by a majority vote of Council
present. Councilors Eadon, Johnson, and Kasten
voted "Aye"; Councilor Schwartz abstained.
(Council President noted the following two Agenda Items were
related. A public hearing would be continued for the Northeast
Bull Mountain Transportation Study. The staff would report on both
items.)
5. Urban Planning Area Agreement - Update and Discussion
a. City Administrator reported that at the February 26 City
Council meeting, the Council proceeded through the public
comment in the hearing process on the N.E. Bull Mountain
Transportation Study review. During the Council's
question and comment period, several issues were raised,
most notably the discussion of the Urban Planning Area
Agreement. At the time there was great discussion as to
what the next steps would be.
The Council directed staff, after some period of
discussion to visit with the NPO and to identify those
areas of the proposed transportation plan that met with
common agreement. The staff was also asked to prepare
a status report on the Urban Planning Area Agreement to
bring everyone up to date. The public hearing was
continued for the purpose of introducing the requested
information into evidence.
b. Public Hearing was continued from February 26, 1990:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-02 Northeast Bull
Mountain Transportation Study Report, NPO #3 and 7.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 9
Consideration of the recommendation of the Northeast Bull
Mountain Transportation Study Report. The Report
recommends that the City's Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map be amended as it pertains to the
collector street system in the northeast area of Bull
Mountain. The Report further recommends certain design
considerations for roadway system in the northeast area
of Bull Mountain. The area considered by the Report is
generally bounded by Bull Mountain Road, 141st Avenue,
Walnut Street, 121st Avenue, Gaarde Street, and Pacific
Highway.
C. Community Development Director summarized the history of
the UPAA Agreement. The Comprehensive Plan for the City
was being worked on in 1983 and it dealt, in part, with
the Murray Boulevard Extension as well as the extension
to Gaarde Street. (See Exhibit 1 attached to these
minutes.) The routes were not determined nor were the
standards for street construction set forth.
One of the requirements of Comprehensive Planning is that
you have to form an agreement with neighboring
jurisdictions. For Tigard, these jurisdictions would
include both Beaverton and Washington County. Therefore,
the Urban Planning Agreement (UPAA) was formed. Areas
addressed by the UPAA included areas of interest and,
specific to this case, language about what should happen
to the Murray Boulevard area. (See Exhibits 2 and 3
attached to these minutes for language and map outlining
1986 UPAA.)
Community Development Director reviewed the map proposed
in the N.E. Bull Mountain Transportation Study. (See
Exhibit 4 attached to these minutes.) He said that
looking at criteria adopted in the UPAA in 1986 and
looking at the N.E. Bull Mountain Transportation Study,
they look similar. One difference, as has been
discussed, was whether or not the extension should be
five lanes or three lanes. The Bull Mountain Study
Report outlined that, at least four intersections, there
should be enough room (if the need occurs) for five
lanes. The Study recommended that the Council consider,
between 135th and Murray, in case of future need, to
widen to five lanes. Many people have expressed concern
that this was beginning to look like a five-lane arterial
through Tigard and connecting to I-5.
Community Development Director referred to map (See
Exhibit 4) and suggested council consider adopting the
traffic alignments in the areas of agreement (shaded
areas). The two areas not in agreement (121st - Gaarde
r - Walnut; and Murray - between 135th and Old Scholls
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 10
I
L
Ferry Road) should be left the way it is now; that is,
as shown in Exhibit 1 with the wording left to stand as
stated in the 1986 UPAA.
Discussion and clarification followed on the history of
the road alignments from 1983. (See Study Session
discussion.)
Community Development Director reviewed a letter, dated
March 26, 1990, from Bruce Warner, Washington County
Director of Land Use and Transportation. (See Exhibit 5
for a synopsis of the letter. Also a copy of the letter
has been filed with the Council packet material.)
Community Development Director referred to Council
minutes of February 13, 1986, (a joint meeting with the
Beaverton City Council) wherein Tigard°s desire to have
a series of local, indirect connections was reiterated.
d. City Engineer advised staff met with the NPO and,
subsequently, prepared an ordinance for Council
consideration. He reviewed the proposal under Council
consideration in the proposed ordinance.
e. Public Testimony
Council President outlined procedure for testimony; 15
minutes of testimony for each side of the issue would be s
allowed for Agenda Item No. 6.
Proponents:
o Herman Porter, Chairman of NPO #3, 11875 S.W. Gaarde
testified the NPO met with the City Engineer at
their last meeting. Two paragraphs were presented
to the NPO. He noted the NPO agreed to the
configuration for 132nd Avenue south of Benchview
and also had no issue with the 135th extension. The
NPO did not agree to the paragraph relating to
Gaarde Street. He advised there was no discussion
with the realignment of Gaarde at Pacific Highway.
He advised the NPO supported the Transportation Bond
Issue Safety Improvements, but did not support the
Gaarde realignment.
Mr. Porter reviewed several reasons for the non-
support of the Gaarde Street realignment. He
questioned traffic counts and safety statistics.
He noted the UPAA says that Gaarde Street, between
121st and Pacific Highway, should be developed at
the time of the connection to Murray. He suggested
that realignment of Gaarde would tend to make it a
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 11 F"
function as an arterial and the realignment should
be postponed, if there was no real traffic safety
hazard, until such time as the alternative arterials
have been developed.
o Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon,
advised he was Chairman of CPO 4 and a resident in
NPO 7. Mr. Woolery referred to development underway
on S.W. 135th which was being reviewed at the
Planning Commission level. He asked if there was
statistical information available for the Gaarde
alignment. He advised it was his personal opinion
that the Gaarde Street realignment was long overdue.
o Bev Froude, 12200 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard,
Oregon, advised she was in favor of the proposed
ordinance. She said she participated in the NPO
decision.
Mrs. Froude advised that developments were already
underway and the ordinance would be "defacto" if it
was not done now.
o Bert Mitchell, President of MB Development Company,
advised his company owned a large parcel on S.W.
132nd Avenue which was scheduled for construction.
He advised his company was in favor of approving the
ordinance.
Mr. Mitchell reported that topography maps,
furnished by the City, were incorrect. He noted
problems with construction as required because of
the topography maps and noted they may be requesting
a variance. This variance would be considered at
the time of subdivision approval.
o Paul Heavirland, 8685 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
Oregon, noted his concerns with traffic impact with
vehicles traveling over McDonald to avoid traffic
lights on Highway 99. He predicted that the
proposal for the Gaarde Street realignment would
affect more neighborhoods than just those on Bull
Mountain. He requested that the two NPO's bordering
McDonald Street be involved with the transportation
plan.
o Doug Brown, 12725 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon,
advised he attended the last Council meeting on this
issue and he understood that the intent was to
preserve quiet, peaceful neighborhoods. He
suggested Murray Boulevard continue as a "straight
shot" over the top of Bull Mountain instead of going
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 12
through the neighborhoods.
' Opponents:
o Thomas Emory, 10105 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
Oregon advised he has no problem with most of the
alignments. He noted his concern with lining up
Gaarde and McDonald Streets. He said this would not
be in the best interests of Tigard; eventually
Murray Boulevard would also be connected. He
advised it would be better to make it more difficult
to travel across Tigard and anything that done to
improve the alignments will be harmful.
i
o Robert Root, 12045 S.W. Rose Vista, Tigard, Oregon,
noted that the alignment of McDonald and Gaarde
Street may potentially be used as the justification
for a "straight-shot" corridor in conjunction with
the Murray Boulevard extension.
o Jim Shelton, 12015 S.W. Gaarde, Tigard, Oregon asked
what would happen to the frontage road between Bull
Mountain, Gaarde and the shopping development?
r
Y
Council President noted the Oregon Department of
Transportation was redoing the Cantebury access.
The frontage road would be eliminated once this
project was completed.
o Wayne K. Davis, 4055 N.W. Columbia Avenue, Rock
Creek, Oregon, advised he purchased a lot on Bull
Mountain and was planning on building a house in the
very near future. He said traffic must move through
safely. He noted his support for dropping the
Murray Road extension and adopting the rest of the
report.
f. City Engineer noted staff recommendation was for approval
of the ordinance as presented. He added that appropriate
findings for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be
incorporated with the ordinance.
Discussion followed with City Engineer clarifying several
items for Council.
g. Additional testimony:
o Elizabeth Jankus, 13116 S.W. Benish, Tigard, Oregon,
advised she was neither opponent/proponent on this
issue. She noted her concern that the City was.
setting up a condition of piecemealing which would, k
in the long run, require the connection from Murray
{
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 13
' r
r'
fj
into Gaarde to Walnut. F'
3
" h. Public hearing was closed.
i. Motion by Council Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
calling for the reading of the ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-09 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BETWEEN WALNUT
STREET AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD (CPA 90-02)
Councilor Johnson clarified with Legal Counsel that a
tentative decision on the ordinance could be reached at
this meeting, but the ordinance must be returned for
council consideration with additional findings.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
6. Continuation of Discussion on the Urban Plannin Area ,
Agreement
a. Community Development Director outlined those points 3
contained in the March 26 letter received from Washington `
County Land Use and Transportation office. (See Exhibit
C_ 5.)
b. Discussion followed on the UPAA (1986 language) which
sets forth that any Murray extension would only be two
lanes with a provision for a left-turn lane.
In general comments, are summarized as follows:
o Development of the area has not necessarily occurred
at full potential; i.e., single family housing is
being constructed on parcels designated for multi-
family. Traffic projections may be significantly
diminished; therefore, the Murray Road extension may
not warrant more than a three-lane road. It was
noted, however, that adjacent jurisdictions may
develop at higher densities which would cause them
to ask for more lanes.
o How much regional traffic should Tigard be expected
to bear was discussed.
Informal public testimony:
o Herm Porter advised the street should be left at
collector status and designed so that it would not
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 14
eventually be considered for an upscale to arterial
status.
o Cal Woolery noted the UPAA calls for two lanes with
left turn lanes where necessary. He proposed the
language of that agreement should be followed. He
advised of plans submitted for development of
property between S.W. 135th and Scholls Ferry.
Council discussed this issue briefly; however, it
was determined that since the issue was to be
discussed at the Planning Commission level, it would
not be appropriate for Council to discuss the
project in detail.
o Nancy Smith, NPO #3, advised the UPAA refers to the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which was
prepared by Metro. She noted the UPAA states that
Tigard, Beaverton and the County shall support
improvements outlined in the RTP and noted her
concerns over provisions of the RTP. For example,
the RTP calls for a Murray extension to 99W via
Gaarde.
Council President clarified that Metro was a
regional government which did not have authority
over municipalities. Cities, counties and Metro
operate through intergovernmental agreements. In
matters concerning transportation, Metro has taken
the lead in region-wide planning. The Regional
Transportation Plan formally adopted the
recommendations of the Southwest Corridor Study.
City Engineer noted the City was required to
coordinate plans with other jurisdictions which
included the Regional Transportation Plan.
Discussion followed on the provisions of the UPAA
and RTP.
o Gary Steele, 12645 S.W. 135th Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon, said all along the Murray Boulevard
extension had been downplayed as far as the traffic
it could carry and the number of lanes to be built.
He said it was easy to see that Washington County
wants a major arterial to connect from the present
Murray Boulevard to Highway 99 at Gaarde. He noted
Tigard should not let this happen.
Mr. Steele read from the March 26 letter from
Washington County which stated, "The Murray
Boulevard connection is envisioned to provide
improvements to the local Tigard circulation system
/ and is not intended to serve any broader
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 15
11
transportation needs." He advised he agreed with
this statement.
Mr. Steele recommended that only a two-lane road be
built, with a turn lane at intersections. He said
Tigard does not need a connection between Scholls
Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road; Murray
Boulevard does not need to come across the wetlands.
He advised that language should be placed in the
UPAA so that no part of the street between Walnut
and Gaarde be started until other improvements for
regional transportation have been completed.
o Dave Atkinson, 101040 S.W. Century Oak Drive,
Tigard, Oregon, advised of similar circumstances for
Durham Road which had at one time been identified
as an arterial. He noted increased density and a
"straight-shot" street lend themselves towards
identification as an arterial. He also noted the
process for speed limit reduction.
o Robert Root, 10245 S.W. Rose Vista, Tigard, Oregon,
said he saw a need for a clear delineation between
the UPAA, Metro (RTP) and the Bull Mountain Study. i
Council President outlined the major items:
the UPAA requires Murray Road to be only x
two lanes with a turn lane
the preliminary Bull Mountain study would
have a preserved right-of-way for two
additional travel lanes on the Murray
extension, plus a turn lane at major
intersections.
RTP appears to have encompassing language
which calls for a connection Murray/Gaarde
connection
Council President advised that consensus for all
points would not be reached at this meeting.
Mr. Root asked Council to provide the community with
the impact data with the Bull Mountain Study in
place and as provided in the UPAA. He requested
this data for Gaarde, 99W, McDonald, Hall and
Walnut. Discussion followed on the differences
between major and minor collector streets.
There was discussion on traffic impacts with regard
to Mr. Root's question as to whether there was
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 16,
.k+
capacity available to allow for this kind of growth
of the area. Council President explained some of t
the regional issues which were of concern to Tigard.
C. Council discussion:
o Council President Johnson asked if new
development was being required to dedicate 90
feet of right-of-way in the Murray Boulevard
extension area. Community Development Director
advised a recent subdivision proposal does show
a 90-foot right-of-way; this will be reviewed
by the Planning Commission. The UPAA language
would be utilized in enforcing requirements on
plats.
i
o Councilor Eadon noted that, because there have
been no changes made, through any action by
City Council to any provisions for Murray Road,
staff should operate under what is in place
now; that is, the UPAA.
o Council President expressed her desire to
review any development which was required to
be different than what was stipulated in the
UPAA. Discussion followed.
o Councilor Schwartz recommended that the City
Administrator be directed to assure that i
Council was kept up to date on any projects
proposed on Murray. It would be up to
individual Councilors to determine if they
wished to call up any issue for review.
o Legal Counsel advised that Council would have
ten days to call up specific issues for review
after a Planning Commission determination.
o Lengthy discussion followed on process for
development issues in the Murray Boulevard
extension area. Councilor Eadon suggested that
the NPO, in their review process, could keep
the UPAA requirements in mind when making their
recommendations.
o Mr. Woolery noted his concerns with regard to
a recent development proposal and the UPAA
requirements. He reiterated that the UPAA
should be upheld: 2-lanes, 60-foot right-of-
way. Additional taking of land should be
stopped. Councilor Eadon noted this issue
cannot be discussed by Council since it was in
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 17
s: '
the City's development review process.
o City Administrator, in response to a request
from Council President Johnson, advised that
staff would keep Council informed of staff
recommendations for this area.
o City Administrator advised staff discussions
have been held with the County on possible
changes to the UPAA with regard to the Murray
Boulevard Extension. Design detail
characteristics were not discussed.
o There was discussion on whether to hold
meetings with the governing bodies of the
County and the City of Beaverton on the UPAA.
Councilor Schwartz suggested a workshop by the
Tigard Council should be held first to make
sure there was consensus.
o Legal Counsel clarified that tentative action
had been taken on Item No. 6 and the hearing
would be continued for Council consideration
of the findings.
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session at 10:34 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)
(d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m.
l~
Catherine Wheatley, City Re order
ATTEST:
;41E 4 c
Valerie A. Johnson,-~Council President
x///30/1
Date
ccm326
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1990 - PAGE 18
liiisi
AF
FOWLER
JR. HIGH
180. Tr
I 25
MO'[6: -711e City of 7iKard wA _ -
30 -
aM~ett•d a arripx yi ind rest
wi"r tollretor "ncwetio s
beElEet}1 hurray dl vd. aid -rdc Sit.
0
• ° 30
0
150
`i i -
TIGARD LEGEND CONNECTION KT•EE" S.&.OLEf v1A*, OMAN AND SA, in" IYE41K 1KM
COMPREHENSIVE I WALNUT STREET. ■It,~~
PLAN 2 "t:~N"NOO<`.d ~.0 K A M9" AM SW :EWM, INMFaI.RE N
MAP 3 CONAECT10M IIETIEEEN SCNOLLS rERAT NOW AND SA .tan AVENUE ANO l.LLCON ,
116E OR1Y[.
NAIT STMEET.SULL MOU6A. DAD AND SAANOE 'TREE T.
TRANSPORTATION 4 cDNTECT1.At OETMA« AU
S 'CNNWgCTNS COEEN MM2N6a STAEET.NALL OLYD.Ar OUARA ONNENALL4 1Ut
olaawmm " w `QED ~ AN= "If AND :nom «`ETTw"I" .AND
. .
ORD. 83-24 a
MAY (3, 1983 7 CDWQCT10M OF COMMERCIAL STREET .ETW94t* S.. IM Alp 11016 AOE.UES.
COM1~T10M 4W ASM ANEMIA etvwcm INA SrNEET A1o ■ANR1M1 •NO AMY
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 8 •a•••+A NN.1ANOY- PORTEN6 OF Am.
9 SsIQT )act SIREEr CON-Kno" GET"= Et" we OWN)
YEAR 2000 100 IO "Cm t TOED "Zo '"'m As A 1069111LE LINK TO nMMAT Ave
PROJECTIONS 100 EXISTING STREETS
YEAR 1980 100 o®I ARTERIAL
PROJECTIONS
t)Ep1R11IENT OF pLANNIN6 s OEVELOPMF.NTMAJOR COLLECTOR
MINOR COLLECTOR i 11 ~I
CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON R VICINITY sin= L•IGNT RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS (LRT) t-p 3/a~t9L)
NE Bull Mountain w'Ih~t-~s
Transportation Study Figure 3-1 r;
The City of Tigard, City of. Beaverton and Washington
County have agreed to the following stipulations
k regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from old
Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st
Avenue and Gaarde street: .
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County agree to amend their respective -
comprehensive plans to reflect the following
functional classification and.design
considerations:
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at
major intersections)
3. Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements
where necessary)
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minixum
-6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
a. Mini.laun Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: Nome provided on street
10. Upon' verification of need by traffic analysis,
the connection may be planned to eventually
accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old
Scholls Ferry and Murray/New Scholls Ferry
intersections.
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with
Murray Boulevard as a through street with
135th Avenue terminating at the Murray
connection with a "T" intersection-
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard
connection is illustrated in Exhibit B.
b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray
Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated
with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic
impacts are adequately analyzed. C-444b;4 2 f~
3/awoo Gay
P6. a
9
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County shall 'support improvements to
the regional transportation system as outlined in
the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 12I.st
Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur
coincident with the connection of.Murray Boulevard.
from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with
involvement by affected property ownexs, shall
jointly develop an alignment for the connection of
Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut
Street.and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street
intersections in 1986.
5. The-CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish
administrative procedures and designate appropriate
personnel to receive and review notices required by
Sections 11 A, B and C of this Agreement.
too-
1h.h;
72!40
6a4K
72110
0
KALL 6LY0.
. 1M1At-~• aL~- -
r o
x
c
<
~ a
~l o
1'215'1 o
~
13154
" - I Nea stte~
Specif ied
a~'~°~tse M
150Tt4
Figure 4-2 .
- E)ClSJ114G
NE Bull mountain ®L -TOR `'TRH
Study
Trans-Ora"
® ARTERIAL
000000 MAJOR COLLECTOR
MINOR COLLECTOR
AO - a LOCAL STREET
~e~j~ QfC p , APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT
04 Gjft (Exact alignment to be
determined at time of o
Ave - ~
~e development.
0 \ y- TRAFFIC SIGNAL
(When Warranted)
y'o r
f
c~
d
3 ~O
115th Ave. N 99W
S.W. 121st
\ Bull !Mountain Rd.
i.ntereection
approximately 700,."
` Corridor location 1' l 5.
is asst of 126th Ave.
300, _ 4001 east
of 132ed Avenue W / S.W. 131St
at ualput it. - AVe
I 1 S.W. Wrd Ave. _ ve.
SW 135th Ave. \ ♦
2 fifGl&~'2~511WA~4, 7 \
c ~ ~I
S~ t ML A`Y
a ~v°` L Sttil' 141st Ave.
A F°-
r-.. .
Sunrise Ln. S.V1l. 150th vim.
~-_N- (Amended 113190)
Figure 12-1
NE Bull Mountain RECOMMENDED PLAN
Transportation Study FOR LONG e RANGE DEVELOPMENT
~C~ch bid 5
')I.vb 0 - old SL~a U s ~ t ss
O*tr /WhOr C-Aetiwv ' JMwtwt.ev'JPJ -by 4a-A? 6e adoffP®.
-4(c-lvw'1evLt -~Vftie cahnecNli 1Ywm Wobiut fa Ga4r4c-
bc added .
ryes woA RTP f6t Murremi Pj(vd• com/Iecfi"o~
g
~o G aardt not b*~ ca-mp 6 f ,*J us4iI
Q - 4w way .21-7 FM P'Wed
b . &4e ge rid / L-: Is ti er roads 5c 9
99 w Ca4KO (Jett .
NOTCS I OcAL c#KPAc i of n1 T &uaLDW6 MuRRAV
16 I-Vt®- - Ta 12, - oafCa4 ) Da0 ;
GY-0 ol 6 tt rod a.%d 5c, o Ifs Fe a-ry ~ as We f I
as 13 .
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 C Notice
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
° City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice
e P.O. Box 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, OR 97223
e •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
I, Judith Koehler
being first duly sworn, depose and say at i aT s Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the a' rci Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 s
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
afo~e,Vid( unViir tatih~at the ,
AZT,'
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the `
entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and
consecutive in the following issues: ,
March 22, 1990
Subscribed and sworn before me this 22, day of March 1990 -a_
Off 7b
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commissio ices: 6/9/93f: "
The follawmg selected aa~ da ! _9 are pttb ,for yyoour mformahon;
AFFIDAVIT Further:,into rniation and'fnll agendas may be gbianned'from tlte~~ity Re
corder, Y312S. SW Ha11 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 9723, or by ng
639-4171.
CITY COUNCII. REGULAR MEETING ' MARCH 26,1990 3
"6-30 PM'- WORK
SHOP;,1.30 PM BUSINESS MEETiNGn{ r~s
WARD CIVIC CENTERS,
bWN HA7.I.E F c Y
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TiGARD, OREGON a
Public Hearing ii j n bode cVdon-SGE 89 14 Vana a 89 33
Landmark Food NPt) #4 xxx 1 2
,r: Urban Planning Area Agreement Update 8c Discussion
( Continuahon'of Pubhc Hearuig from 2W`10"_ l._. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-0 I+TaSt Ettlt 1# E
Mountain Tra. spor7ahon Study Repott,3+1P0
Local.Contt~ct
ExecttI vi 0sion uhdetrthe 0 6~SOM( (d)1;e
P F " ~ (1i)"~~ 1abs~~s~`brls..` ~LvtylyO,,,n,gg n a t, y"~~-.. ~$~s' > 4~.•
> k~t,z
oil, I
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilI ~ NMI
AFFTI,AVIT OP' ('il[St,iCA~'1_C)'I
.
NORMAN r r
3f:TC'G 'IRS C).1LY S-i+li<:4 i)ISP{)SI:1- A?it? SAY
1., ..M:.... 1'
'T I "Cl P4F PR1;-C iPAL, CL,' ftfi (fF `H: PUSUIS'ih:`2 r1F '(HF: I'ikEi.+irl.,O.Ao
r
'"•`EI^!S['i1PE :1F (;E?~Er;A[, 1.i~Ci1[,A1'Lir•, A;; ['vF:i~ Fr 1)K8 193.011) iailU
193.020, ?:l[.t,T.SrIFU ra T:sF: CITY :IF' 1'JRTUA;'s:), I:,• k,iCOUNTY,
ORisGC1i1, THAT VIE VIE P!2T ~Wr r) 'I'EX)' OF, r41il Ctt LS SHtIWA BE;1,011
t ,
WAS PU14-TSHF'I) Tr1 'f',IE F:N1T1rU: A:"l' I<EGCIr,AR ISS!JES OF T.HE, (12EG0,'J1A1)
FOR. I D4YS ~`CAci'1'ltiti 03/15/9ll, 13/1.5/90
E'RL0;1, A C_'[, rt OF 1'iiF;•l'lJiiL15!lE:R
:i[15.(~1Flh:!) i":il ~i,:.`(~t.;;i 1•) !.;Cilhl? :i~: ^'i11ti ~16t17 )&,l JF' ..•.r.-..,.... 19.90.
^LJ L I C - Q2L~,;.:
S;i j l ,:X c' 1 F2h: S -My Commission Expires o2
•iti C')I ,;1i, . -
_ VFXT. 7, (.0 (Ir<o
PUBU] C HFA T 1!G
Tiic Filt,t.,n11Ti;,, t111,1. ,F: C)''ST,'X-:k.'vP
BY )'FiE CITY C'111,1CII., _1.,
ilA}i; l 20, 19')0, A9' 7:3U 1 i'
T.L 'AR1i fT1iT(; Cf??It'C,i?r "O', J HAJ,[,
ROr'114, 13125 S,,'i HALT, t3r)U[,F:L'ARr,,
TIGARU, 1fZF ;;'lrv, H'!1R1'HFR I ir':)k
tiATla;J r" AY i',,?. ;Ji3TAT ir:'-,) E'i< -I:,
J''IC'. ~.C)!'~'•iJ~'[TT1' Or'L"':~„JV.iF.
D1REC11op IF. CTTV r'.ECOP0CQ AV THh:
SA!ii:. 1ji-DCATT01 rlh oY CitI.I,I`1G
639-4171. Yi)!I ARE T':VJTEi) 1-1 5115
iST v:RITTta TE;SPU.-r1'•1' 1', Af;VA.'Jl.c:
1F 3'PiE :'1►.i-11 [.,1 NF Ai [.:'G~ v1<I'1 ; F:. A ir;
i !7r{StC)I':t2i:i,
:~F;AL 1'EST'1'1 1',IY n'tr,l, HE
Al FH(:-. iiE'4RIV,6. TfP!IilfjLC' -[F:AP
l iti (i v'J1T,U 7il'1 i)il t.: i'i':!) T'i ,C:: '1R
Pr'1i;CE: r+irrf TL4F. At'P JC.i\41-,1'. CHAP_
TGR 16.32 X11' 1" 1r- T'IGAi U iti-11CIPA!,
11F
AJaPT'F:v RY TIQ[ C (1 iCT.[, Ar!')
AVAIL,A~1I,E ,1't' (:r Y
S.lc1'd FXCr:PT SCE
P4 V A R I At ^E: X19-33 11Ar!;~
I; .t F'(!rii) i::ST
FJR At'P!i 1V Au r)F A `I(;'i
CFPr161N A'J1 it ARTA'CF 0 ALi~il1,
FOUR 'r"IiE,'ESTMIDT lG SlWiS ;;IT;; A
SIG?) FACE AREA OF '510 S'.)i)ARF
WHERE ai0 STC-MS Wll'ii A
MUM SIGN F AC:F; AREA uF 230
S;)UARE F'F ET ARF NLIHrsAI,61i AID
LOWED, PRPFE OF THE SIG145 AriE: TO
*a REF:`:•!AY ORIENTED. THE 1: iDJ-
a:~. AG UTMENSVI,'~~S OF THES": SlvriS
ARE AS F•'lh1,0lr)S, 64.6t) , 154, A' i)
287.13 S VJARF. FEET, NIN COUR VH
SIGI IS A 40\1 )Fill' S).(,,q, 40 FELT
IN SIZE, 7'O RE. 60CA'I ED i) % A i)i['F'E:R-
E,"dT FRlltiPAGE. PtjEASH' ,lOrE THAT
°IEASI1nF_:'fE?~"rS CTVF;*,' ARE, lNC:I,Lj
SIVF, OF D.Nt-Y WNF: S D r)F t)0llRi,F;-
FACe,[) SI:, 3S, 1,'~`r F~: C-G ;RALCO(sl'FIERC!AL) t-OCA llV,: s 3 2UQii
S49 66TH AVFNUE (N1CT;,l 251
1.AA, TAX Gll')' Ind)
r
i
AGENDA ITEM # 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 3/26/90
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council
wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you
first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City
Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME 6 ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
r
S
y) n w-)1-, 2~Lv. IS905 S .LA) - Core~hS l~a+.~ lgr ynerPi elf Tra 4t
s
'i
i
r
3
i
3
i
f
f
i
+ a
S
DATE 3/26/90
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS.
Item Description: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - PUBLIC HEARING -
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 89-14: VARIANCE 89-33 LANDMARK
FORD - NPO #4
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
~L= 'OT
1--T, 10;41 p .L~
~~ae Z" J-~
s
s
s
{
.s
I
r
3
(i
f
31
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor City Council March 26, 1990
order
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, Y
SUBJECT: Council Minutes of 2/26/90
Attached are the 2/26/90 meeting minutes which contain some clarification
changes suggested by the City Engineer. Said changes are noted on Pages 2,
4, 5, 7, and 10-
ow
Attachment
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
NEErING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990
o Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon,
Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Randy
Wooley, City Engineer; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley,
City Recorder.
2. STUDY SESSION:
SW North Dakota Street:
Citizens in the Anton Park area were requesting consideration of closure
of a portion of SW North Dakota Street. Council had considered this
issue at a meeting in February 1989 at which time Council requested
several measures be implemented to ease concerns. The residents were
reporting that, while some measures were somewhat helpful, a closure of
the street was necessary because of safety concerns.
Councilor Johnson noted that the one solution of road realignment between
Tigard and Beaverton had been discussed, but did not look feasible now.
The Beaverton School District may not relinquish land which would be
necessary for the realignment.
There was Council discussion on increased traffic and safety issues.
Also discussed was the history of the street and its status as the area
developed. Council requested staff research the record and pull aerial
photos from past years for Council review.
Mayor advised he would prefer to have more information before making the
decision as to whether this issue would be called up for review by
Council.
NE Bull Mountain Transportation Study
City Attorney advised this Agenda item represented a decision which would
be a broad enactment affecting a large number of people. Therefore, any
action taken by Council would be deemed "Legislative." In response to a
concern from Councilor Johnson, City Attorney advised that contact from
the community would be expected as part of the decision making process.
if this were a "quasi-judicial" item and prior contact had been made,
then disclosure of the nature of outside contact would be necessary. In
addition, if such contact would bias a Councilor in their ability to
reach a decision, then the Councilor should excuse self from considering
the issue.
City Engineer reviewed the study process. He distributed minutes from
NPO #3 of their 2/20/90 meeting. He also submitted a portion of the
1/30/90 Planning Commission minutes which had been reviewed. City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NffN[MM - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 1
r,
Engineer advised that, in general, there was Lx-oad consensus of support
for most of the Plan., but Planing Coumission had heard objectigms to the
proposed Gaarde Street extension and the e~m plan fcr I~n~rdy
Boulevard extension.
Council discussed the Urban Planning Area Agreement with the County which
would be in effect until December 1990. City Attorney advised of the
importance of working with the County through this agreement because of
State land use planning concerns.
There was discussion on the Murray Boulevard extension and its status.
City Engineer noted that reservation of right-of-wav for up to 5 lanes
(were shown to accanmiodatc turnlanes] was recompended between Scrolls
Ferry Wed and 135th Av anue to pa wAg far ft t needs for additional
lanes at intersections. There was discussion over concern that this
street would be utilized to carry a great amount of traffic should other
routes not be built or improved (i.e. western bypass, improvements to
Beef Bend Road). It was also noted that several developments on Bull
Mountain are scheduled for construction in the near future.
3. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKSHOP: Cancelled
Business Meeting: Called to order by Mayor Edwards at 7:30 p.m.
4. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
a. Jane Miller requested putting a moratorium on building until
solutions have been found concerning traffic congestion and safety
problems.
5. PROCLAMATION FOR GOOD TURN DAY:
a. Mayor proclaimed March 3, 1990 as Good Turn Day in the City of
Tigard. The Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, and Explorers will collect
donations of clothing and household items and deliver the items to
the Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Willamette. The citizens
of Tigard are encouraged to participate by filling the collection
bags, provided by the Scouts, with usable items.
6. CONSENT AGENDA:
6.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 23, 29, and 31, 1990
6.2 Local Contract Review Board: Authorization to go to Bid for Senior
Citizen Center
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve
the Consent Agenda.
The motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present.
{
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY .26, 1990 - PAGE 2
Li~t
`S
k
7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-02 NORTHEAST BULL
MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT, NPO #3 AND 7
Consideration of the recommendation of the Northeast Bull Mountain
Transportation Study Report. The Report recommends that the City's
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be amended as it pertains to the
collector street system in the northeast area of Bull Mountain. The
Report further recxmmiends certain design considerations for the roadway
system in the north east area of Bull Mountain. The area considered by
the Report is generally bounded by Bull Mountain Road, 141st Avenue,
Walnut Street, 121st Avenue, Gaarde Street, and Pacific Highway.
a. Public hearing was opened. Mayor reviewed hearing process and the
issues before Council. He also noted this was the first hearing
Council has had on the study. Mayor listed material received by
Council provided to them for study of the issue.
b. Declarations and Challenges
o Councilor Johnson declared that her residence is on Walnut
Street which is in the study area of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan change. She stated that the discussions
she has participated in with residents of the area and legal
counsel will not prejudice her; she indicated that she will be
participating and will receive testimony in an objective
manner.
_ o Councilor Eadon stated that she lives in an area which is
included in the study area. She stated that she has taken
part in discussions concerning the area which would be
affected by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that she
believes she can maintain an unbiased involvement in this
legislative matter.
o Councilor Schwartz reported that he had also had conversations
with citizens regarding the Bull Mountain Transportation Study
Report and indicated his participation will be unbiased by
previous discussions.
o Councilor Kasten stated that although he does not live in the
study area, he has had conversations with individuals
regarding the Study. He does not feel that these
conversations will affect his objectivity.
o Mayor Edwards also stated that he had had conversations about
the issue. He does not live in the study area. He indicated
that he would be unbiased in the decision-making process.
C. Summation by City Engineer:. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes
a transportation plan for the entire city. The amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map pertain to the northeast area
of Bull Mountain and are being recommended to keep up with the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUIES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 3
`4-
k~:
changing traffic needs brought about by the new development
occurring in this area. The alignments of the proposed streets are
not clear and there has been disagreement between the City and
County as to the street alignments. The Northeast Bull Mountain
Transportation Study was undertaken to look at the long-range
planning for the streets in this area.
City Engineer pointed out that cmprehensive Plans, by their
nature, do not have a schedule for implementation; but they provide
plans to show what streets will be needed in the future so that as
development occurs, a street-system plan is in place. The proposal
is a Comprehensive Plan change; not for street construction.
He outlined the study area noting much of the study area is
outside the city limits but within the area known as the City's
active planning area in which the City takes the lead
responsibility for long-range planning. He stated the County
provided a great deal of support in this joint effort.
He noted the assumption was made that land use designations and
zoning would remain unchanged. The assumption was also made that
existing comprehensive plans for adjoining areas would not change.
In projecting future development, it was also assumed that the
maximum densities allowed by zoning in the study area would not be
reached due to terrain problems and past building patterns.
Traffic was projected based on those predicted densities. Using
the traffic model provided by the Metropolitan Service District, a
. projection was made to forecast future traffic growth. The street
system was then planned based on the expected future full
development of the study area. There is disagreement whether the
Murray Boulevard extension, in the existing Comprehensive Plan, is
still a good idea.
He summarized the public input received stating that concern was
expressed about protecting existing neighborhoods in the Bull
Mountain area. Recommendations were received from the Planning
Comnission, NPO #3, and CPO #4B. He displayed maps of the
different alternatives suggested. Additional traffic projections
were then run by the County to include these various
reconmiendations. The reocnmended alternative in the final report
assumes [excludes] extension of Murray Boulevard to 135th Avmw.
The NPO recommendation is similar to the Planning Coimni.ssion's but
with some smaller streets designed for slower speeds. A comparison
of projected future peak-hour traffic at "Build-out" showed the
different traffic volumes expected based on each scenario. An
information sheet was distributed showing these numbers for each
street. Mirough-traffic versus local-traffic was discussed with
respect to different definitions of the terms.
He discussed the areas where there is disagreement with the plan.
o Disagreement over whether the Gaarde Street extension should
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIId[fIT'S - FEBRiJARY •26, 1990 -PAGE 4
t
be extended to Walnut or west to 132nd. There was agreement,
C however, that Gaarde should be extended to serve the
undeveloped area west of 121st.
o Disagreement over the extension of Murray Boulevard.
o Disagreement with design standards for [wider] xinar collect- r
streets [with it being noted that smaller streets may reduce
traffic volume through neighborhoods].
d. Public Testimony:
o Herman Porter, representing NPO #3, expressed concern that
the plan should be developed in keeping with the city of
Tigard Comprehensive Plan adopted in November 9, 1983. He
quoted Policy 11.3.2:
"The City of Tigard shall work with other governmental
bodies for the development of an arterial route
connection from Murray Boulevard or Scholls Ferry Road to
Pacific. This arterial route should be locate west of
Bull Mountain and should not utilize roads which pass
through existing residential areas within Tigard."
He urged Council to continue with the comprehensive Plan
position. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan had much
wider public involvement and input than the Urban Planning
Agreement, and therefore should take precedence over the urban
Planning Agreement.
o He reviewed his educational/vocational background. He stated
that he received his PhD in Urban and Transportation Geography
from Northwestern University and then worked for several years
for Service Bureau Company in transportation related computer
work. He presented three maps which are the models used to
depict traffic flow over Bull Mountain. He suggested that
traffic models are, by nature, not very reliable as they are
often based on assumptions which are not realistic.
Therefore, he felt that models are not to be depended upon in
this type of decision-making process. He objected to the
Murray Boulevard extension based on the expectation that
businesses and people will relocate to take advantage of the
major traffic route, causing a population influx which would
not naturally otherwise occur. He suggested that land use
zoning would have to be changed if Murray Boulevard were
extended.
o Cal Woolery, Chairman of CPO #4 B, expressed his total
agreement with Mr. Porter's viewpoint that Murray Boulevard
not be extended to bring traffic to a restricted developed
area.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING N nRME5 - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 5
' s
RECESS: 8:50 PM
RECONVENE: 9:00 PM
e. Mayor Edwards asked the audience for a show of hands of those
persons who are opposed to the Murray Road extension, which showed
that many hands were raised; no one raised a hand in favor of the
extension.
Public Testimony continued:
o Larry Lewis, 12415 S.W. 122nd, Tigard, is the President of the
Lake Terrace Home Owners Association. He stated that he and
the home owners he represents are opposed to the amendments to
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan as proposed by the
staff because of the increased inter-regional traffic which
would result through established and planned residential
areas. Specific reccmtnendations include:
- encourage minor collector and residential streets
designed to handle local requirements and discourage
through traffic;
- develop alternative north/south arterials in conjunction
with county and regional plans;
- connection of Murray Boulevard to 135th and Walnut not
occur until satisfactory improvements are made to Old
Scholls Ferry Road west of Murray and also Beef Bend
Road to Pacific Highway.
o Paul Heavirland, 8685 SW McDonald, stated that the residents
living on McDonald do not want a westside bypass running along
McDonald, and that their property values are going down
because of the possibility of the Murray Road extension. He
contended that a bypass should be constructed in an
undeveloped area which is not already an established
neighborhood, because already developed neighborhoods are
essential to maintain Tigard's liveability and population
stability.
o Don Forrest, 8985 SW McDonald, stated that he has owned his
home on McDonald since 1944. He expressed concern that the
Council and elected officials are not responding to the
citizens who have been attending and participating in the
meetings designed to encourage their input. He recd minded
that if the concerned citizens are frustrated with the outcome
of this issue, they should consider starting an initiative
measure as a method of bringing about a different decision.
P E,.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 6
3
F
• f
k
o Nancy Smith, 12630 SW Walnut Street, resident of Tigard for 32 '
years, agreed with the previous speakers. She visited over
100 homes with a petition opposing the Murray connection, and
said that only one person did not wish to sign it. She
further stated that the other people who took petitions around
the neighborhoods also reported the same responses. She
expressed concern about the report and its lack of adequate
detailed description of the Murray Boulevard extension. She
felt that it was confusing to have the information pertaining
to the Murray extension not included in the body of the
report but found in an appendix. she requested that the
for a five-lane Murray
7 Council reject [the] w plan
extension which would bring about inter-regional traffic that
the residents of this area do not want.
o Dana Barker, 11340 SW Viewmount Court, spoke about increased
noise and air pollution which would impact the neighborhoods
if the proposed extension is completed. She stated that
increased co mnexce and lower property values would accompany
the increased traffic.' She expressed concern that Durham and
Hall would be adversely impacted by a greater traffic flow as
well.
o Rich Pearson, 13830 SP: 114th, described the objectionable
noise level he now experiences living eight to ten blocks from
pacific Highway. He agreed with the previous speakers that a
large area of residential neighborhoods would be unlivable is
the extension is built. He noted that about 70 square blocks
of residential area would be adversely affected by this plan.
He requested the council to reject the three alternatives
presented, and urged them to continue with the Comprehensive
Plan as it is now which calls for no new arterials and only
for collectors.
o Ralph Flowers, 11700 SW Gaarde street, recounted the history
of the Edwards and Ames Additions and their respective
streets. He reported that at the tine of the annexation, the
neighbors living in the area were promised that there would
never be a direct connection at the corner of 122nd and Gaarde
Street. McFarlane, which is a winding road, would be the main
access road to discourage higher speed traffic.
o Robert Root, 12045 SW Rose Vista, referred to the Washington
County Transportation Plan and pointed out the 65% traffic
growth which occurred on Highway 217 between 1982 and 1986.
He also noted the absence of a major highway from the
Tualatin-Hillsboro corridor between I-5 and Sunset north of
Hillsboro. He suggested that extending Murray Boulevard would
turn McDonald Street into a major collector and therefore a
truck route. He described Murray Boulevard in Beaverton as a
traffic problem and asked if anyone wants to bring this
problem to Tigard.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING KDRMES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 7
o Councilor Johnson corrected the outdated information
concerning the truck routes listed on the map Mr. Root was
referring to. She stated that Durham and McDonald are not
now, nor are planned to be truck routes in the future. The
map was determined to be a 1985 printing. Mayor Edwards
stated that the streets were taken off in 1987, and the
streets are posted "No Trucks 24 Hours a Day, Deliveries
Only."
o Gary Steele, 12645 SW 135th Avenue, agreed with the previous
speakers' comments regarding the Murray Boulevard extension.
He expressed his appreciation of the appointed and elected
officials working with the citizens to maintain liveability in
Tigard. He reported that the traffic congestion on Murray
Boulevard near Scholls Ferry Road has caused some of the
Murray Hill Apartment residents to move out; and he suggested
that commercial property is best suited to the location next
to a major collector. He pointed out that already part of the
proposed Murray Boulevard extension just south of Scholls
Ferry Road is zoned camnercial. He predicted that most of the
residents along the corridor will sell their homes and that
businesses and ccmwrcial concerns will take the area over.
He requested that the Council consider the wishes of the
majority of people in the community and defeat the Murray
Boulevard extension. He further requested that Council
propose a motion to remove the Murray Boulevard extension fram
the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that funds be spent
instead on schools and a park in this area. He recommended
that Council send a message to Washington County and Metro
that this extension project will not be built in the City of
Tigard and that construction of a western by-pass project
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
o Bill Lamb, 11925 SW Gaarde, stated his desire to maintain his
neighborhood character as it is and not as a traffic
thoroughfare-
0 Lavelle Helm, 13280 SW Walnut, recalled that the community has
rejected the idea of the Murray Boulevard extension for 14
years. She reminded council that Pacific Highway is used by
an unusual number of older drivers from King City,
Su mnerfield, E1 Dorado and Royal Mobile Estates as well as
Tigard residents. She meted that the proposed extension
would not benefit the cammnity in any way; and she would like
to see more small roads to circulate traffic in Tigard. She
pointed out that if it was necessary to build a route, there
are acres of undeveloped property across from Walnut Street
where a route could be built instead of taking part of the
front yard away from four residents on Walnut Street.
o Ina Rae Overby, 13300 SW Walnut, expressed her objection to
CITY COUNCIL MEE'T'ING MDR= - FMZUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 8
the Murray Boulevard extension, pointing out that the
selection of the needed corridor for this arterial has not
been based on the needs of people but rather on the most
economical route for the city of Tigard. She was concerned
that the extension will be a convenient route for the
Beaverton traffic to flow to Tualatin and the beach, but will
not enhance Tigard's liveability.
o Paul Kohler, 12060 S.W. Rose Vista, sees the issue as a choice
to vote for commercialism or a family residential atmosphere
and community. He stated his intention to move out of the
neighborhood if the extension is approved and built.
o John Setniker, 11830 SW Gaarde Street, recommended leaving the
established neighborhoods as they are and considering the
soon-to-be developed areas as the proper locations for new
routes and highway construction.
o Don Starbuck, 9988 SW Walnut Street, agreed with the previous
speakers about protecting the neighborhood quality in the
established areas of Tigard. He reported that Nancy Smith
has obtained 499 signatures on a petition to reject the
extension of Murray. He requested clarification of the
relationship between Washington County, the City of Beaverton,
and the City of Tigard with respect to the proposed extension
of Murray Boulevard; and he was interested in knowing how the
communications between these entities will be accomplished to
prevent this extension from being considered further.
o Beverly Froude, 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road, thanked the staff
and Council for providing the opportunity for the citizens to
look at the transportation plan, attend meetings, and give
input. She expressed positive feelings about the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment except for the Murray Boulevard
extension. She indicated her desire to see the
recomTe-ndations of the NPO incorporated into the plan and to
have the plan passed.
f. City Engineer clarified the existing Comprehensive Plan adopted in
1983, which calls for a road connection in the area of the proposed
Murray Boulevard extension. He stated that the City of Tigard and
Washington County adopted an Urban Planning Agreement in 1986. The
County and the City of Beaverton have a similar agreement. The
agreement further defines the alignment of that connection between
Scholls Ferry Road and 135th and establishes some design
standards, such as road width, number of lanes and curves.
g. Councilor Johnson read a letter dated February 16, 1990, from Bruce
Warner, Director of the Department of Land Use and Transportation
for Washington County. The Washington County Transportation Plan
and the both the Bull Mountain and Reedville-Cooper Mountain
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIN[TI'ES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 9
Ccmmmity Plans (adopted in June 1983) include a proposed
connection between Murray Boulevard at Old Scholls Ferry and Gaarde
Street at 99 W. At the same time the Urban Planning Area Agreement
(UPAA) between the County and Tigard noted the connection as an
unresolved issue, but agreed to take no action to preclude a
solution to the issue. In April 1984 the UPAA was extended and
interim guidelines for the Murray connection were included. In
1986 and 1988 the UPAA was extended again with refinements to the
extension proposal.
h. City Attorney explained the process of periodic review by the
State, which occurs approximately every five years. The State
requires a plan to be in coordination with the plans in surrounding
jurisdictions. He stated that the consequences of acting
unilaterally are serious for the City. An enforcement order can be
issued by the State whereby the City is ordered to follow the UPAA
or some other solution imposed by the State, or be cut off from
State shared revenues.
i. City Engineer responded to several issues raised during public
testimony. He stated that the Staff's recommendation report was
not a major change to the existing Coaprehensive Plan but was an
expansion and clarification of the plan. He expressed his opinion
that the traffic projections were updated from the earlier ones
which had been too low. The projections did take into account the
expected population growth in the Bull Mountain area. He clarified
that the Southwest Corridor Study recommended that the Beef Bend
extension be ccmpleted along with some major improvements on 217
before the Murray extension between Walnut and Gaarde are
completed. He emphasized that improvements on many of the streets
were needed. He reported that it was not the intention to make
Murray a five-lane street merely to reserve [the] additional
right-of-way in s®e areas to allow for those lanes to be built in
the future if they're needed. He stated that he is not optimistic
about the idea of a road system that serves only local traffic;
this tact has not been successful in other areas since through
traffic still occurs.
j. Council questions and connents:
o Councilor Eadon advised that growth could be managed if
planned for ahead of'time. She suggested that the most
critical planning area is transportation and that reserving
street corridors is necessary. She requested advice from city
Attorney about the legality of adopting part of the plan after
separating out the Murray extension portion of the plan.
o Councilor Kasten reviewed the ccnments heard from the
citizens. He noted that the transportation problem on Bull
Mountain is increasing due to development which continues to
occur. He agreed with Councilor Eadon that the i.ntsrlink;ng
of Murray Boulevard with 135th and Walnut should be removed
C` CITY COUNCIL MMTING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 10
from the plan at this time, and that Council should work
toward a resolution with the adjacent communities and the
County to find a resolution of the issue.
o Councilor Johnson expressed appreciation of the work done by
the staff on their study and report. She expressed concern
about how the Murray extension developed from an unresolved
issue in 1983 to a specifically-detailed alignment in 1988.
She agreed that a need exists to resolve the issue of Murray
extension with adjacent communities. She urged staff to look
at the comparison of the most recent models and to report back
to Council at the next date this matter is being heard. She
suggested that the concerned citizens choose several
spokespeople who will be willing to follow the west side by-
pass that the City can notify when public hearings are being
held and when testimony is needed.
o Councilor Schwartz complimented the staff for their work on
the Study. He reviewed the reasons for the study and noted
the need for pre-planning a road system before housing
developments are built up. He recommended holding a workshop
with staff and Council to discuss the alternatives, especially
the Murray Boulevard extension, and how to approach the issue
with neighboring jurisdictions.
o Mayor Edwards summarized the testimony and agreed there is a
need for a council workshop to devise a workable
transportation plan for the Tigard area. He urged the
audience to be interested and vocal in regional and state
issues because of their great impact which affect how local
decisions can be made. He expressed his desire to review the
Urban Planning Agreement between Washington County and Tigard
to determine how it evolved. He stated his belief that
holding public hearings at this time with a larger
notification group on the issue would be unproductive.
o City Administrator and Council discussed the next steps in the
process. Public hearings which would include 135th Avenue
residents would be delayed until there was further study of
options on Murray Road (i.e. determination of Urban Planning
Area Agreement conclusions for Murray Road extension). Staff
will be prepared to report to Council on March 26 the
following information:
o Murray Road/UPAA history
o Report on discussion with NPO
o Mayor Edwards requested that notification be sent to the NPOs
to let them know this topic will be discussed at the March 26
meeting. People who signed in to testify will also be
noticed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUW 26, 1990 - PAGE 11
k. Public hearing was continued to March 26, 1990.
8. EXECCTI'IVE SESSION: Cancelled
9. ADLTOUR1ZfERT: 10:59 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
AT=:
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Date
~r ef/CC22690.60
C CITY COUNCIL MMMr,. NIINUI'ES - FEMUARY 26, 1990 - PAGE 12
y + CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON oZ
' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SU24MARY 1
AGENDA OF: March 26. 1990 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revision to PREVIOUS ACTION: ,
Awl Storm Drainage CIP Project List /7 71
REPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY:
PO ICY ISSUE
Shall the Storm Drainage CIP project list adopted by the FY 89-90 budget be
revised?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
s
c
Attached is a memo recommending that Grant Avenue storm drainage improvements
be added to the list of approved projects on Page 170 of the adopted budget.
Funds for this project would come from savings on other budgeted storm drainage
projects.
y~
E
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
r
1. Approve the funding of Grant Avenue storm drainage improvements.
2. Withhold approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding is available in the current budget due to savings on other projects.
r
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Council, by motion, approve the addition of Grant Avenue Storm
Drainage Improvements to the list of authorized projects to be funded from the
Storm Drainage CIP account (Account No. 10-612-75200) in the FY 89-90 budget.
br/SumSht.mst
1
i
i
i
i
t
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer March 15, 1990
FROM: Greg Berry, Utilities Engineers
RE: Storm Drainage - Capital Improvement Budget
I request that the storm drainage capital improvement budget be revised by
adding storm drainage improvements to SW Grant Street.
i
With completion of the contract documents for the SW Ventura Dr. storm drainage
CIP, the estimated cost of the project has been revised from $25,000 to
$10,000. This is due in part to expenses saved by the National Guard providing
the design as part of improvements to its nearby site. Since this will result
in a savings of $15,000 which is also the proposed budget for the improvements C
to SW Grant Street, no additional funding is required.
The purpose of the proposed project is to solve a problem with runoff from
Tigard Elementary School onto SW Grant Avenue and across private property.
This project has not been previously recommended because of a lack of
downstream facilities to convey the runoff that would be collected by the i
project. These downstream facilities will now become available because of the
SW Walnut Street improvement project. Moreover, this project will eliminate
the need for the School District to install temporary drainage facilities at
the school site as currently planned.
Please advise me of any additional information you require.
dj/m-sdcip.GB
r
4
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 26, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: March 15, 1990
AS¢11 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Request for a PREVIOUS ACTION:
transfer of -Jurisdiction of a r
Portion of Greenbur Road PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
P LICY ISSUE
Transfer of jurisdiction of a portion of Greenburg Road.
aacaacaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacaaaaaaccaaaaaaccaaacaaccccaaaccvaaaaaaca
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Previously, the City had requested transfer of jurisdiction of Greenburg Road
to the City. The County approved the transfer of a portion of the road to the
City. The intention was that all of Greenburg Road south of Highway 217 be
under City jurisdiction. However, recently it was discovered that the previous
County action did not include the portion of Greenburg between Cascade Blvd.
and Highway 217. This is a result of an error in the legal description.
In order to correct the previous error, it is necessary to go through the
formal process of jurisdiction transfer for the remainder of Greenburg Road
south of Highway 217. Approval of the attached resolution will begin the
formal process.
City and County staff are in agreement that this transfer should occur in order
to complete the transfer that was intended earlier.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution requesting transfer of jurisdiction.
2. Allow the roadway to remain under County jurisdiction.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon transfer, the City will assume the responsibility for maintenance.
However, the City has already been maintaining this roadway, since it was
thought that the transfer had already occurred. Therefore, there should be no
budget impacts.
Transfer will provide some reduction in costs of the CIP project for the
Greenburg/Cascade signal installation, by reducing the need to coordinate the
project with the County.
ccaaaaacaaasaacaaaacaaaacaaaaacaaaaaaccaaaacaacaaaaaccaacaccaaaacavcaaaaa=cacti
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Council approve the attached resolution requesting transfer of
jurisdiction.
rw/c-juris
3q
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA OF: March 26, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/16/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bid Award f0 t ACTION:
Hall Durham Intersection Im rov en
114111 ; PREPARED BY: Gar Alfson
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK/ /`f REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Award of construction contract for the Hall/Durham Intersection Improvements.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This project provides for minor widening of Durham Road on both sides of Hall
Boulevard as required for the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection, including pavement, curb, and sidewalk.
Four bids were received as follows:
Gelco Construction Co., Salem $ 48,173
All Concrete Specialties, Inc., Vancouver $ 53,621.50
W. G. Moe & Sons, Inc., Portland $ 54,900.
Crest Development, Eagle Creek $ 56,699.
The engineers estimate was $55,000.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
2. Reject all bids.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is funded through the Major Streets Bond approved in November
1988.
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City
Administrator to sign a contract with Gelco Construction Co.
dj/GA:ss-dhb.GA
t;
c~
CC-3
Y
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: _March 26, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/16/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval of,! PREVIOUS ACTION:
Tri-Met Agreement for Greenbur /-fir
Road Transit Im vements PREPARED BY: Gar Alfson
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
P ICY ISSUE
Approval of a Tri-Met Intergovernmental Agreement providing for transit
improvements along Greenburg Road.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Tri-Met has requested that transit improvements be included in the Greenburg
Road project. The attached Agreement provides for transit improvements (bus
turnouts) to be installed along Greenburg Road in conjunction with the Major
Streets Bond Project. All costs for the improvements including engineering,
right-of-way acquisition and construction are to be refunded to the City by
Tri-Met. The total estimated cost of the transit improvements is $97,427.
The turn outs will allow buses to load and unload without disrupting traffic.
Since this transit line is designated for handicapped access, extended
loading/unloading times are expected.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the agreement and authorize the City Administrator to sign.
2. Reject the agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Agreement provides for Tri-Met to refund to the City all costs associated
with the transit improvements.
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Council, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign the
attached Agreement on behalf of the City.
dj/GA:ss-tma.GA
C_
i
TRI-COUN'T'Y MEIROPOISTAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON
AGREEMENT
FOR GREENBURG ROAD TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
CONTRACT NO. 90-255I
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of Oregon ("Tri-Met") and the City of Tigard ("City"),
in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Tri-let and City have mutual interest in making certain transit
transfer site improvements (hereinafter "Project"), and desire to jointly
participate in malting such improvements; and
WHEREAS, Tri-Met and City have authority under ORS 267.200 and ORS Chapter 190
to contract with any goverrmiental entity for the construction, acquisition,
purchase, lease, preservation, improvement, operation, or maintenance of any
mass transit system; and
WHEREAS, Tri-Met has received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(hereinafter 11UKM11) Grant Number OR-03-0027 for funding of the Project;
NOW ARE, in consideration of the parties performance of the terms,
conditions and covenants set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Term of P,preement
The term of this Agreement shall be frcen March 1, 1990 through and
including December 1, 1990.
i
2. obligations of city
city shall provide engineering design, obtain any necessary right-of--way
and provide construction management as set forth below for the Project
described in Exhibits "A" and "B". All terms and conditions of Exhibit
"A" and "B" are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this
Agreement. City obligations shall include the following:
A. City shall provide all bid docLmients for the construction of the
Project. City shall provide Tri-Met with invoices of services
performed in the preparation of bid documents and award of the
contract and in the supervision of the construction Contractor. Such
invoices shall be for actual costs, shall be in accordance with OMB
Circular Al-87, and shall be broken down in detail as to job title,
hourly rate, and number of hours of service provided by Contractor,
and shall be suhnitted in accordance with Paragraph 4. Tri-Met shall
be given a reasonable time for review of the bid documents. Tri-Met
shall incorporate into the bid documents all UIM and any other
provisions designated by Tri-Met.
i
B. Prior to the right-of-way acquisition by the City, the City shall
deliver to Tri-Met a set of final design plans which clearly
indicates the areas to be acquired using LMTA funds. The right-of-
way to be purchased with LXM funds will need to be approved by Tri-
Met's project manager. Subject to the limitations set forth in
Paragraph 4, Tri-let will reimburse the City for the Fair Market
Value of all right-of-way and easements, and for City's contractors/
agents reasonable and allowable costs of acquiring the land which are
obtained for the exclusive use of transit vehicles. City's
contractor/agents costs shall be determined by multiplying the
contractor/agents total fee by the percentage of the land acquisition
which is for transit vehicles. The anticipated land acquisition
costs for the transit related improvements to Greenberg Road as set
forth in Exhibit "A" shall not be exceeded without the approval of
Tri-met 's project manager.
Page 2 of 17 F
i
C. Prior to construction of the Greenburg Road Improvements, the City
shall deliver to Tri-Met the final Bid Document for review. Bid
Modifications and Change orders affecting the areas to be constructed
using LTIM funds must also be approved by Tri-Met's project manager
prior to approval. Tri-Met will reimburse the City for the cost of
the transit related improvements as outlined in Exhibit "B". Zbe
cost of the transit related inprovements will not be exceeded unless
approved by Tri-Met's project manager.
D. City will solicit construction bids and award a contract in
accordance with Oregon Law, the LIDXM grant agreement with Tri-Met,
and LXM Circular 4220.1A. City will obtain all required bonds and
insurance documentation from the Awandee/Contractor.
E. City will supervise the Contractor during all phases of construction
of the Project. City will conduct construction inspection and City
shall provide to Tri-Met detailed monthly construction reports. City
shall permit Tri-Met access to the Project sites at all reasonable
times for observation and cafftent.
F. Any additional work that would increase the cost of the Project as
set forth in Paragraph 4(B) must be performed pursuant to written
change order. City shall not perform or allow to be performed any
such additional work without prior approval from Tri-let, which shall
not unreasonably be withheld, and City agrees to assultY3 all costs of
such work not in coapliance with this provision.
G. City shall certify to Tri-Met that the construction is in CCUPliance
with applicable state and local codes and the bid document. City
shall review all of Awardee/Contractor's invoices and recommend
appropriate action to Triplet in accordance with Paragraph 4, Budget v
and Payment. f
Page 3 of 17
H. City shall notify Tri-Met when the Project is ready for final
inspection.
I. City will maintain detailed and accurate records of all funds
expended and all work performed with regard to this Agreement, and
shall make such records available to Tri-Met for inspection at any
reasonable time.
J. Upon completion and acceptance by Tri-Met of the Project, City shall
assume the same maintenance responsibilities it normally assumes for
other on street irprovements.
K. City shall bear responsibility for all reasonable foreseeable cost
increases to the Project caused by City's failure to timely perform
its obligations under this Agreement.
3. Obligations of Tri-Met
A. Tri-Met shall prcmptly respond to all requests by City for review and
information regarding the Project. Tri-Met shall bear responsibility
for all reasonable foreseeable cost increases to the Project caused
by Tri-let's failure to timely perform its obligations under this
Agreement.
B. Tri-Met shall perform an advisory review and upon approval of
Awardee/Contractor's final invoice, approve final payment. Tri-Met
will provide City with a letter of acceptance, the date of which
shall constitute the date of final completion for the transit
improvements.
4. Budget and Payment
A. Tri-+Let shall provide 100% of funding for the Project.
Page 4 of 17
a
F
B. The total budget for the Project is $97,427. A breakdown of the
Project budget according to Project elements is set forth in
E5diibits "A" & "B".
C. City shall submit invoices for Awardee/Contractor transit related
payment directly to Tri-Met's Finance Division. City shall receive
payment for anraved invoices in the amount of 100% of City's actual
or service credit costs within 30 days of Tri-let's receipt of such
invoices.
D. All invoices shall document the services for which the invoices are
submitted and shall be in conformance with CM Circular 1-102 and any
applicable attachments thereto.
5. Disadvantaged and Women Business Enterprise Requirements
A. Tri-Met's goal for DBE/WBE participation in this Contract is 14%
DBE/WBE. The goals are the percentages of this total Contract price
that should be awarded to DBE/WBE subcontractors certified by Tri-
Mett's DBE/WBE Specialist.
B. As used in this Contract, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Disadvantaged business enterprise" (DBE) means a small business
concern:
(a) That is at least 51 percent awned by one or more socially
and econc ically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case
of any publicly awned business, at least 51 percent of the
stock of which is owned by one or more socially and
econcMlcally disadvantaged individual(s); and
(b) The management and daily business operations of which are
controlled by one or more socially and economically .
disadvantaged individual(s) who awn it.
Page 5 of 17
n '
(2) "Small business concern" means a small business as defined
pursuant to Section 3 of the Small Business Act and relevant
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
(3) "Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" means
those individuals who are citizens of the United States, or
lawfully admitted permanent residents, and who are Black
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific
Americans, or Asian-Indian &-ericans, and any other minorities
or individuals found to be disadvantaged by the Small Business
Achnir~istration pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business
Act or by Tri-Met pursuant to 49 CFR 23.62.
Individuals in the following groups are rebuttably presumed to
be socially and economically disadvantaged:
(a) "Black Americans," which includes persons having origins in
any of the Black racial groups of Africa;
(b) "Hispanic Americans," which includes persons of Mexico,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central of South American, or other
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race;
(c) "Native Americans," which includes persons who are American
Indians,- Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians;
(d) "Asian-Pacific Americans," which includes persons whose
origins are fram. Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam,
Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, the US Trust
Territories of the Pacific, and the Northern Marianas; and
(e) "Asian-Indian Americans," which includes persons whose
origins are frown India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
E.
Page 6 of 17
i
(4) 'Women business enterprise" (WBE) means a small business
concern:
(a) That is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women, or,
in the case of a public owned business, at least 51 percent
of the stock of which is owned by one or more women; and
(b) The management and daily operations of which are controlled
by one or more women who awn it.
C. Pursuant to 49 CPR 23.43(a), the following provisions are made a part
of this Contract.
i
(1) PolIt is the policy of the US Department of Transportation
(DOT) and Tri-let that disadvantaged and women business
enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall have the maximum s
opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts
financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. Consequently
the DBE/WBE requirements of 49 CPR Part 23 apply to this
Agreement.
(2) DBE/WBE Obligation. Contractor agrees to ensure that
disadvantaged and women business enterprises as defined in 49
CFR Part 23 have the makumnm opportunity to participate in the
performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or
in part with Federal funds provided under this Contract. In
this regard Contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable
steps in accordance with CFR Part 23 to ensure that
disadvantaged and women business enterprises have the maximum
opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Contractor
shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the award and performance of DM-assisted .
contracts.
Page 7 of 17
D. Contractor's failure to carry out the requirements set forth in this
paragraph shall be a breach of this contract and may result in
termination of this Contract for default or any other remedy Tri-Met
deems appropriate.
E. Contractor shall make good faith efforts to replace a DBE/WBE
subcontractor that is unable to perform successfully with another
DBE/WBE. Contractor shall seek Tri-let's approval of a prospective
substitute before making the substitution. Tri-Met shall approve the
substitute if it is an eligible DBE/WBE.
5. Federal Funding Limitation
City understands that all funds to pay for services under this Agreement
have been made available from UMTA. Such funds must be approved and
administered by UMTA. All dealings with UMPA that are necessary or
desirable under this agreement shall be the sole responsibility of Tri-
Met, which shall represent City's interests as well in the course of same
in good faith.
If funds are not allocated or are ultimately disapproved by LMM, Tri-Met
is not liable for payment and may terminate this Agreement, without
penalty, until such time as funds are available. Tri-Met shall notify
City proarptly in writing of the non-allocation, delay, or disapproval of
funding. It is understood and agreed that Tri-let is in no case liable
for damages in connection with this Agreement on account of delay in
payments to city due to lack of available funds, but City may deny use of
the improvements contemplated hereunder or any of them to Tri-let until
the full cost of same are paid to City by or on behalf of Tri-Met.
7. Continuing Control
City and Tri-Met agree that the Project is to be constructed utilizing, in
part, Federal funds provided to Tri-Mt by UMTA pnarsuant to UMCA Grant
Agreement No. OR-03--0027, and that the federal govermient retains a
Page 8 of 17
continuing interest in all structures, equiprient, and other facilities
' acquired or constructed with Federal funds which may be located in or upon
the premises transferred by this Agreement.
To satisfy the continuing control requirements of LAMA as set forth in 49
USC 1602 (a) (2) (A) (ii) and the grant Agreement between UMM and Tri-Met,
City agrees to take no action which would interfere with Tri Met's
reasonable use of the facilities for a bus transfer site for the life of
the Project. Tri-Met's interest in the Project may not be assigned or
transferred without LAUA's written concurrence. This provision1 is not
intended to grant Tri-Met nor the UMM exclusive rights to use or occupy
the air space above the project.
To the extent that City's agreement to this continuing control provision
imposes upon City obligations which violate state law, City shall be
relieved of such obligations and Tri-Met shall assume all financial
obligations arising out of this continuing control provision.
If any public body acquires or sins Tri-Met, Tri-let's interest,
rights and obligations created by this Agreement shall be assignable by
Tri--Met or LMM to the public body that acquires or succeeds Tri-Net.
8. Project Directors and Managers
A. Directors
The overall coordination and direction of the project will be
provided by Tri-Met's and City's Project Directors. Within the
limits of their respective legal and administrative authority, the
Project Directors shall have the authority to make all final
decisions and to resolve any disputes or issues relating to the
project.
a
Tri-Met's Project Director is Ron Higbee. City's Project Director is
Randy Wooley
Page 9 of 17
r.,
f.
B. Project Managers
The parties shall each designate a Project Manager who shall be
responsible for actual coordination of the project. The Project
Managers shall insure that the Project and tasks related thereto are
completed expeditiously and economically. The Project Manager shall
have authority to make decisions and resolve disputes with third
parties. As between the respective Project Managers, any dispute
shall be referred to the Project Directors for resolution.
Trust's Project Manager is Don Ford. City's Project Manager is
Gary Alfson.
r.
49. Notices y
All notices provided hereunder shall be in writing and sufficient if
deposited in the United States mail, postage paid, to the parties g
x..
addressed as indicated below:'
i
x
Randall R. Wooley
r;
City Engineer
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
PO Boat 23397
Tigard, C1R 97223
Douglas Capps, Executive Director
Public Services
Tri-mt
4012 SE 17th Avenue
Portland, CR 97202
( r
Page 10 of 17
10. Termination for Default
A party shall be deemed to be in default if it fails to conply with any
provision of this Agreement or if its progress in performance of its
obligations is so unsatisfactory that Agreement performance is seriously
impaired. The other party shall provide the party in default written
notice of same and allow that party 20 days within which to cure the
default. In the event that party does not cure that default within 20
days the first party may terminate all or part of this Agreement.
Each party shall be liable to the other for all reasonable, foreseeable
damages resulting from the first party's default.
If after notice of termination, the parties or a court finds that a party
was not in default or that the default was excusable, the rights of the
parties shall be the same if the termination has been for convenience
under paragraph 11, Termination of convenience.
11. Termination of Convenience
Tri-Met may terminate all or part of this Agreement for convenience by
providing fifteen (15) days advance written notice to City. In the event
Tri-met terminates for convenience, Tri-Met shall pay city for the actual
costs of reasonable expenses for Agreement work performed prior to
termination to the extent they are allowable under the WM grant. In
addition, Tri-Mt shall pay City any reasonable costs necessarily incurred
by City as a direct result of Tri-Vlet's termination. Tri-Met shall not be
required to make any payment to City under this provision unless City
submits a termination claim not more than 30 days after Tri-let provides
notice of termination. Tri.-iet may in its discretion extend the 30 day
deadline.
F
C d
Page 11 of 17
t
12. Audit, Inspection and Retention of Records
The parties shall permit the authorized representatives of Tri-Il-t, the
United States Department of Transportation and the Comptroller General of
the United States to inspect and audit all data and records of Ci'_y and
Tri-Met relating to their performance of this Agreement for three years
after Tri-Met has made final payment and all other pending matters are
closed.
13. Law of Oregon
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon and by
the germs and provisions required by ORS Chapter 279 and U[M. All
Agreement provisions required by ORS Chapter 279 to be included in public
contracts are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
14. Documents are Public Property
All records, reports, data, documents, systems and concepts, whether in
the form of writings, figures, graphs, or models which are prepared or
developed in connection with this Project shall beccnne public property.
All design drawings and documents provided by City pursuant to this
Agreement shall be available to Tri-let. This provision shall not be
construed to mean that all such records shall be required to be disclosed
as public records under Oregon or federal law.
It is anticipated that this project will require condemnation litigation.
Appraisal data, appraisals and review appraisals conducted by the state or
by private firms for the City shall be considered exempt from disclosure
as material prepared in anticipation of litigation pursuant to ORS
129.500(1)(c) and as attorney work product. Final material shall not be
disclosed to any person, other than those employees necessarily involved
in its preparation unless authorized by the office of City Attorney for
City.
Page 12 of 17
i
w
15. Interest of Members of Congress
No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be
admitted to any share or portion of this Agreement or to any benefit
arising thereof.
16. Interest of Public officials
No member, officer, or employee of Tri-Met during his or her tenure or for
one year thereafter shall have any financial interest direct or indirect
in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof.
17. EMIal Ehyloyment Ogt~ortunity
In connection with the performance of this Agreement, City and Tri Met
shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, sex, age, or national origin.. TriMet
- and city shall take affirmative actions to ensure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during the employment without
regard to their race, religion, color, sex, age, or nation origin. Such
actions shall include but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
layoff or germination, rates of pay or other forms of cca pensation, and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. All EED clauses as
specified in MM grant agreement shall be included in all third-party
contracts.
18. Adherence to Law
A. City shall adhere to all applicable laws governing its relationship
with its employees, including but not limited to laws, rules,
regulations, and policies concerning workers' cmTerLsati.on and
mininum, and prevailing wage requirements.
Page 13 of 17
s
AgS
M
B. City shall adhere to all applicable federal, state, local laws,
regulations and policies including but not limited to OMB Circular
A-102 and all Attachments thereto, all applicable provisions of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, equal employment
opportunity, nondiscrimination in services and affirmative action,
including all regulations implementing Executive Order No. 11246 of
the President of the United States, Section 402 of the Vietnam
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Section 503 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and all applicable terms and conditions
prescribed for third party contracts by the US Department of
Transportation.
C. City agrees to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as follc*7s:
(1) Compliance with Regulations: The City shall comply with the
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally-assisted
programs of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT")
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be
amended from time to time (hereinafter incorporated by reference
and made a part of the contract).
(2) NomUscrinination: The City, with regard to the work performed
by it during the contract, shall not discriminate on the grounds
of race, color, or national origin in the selection and
retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment. The City shall not participate either
directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by
Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices
when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of
the Regulations.
Page 14 of 17
(3) Solicitations for Subcontracts Including procurements of
± Materials and Dquipment: In all solicitations either by
competitive bidding or negotiation made by the City for work to
be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of
materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor
or supplier shall be notified by the City of the City's
obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to
nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national
origin.
(4) Information and Reports: The City shall provide all information
and reports required by the Regulations or directives issued
pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books,
records, accounts, other sources of information, and its
facilities as may be determined by the Recipient or the urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) to be pertinent to
ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders and
instructions. Where any information is required of a contractor
or is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or
refuses to furnish this information, the City shall so certify
to the Recipient, or the umm, as appropriate, and shall set
forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
(5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the City's
noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
Agreement, the Recipient shall impose such contract sanctions as
it or the Urban Mass Transportation Administration may determine
to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(a) Withholding of payments to the City under the Agreement
until the City ccoplies, and/or
(b) Cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement,
f
in whole or in part.
Y
Page 15 of 17
r
f_
r.
• 3
i
(6) Incorporation of Provisions: The City shall include the
- provisions of paragraph 1 through 6 in any subcontract including
procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exert
by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The
City shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or
procurement as the Recipient or the Urban Mass Transportation
Acmuni tion may direct as a means of enforcing such provision
including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that
in the event city becomes involved in, or is threatened with,
litigation with a subcontractor or supplies as a result of such
direction, the City may request Tri-Met to enter into such
litigation to protect the interest of Tri Met, and, in addition,
the City may request the United States to enter into such
litigation to protect the interest of the United States.
i
19. Liability and Indemnification
t
City acknowledges that it is an independent contractor and accepts
responsibility for liability arising out of its performance of this
agreement. City shall hold Tri-Met harmless, indemnify and defend Tri- i
Met, its directors, officers, employees and agents for any and all i
liability, settlements, losses, costs and expenses in connection with any
action, suit or claim resulting from City's negligent errors, omissions or
other tortious conduct arising from city's obligations pursuant to this
agreement, to the extent of the limits of liability for public bodies set
forth at ORS 30.270 and in accordance with Article XI, Section 10 of the
Oregon Constitution.
Tri-let accepts responsibility for liability arising out of its
performance of this agreement. Trivet shall hold City harmless,
indemnify and defend City, its officers, employees and agents for any and
all liability, settlements, losses, costs and expenses in connection with
Page 16 of 17 r
i
any action, suit or claim resulting from Tri-met's negligent errors,
. cmissions or other tortious conduct arising from Tri-Met's performance or
nonperformance of this agreement, to the extent of the limits of
liability for public bodies set forth at ORS 30.270.
20. Modification
Any modification of the provisions of this Agreement shall be reduced to
writing and signed by the parties.
21. Integration
This Agreement constitutes the entire, complete and final express of the
Agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements written or
oral.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates
hereinafter indicated:
CITY OF TIGARD TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
OF OREGON
By: By:
J.E. Cowen, General Manager
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Liz Goebel
Contracts and Legal Services
Date: Date:
a
ke/GAATRI A
N: \WORD\COMDEV
Page 17 of 17
EXHIBIT A
S.W. GREENBURG ROAD PROJECT - BUS TURNOUTS
Tax Lot Right-of-Way Cost
Northbound
1. Farside Center Street 1S135DD4402 $ 595.00
1S 135DD4405 915.00
2. Farside 90th Avenue 1 S 135DC7600 3,475.00
3. Farside 92nd Avenue 1S135DB4900 3,080.00
1S 135DB5000 75.00
4. Nearside 95th Avenue 1S135DB6000 4,560.00
5. Opposite 98th Avenue 1S135CA1200 875.00
1S135CA1300 2,275.00
6. Farside N. Dakota Street IS135CA600 3,770.00
Southbound
1. Farside Tiedeman Street 1S 135CA700 $5,144.00
2. Farside 98th Avenue 1S135CD800 3,285.00
3. Farside 95th Avenue 1S135DC3100 3,195.00
4. Farside 92nd Avenue IS135DC6300 2,615.00
5. Nearside Lincoln Avenue 1S135DC1400 1,100.00
(Easement)
TOTAL $34,959.00
Appraisal Negotiations - 14 Parcels @ $500.00 7,000.00
TOTAL $41,959.00
i
EXHIBIT B
S.W. GREENBURG ROAD PROJECT - BUS TURNOUTS
uantit Unit Unite Price Total
P.C.C. Pavement 366 CY $85.00 $31,110.00
A.C. Pavement 15 Ton 30.00 450.00
Aggregate Base Rock 294 CY 20.00 5,880.00
Earthwork 471 CY 8.00 3.768.00
Subtotal $41,208.00
Mobilization (8%) 3,300.00
Traffic Control (39o) 1,240.00
Construction Engineering/Inspection $3,830.00
Contingency (5%) 2.060.00
Construction Total $51,638.00
Engineering Design (6010) 2,870.00
Project Management (2110) 960.00
Engineering Total $3,830.00
PROJECT TOTAL $55,468.00
IL
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 26, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: March 10, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Board & Committee PREVIOUS ACTION:
Appointments
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN WPOL REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The attached resolution outlines the recommendations of the Mayor's Appointment
Advisory Committee for filling vacancies on Neighborhood Planning Organization
(NPO) #3.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the proposed resolution.
2. Adopt the proposed resolution with amendments.
3. Decline action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
SUGGESTED ACTION
Alternative No. 1: Adopt the proposed resolution.
ke/LNNP03AP
CITY OF TIt~,A R®
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION OREGON
NAME: N~ iP~ S. ~M1! H DATE: 12-117-1841
ADDRESS (RES.): 30 5.11. WAL►JU-r RES. PHONE: 4,39-1903
ADDRESS (BUS.): BUS. PHONE:
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD : 31' yE5A R 5 SUGGESTED BY: 1JUMA t I POR1'6 Z
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? 0'
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 2 YeAQS }416H ` HODt-,faED W5H 141614 SCOer PC,C.- 2 -IEARS PARTTIME,_
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: ~UGF~ CO,~*!C-A~,sA~i-ra Er1GpJE1;Q1►J6 a~
vAwca Sd57EMS,SFI ~2WOO162- PURC►+AStR, LCFT P2603US JOB-TO 500(r( FULL'T1MC F&91:-
W 1FC Jk*I Mo~►E2 OF -Two ~Bd)fs, -
YEARS,
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 1 TUtM.= 4 yRS, 0
tS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? NO
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: ::r 10\115 0%TfE0OE1-> MOS7 NP&.3 mre-rio6S AND ]>IScus1-1oiy5
Pok -TN-C PA57 YEA2 T 11-Ave Alao ASE0ZD F\16-r(TS 3uc1--1 As P~QAtee;S ANA --r16A97
10IV14 $ fcuNTRY .DAY P'Vc-Ni5, - -
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: 096.41?-JiztS> A SDPrBA~u- L~aA~ 11,4 -T/t£ WA>J V-r; o2'S Co P iQ it 2
J32~A X02 69 yEra(~5
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : --t "4C- fkujoAj
1Y-1T-111T10N-5 OF F>'Er2 I~AY/~6 7/ti5- HUtlJe' 1- / yO / 41 VE lAf :V AM 71ie 77l/Ry 77ENE,2A7Dt~
TO L1✓h 11177115 H041E ANDX-A/vt ~°PvuyvF -7fAT, ~f~ts~ P6E~ 1 PANffEjP Out 4,eefq
&)(7P IM V V11-41,A1en1Es5 Tv 1fr4P yt/0m14,y ld e7Et? 1JJ/72Y IP O,el~N'/7AT.GiJf►2 ,5x , t_t5_ _7
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: Nf°D # :3
Date received at City Hall Date Interviewed
Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO
Inside City Outside City V-'
C.
sb/4772A/0002A
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
--r FFLIO~ wvR>!►NCi pN~ 'Ai-v-iofx WJTN Pf,~P1E/ EsPECi.aLLy gBo~cT zssu 5
RC(aA2DjuE7 Ou(Z Ul1W& AJ?EA- S flm QL 17.2 COMCeRMCD )}66uT 7-He
CLr/1Qt5-JJT aoR> )ssuES AX)J Nbw I-r JJIL.L. 4AVE SuasTgN-nA-i. J.m~Jgc;f'
ON 71)C- . Wof* 3 AREA. ~ A-M UGRy CoOC600- I ED PkgvLt7'- 4}+ QuA-GrT/ or
A9D +bPC TU DC 4,3LE -ra ASSJST I1J IYIA/A%TAiti1N~ Jk( '
CITY OF T10ARD
CITI OMMITTEE NTE ES APPLICATION OREGON
D o~ ~"hesse ~R~ ~ 71ei~//,~d, s ,
GS9' ~e.SiT,4 /✓t ~96t~1 ~a ~';/Vw
NSvRe
NAME: r DATE:
ADDRESS (REa . r RES. PHONE :
ADDRESS (BUS.): ~ ./a~10 ► 'iS! ~o a~c~ r%~ 1 BUS. PHONE:
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN GARD: ~~f3jL S SUGGEST/ED BY:
A
~~i~lY
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY?
D~ T f
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
T - o v Sri vsaess s`tuv,EN/oNdxs
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: 7-
HOW LONG HAVE YOU REEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM?
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)?
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY : r7-4-6r f ik,*KD -d rf/A/ ffl✓I> y/✓YI? y, ~i~/ r'iVV S
PAY? V
v , ' 7'__,'GA-Ab ~v8 ' cqv 1K4 A,-
- Q~ ° ,
,.v ✓v qPT /'i a Cr P? CG~~/3 WYMRcR
A A~d
ORGA T _ D i, 7
~ ~tl r'Zep /FRS HLrdR r'CAL d G/`~Tf : if 1',, ~'~fF/Vf~ld NHS
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : r i'//i C dL yaL ~ - h,45 ~Ll~/1f/S
Pe/J~ A1PR4)R t?4 AS LleleL6 AS '4-
~~}Rt~ ~I ° c° off. - it~.57 N El ar
eG Jr O Ar c / '
BO COMMITTEES OF MO INTERESTED rya AS Rues a~.4>'lDAyce iyCQv~.Pe
km9&ate LY ' ~ `i 0SDate received at Caty Interviewed
Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO
Inside City 2T 2 Idd nC u-" Rb Outside City
.sb/4772A/0002A
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
TIGARD PLANNING OOY~SSION
RBGULAR•MEETING - FEBRUARY 20, 1990
1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was
held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN BALL _ 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Barber, Castile,
Fessler,. and Saporta.
Absent:' Fyre, Leverett, and Peterson.
Staff: Community Development Director Ed Murphy; Senior
Planner Keith Liden; Legal Counsel Phil Grillo;
Consultant John Spencer; Planning Commission
Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3.• APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to approve the
minutes as corrected. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present.
Commissioner Saporta-and Castile abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
o Received letter from LaRue and Roger Lang regarding North Dakota Street
between Scholls Ferry Road and 121st.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS x
5.1 REVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENTS
Applications for Nancy Smith and Martha Bishop were reviewed. Both
applicants were in attendance and available to answer any questions.
* Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to forward the
applications to City Council recommending that Nancy Smith and Martha
Bishop be appointed to NPO # 3. Motion carried unanimously by
Commissioners present.
5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-01 VARIANCE V 90-01 MCDONALDS/BATES
NPO #6 A request for approval of a Sign Code Variance to allow additional
freestanding sign area beyond the allowed 210 total square feet per roadway
frontage permitted by the Community Development Code. Two existing
freestanding signs each contain 210 square feet of sign area. The
applicant has proposed alternative sign designs and areas for a possible
third freestanding sign. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION:
Tigard Towne square, 16200 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 15BA, tax lot102)
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 20, 1990 PAGE 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 3/26/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/13/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sian Code PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
Exception SCE 89-14 appeal for approval with modifications
Landmark Ford
PREPARED BY: Keith Liden
DEPT BEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Should the applicant be allowed more freestanding sign area than permitted by
the Community Development Code?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1989
and January 30, 1990. The Commission determined that the original proposal
reviewed on December 19th and the amended request evaluated on January 30th
were not consistent with Community Development Code criteria for granting a
Sign Code Exception or a sign Variance. The Commission did however, grant an
amended approval which contains two alternative sign programs as noted on page
7 of the final order. Attached is a copy of a draft resolution upholding the
Commission's decision, Final order 90-03 PC (Exhibit "A"), the applicant's
C notice of appeal which includes a complete summary of the sequence of events
leading up to the Commission's January decision, reduced drawings of the
freestanding signs approved by the Commission, and a transcript of the December
and January hearings.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution
2. Modify and approve the attached resolution.
3. Overrule the Commission decision, approve the applicant's request, and
direct staff to prepare a corresponding resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached resolution.
SCE89-14.SUM/kl
G'
t;
S
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 19
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN
APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION AND
VARIANCE APPLICATION (SCE 89-14/V 89-33) PROPOSED BY LANDMARK FORD (JIM
CORLISS).
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meetings of December 19, 1989
and January 30, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the application with modifications to the '
original proposal (Final Order No. 90-03 PC); and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of March 26,
1990, upon the request of the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is DENIED and the Planning
Commission decision is upheld based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions
noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 90-03 (Exhibit "A").
F
The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final
order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter.
PASSED: This day of March, 1990..
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Tigard City Recorder
SCE 89-14.RES/kl
i'
RESOLUTION NO. 90 PAGE 1
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
gam' FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC
YF
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FACTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES A SIGN
CODE EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE (SCE 89-14/V 89-33) REQUESTED-BY LANDMARK FORD (JIM
CORLISS).
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings on
December 19, 1989 and January 30, 1990. The Commission's decision is based
upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted below:
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 89-14, Variance V 89-33
REQUEST: Request to allow four 'free standing signs with a sign face
area 510 square feet where two signs with a sign face area of
230 square feet are normally allowed. Three of the signs are
to be freeway oriented. The individual size (per face) of
these signs are as follows: 64.65 square feet, 154 square
feet, 287.13 square feet along I-5 and 40 square feet to be
located on a different frontage.
APPLICANT: Landmark Ford Inc.
12000 SW 66th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNERS: Jim Corliss
9750 SW Inez
Tigard, OR 97224
LOCATION: 12000 SW 66th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1AA Tax lot 100)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General
ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General)
2. Background Information
The southwest portion of the property was annexed into the City on May
24, 1978. The western and northern portions of the property, with
frontage along 68th Avenue and the Dartmouth Street were annexed into
the City on March 30, 1981. The section of the property which includes
the Landmark Ford building and the existing signs was annexed on April
8, 1983.
On May 12, 1986, the City Council approved a Sign Code Exception
application (SCE 2-86) to allow a fifth freestanding sign of
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 1
CN Is ~A
approximately 25 feet 11 inches in height and 151 square feet in area
per side where one freestanding sign with a 70 square foot area and 20
foot height was permitted (prior to the sign code amendment in 1988).
The Council approved the application subject to several conditions
including the removal of off-site signs, the removal of a 73 square
foot, 20 foot high freestanding sign, and the removal of any remaining
non-conforming signs by March 20, 1988.
On March 23, 1987, the City Council approved a Sign Code Exception to
allow some off-site temporary signs to be used until September 1, 1987,
(Case No. SCE 13-86).
3. Vicinity information
66th Avenue and 1-5 are immediately east of the subject property. One
parcel zoned C-G (Commercial General) is located immediately to the
southeast. All other properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned C-P
(commercial Professional).
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The subject property has frontage on 66th Avenue, Dartmouth Street, 68th
Avenue, and Franklin Street. The Landmark Ford building has frontage
and access onto 66th Avenue and the following signs are located in the
vicinity of this building:
Freestanding signs
a. "Ford", 154 sq. ft., 35 ft. ht.
b. "Landmark Ford"/electronic readerboard, 151 sq. ft., 26 ft. ht.
C. "Body & Paint", 21 sq. ft., approx. 8 ft. ht.
d. "Service", 21 sq. ft., approx. 8 ft. ht.
e. "Enter", 4 sq.ft., approx. 3 ft. ht.
Roof sign
f. "Landmark Ford", 179 sq. £t.
Wall signs
g- "Daihatsu", approx. 36 sq. ft.
h. "Body shop", approx. 50 sq. ft.
Temporary banner
I. Ford products, approx. 26 sq. ft.
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 2
f;
The applicant originally intended to install the signs listed above in
the general information section of this order in a series of phases.
After discussing the proposal with the applicant at the December 19th
hearing, the Commission tabled the case for the next hearing date for
the purpose of allowing time for the applicant to meet with the staff to
develop an amended sign proposal that would be more consistent with Code
standards.
The revised proposal presented by the applicant at the January 30th
hearing included the addition of a 98 square foot Daihatsu sign to the
existing' Landmark Ford sign (151 sq. ft.) for a total of 249 square
feet, the retention of the 154 square foot Ford freestanding sign, the
installation of a 40 square foot freestanding sign near the corner of
Dartmouth and 68th, the limitation of wall signs on the site to 10% of
the wall area for the used car center and new car showroom and 6% for
all other buildings.
A Sign Code Exception or Variance is needed because the Code only
allows for .one freeway oriented sign with a maximum size of 160 square
feet per side and 35. feet in height; and for one additional
freestanding sign facing another street frontage, with a maximum size
of 70 to 90 square feet and 20 to 22 feet in height, depending upon the
setback from the property line. The revised proposal includes a freeway
oriented sign, a freestanding sign with orientation towards I-5, and a
second freestanding located on a different street frontage.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
n
The Engineering Division, General Telephone, State Highway Division,
Portland General Electric, and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District
have no objection to the proposal.
The Building Inspection Division indicates that permits and an engineer
approved detail for the sign footings will be necessary.
No other comments have been received.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
As proposed, a Variance is necessary to approve this proposal because it
goes beyond the basic Code requirements for number and size of signs, as
well as the allowances that are available through the Sign Code Exception
process. The Variance criteria which are relevant are listed in Section
18.134.050 (A) of the Community Development Code:
1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose
of this title, 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;
2. There are special circumstances that exist which are particular to the
lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances which the
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 3
applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district;
3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title 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, but not limited to traffic,
drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected
anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified
in this title; and
5. A hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is not consistent with the
above Variance criteria for the following reasons:
1. The purpose of the Code is to reduce the amount of sign area and
numbers of signs within the City limits in order to provide for an
aesthetically pleasing environment. This proposal is not consistent
with the intent of the Code because the applicant is requesting
approximately 1758 of the total sign area that would normally be
permitted. The proposal is also not consistent with the sign programs
which have been approved for other commercial properties in similar
circumstances.
The statement by the applicant indicating that this car dealership is
similar to a shopping center because of the various types of products
and services offered, is not an appropriate interpretation of the Code.
Many businesses have different departments and/or offer a variety of
products. The use of this rational as a basis for granting additional
signs or sign area would clearly be contrary to the purpose of the Code
which is intended to "prevent proliferation of signs and sign clutter".
2. There are no special circumstances with respect to this property which
justify the allowance of two signs along the I-5 and 66th Avenue
frontage of the size proposed. Vision of the property and the existing
signs from I-5 is not obstructed and the request for the additional
number of signs and sign area is not justified.
3. The proposed signage greatly exceeds Code standards and therefore it is
not the same as what would normally be permitted under this Code and the
Commission finds that this proposal would not maintain the code to the
extent reasonably possible.
4. Existing physical and natural systems would not be affected by this
proposal.
As an alternative to approving or denying the variance request, the Planning
Commission could consider approving a modified proposal that would be
consistent with the Sign Code Exception criteria that are listed in Section
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 4
i
18.114.145 of the Code. The criteria from this section are listed below:
A. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
request for an exception to the sign code based on findings that at
least one of the following criteria are satisfied:
1. 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, and/or a conforming building.or sign on an
adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the
site in conformance with Sign Code standards;
2. A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a
second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented towards
a different street frontage;
3. Up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height may be
permitted when. it is determined that the increase will not deter
from the purpose of this chapter. This increase should be judged
according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate
additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. The
increase(s) shall not conflict with any other non-dimensional
standards or restrictions of this chapter;
4. The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in t
Subsection 18.114.130.E of this chapter;
5. The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an
interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is
appropriate because all of the following apply:
a. The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150
percent of the sign height normally allowed for one
freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however,
neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same
zoning district;
b. Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will
project into the public right-of-way; and
C. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150
percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign
in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the
height normally allowed in the same zoning district.
B. In additional to the criteria in Subsection A above, the Commission, or
in the case of an administrative exception, the Director shall review
all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its
relationship to the intent and purpose of this chapter. As a condition
of approval, the Commission or Director may require:
1. Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 5
i
1
l
with the standards contained in this chapter;
2. Removal of alteration of conforming signs in order to establish a
consistent sign design through the development; and
3. Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or
removal of such illegal signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)
These criteria allow a number of possible options for signage on this property,
including an increase in sign area or height by 258 and the placement of signs
along other street frontages. Although the applicant's proposal is rejected by.
the Commission as being inconsistent with the code, the unique features of this
property including four street frontages, its large size, and the presence of
two automobile dealerships, warrant some deveation from the usual Code
standards. The Commission offers two options to the applicant which are
approved by this final order.
1. Leave the existing Landmark Ford and Ford freestanding signs, construct
the 40 square foot freestanding sign at Dartmouth and 68th, and limit
the wall signage on the property as proposed by the applicant.
2. Expand the Landmark Ford sign by.adding the 98 square foot Daihatsu sign
as proposed by the applicant and remove the Ford freestanding sign. The
40 square freestanding sign and wall signage limitation of option 1.
would remain unchanged.
The first option requires a variance to allow a freeway oriented and"
freestanding sign along I-5, a third sign along a separate street frontage, and
a 154 square foot freestanding sign (Ford sign on I-5) that exceeds the maximum
size (70 sq. ft. + 258 = 87.5 sq. ft.) and height (35 ft. v. 20ft.) allowed. by
the Sign Code Exception criteria . The second option also necessitates
variance approval because -the proposed 249 square foot freeway oriented sign
exceeds the maximum allowed by the sign code exception criteria (160 sq. ft. +
258 = 200 sq. ft.).
The Commission finds that either of the above options are in conformity with
the variance criteria noted above and provide the applicant an appropriate
opportunity to advertize the business. The primary purpose of the Code is to
limit the number and size of signs used within the City. Although both options
exceed Code requirements in certain instances, the total number and size of
signs on the property will not exceed these requirements. Special
circumstances exist because of the size of the property, number of street
frontages, and the presence of two automobile dealerships. The relaxation of
the Code requirements will assist in properly advertising the businesses on the
property.
C. DECISION
The Planning Commission approves SCE 89-14/V 89-33 as amended by the conditions
of approval noted below:
1. Prior to erecting any signs, sign permits shall be issued by the
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 6
Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin, Planning Division,
. 639-4171.
2. Sign permits shall be obtained for the Daihatsu wall sign and
directional sign on 68th Avenue before any. other permits are issued.
STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin.
3. The'applicant shall be permitted to construct signs on the property in
accordance with one of the two following options:
a. One freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 249 square feet
per face and a maximum height of 35 feet; no other freestanding
signs along the I-5/66th Avenue frontage (with the exception of
directional and temporary signs); a 40 square foot per side, 6 foot
high freestanding sign located near the Dartmouth/68th
intersection; and the limitation of wall signage on the property to
101 of the wall area for the used car center and new car showroom
buildings and 68 of the wall area for all other buildings on the
property OR;
b. Retain the existing Landmark Ford (151 sq. ft.) and Ford (154 sq.
ft.) signs; no other freestanding signs along the I-5/66th Avenue
frontage (with the exception of directional and temporary signs); a
40 square foot per side, 6 foot high freestanding sign located near
the Dartmouth/68th intersection; and the limitation of wall signage
on the property to 10% of the wall area for the used car center and
(f new car showroom buildings and 6% of the wall area for all other
buildings on the property. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin.
4. The nonconforming Landmark Ford roof sign shall be removed or modified
to conform with Chapter 18.114 (Sign Code) of the Community Development
Code prior to April 8, 1993. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin.
5. The temporary banner located along the 68th Avenue frontage shall be
removed or reduced to a maximum of 18 square feet. STAFF CONTACT:
Viola Goodwin.
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE
NOTED BELOW.
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this
order.
PASSED: This day of February, 1990, by the Planning Commission of the
City of Tigard.
A. Donald Moen, President
Tigard Planning Commission
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-03 PC - SCE 89-14/V 89-33 LANDMARK FORD - PAGE 7
~D USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right- to
participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use
/ Code therefore sets out specific requirements for
filing appeals on certain land use decisions.
The following form has been developed to assist you in ®~E~~~
filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper
form. To determine what filing fees will be required
or to answer any questions you have regarding the
appeal process, please contact the Planning Division
or the City Recorder at 639-4171.
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: J14,,J 6(0400?&AJ, '}4
A-~Jl~ `ryf v9-2~y .~4--rScf - SC ~ ~=9 - ~
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY:
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW
L._
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL:
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECIS IVEN :
~~71~U by P1Cct1►1~i Cornm ~ssroyl
6. SIGNATURE(S):
71 "o,
~HHt•x•)Ex-x-xit•iE-)t-x~(-x9t-x -x-x•x-x~t-)c-it-x~F-x•9HHHE-x~E ~(-x-x ~HE~E-x-x~Ht-x-)t-x •~t-x-x-~E-x-x-~H(-)ESE-x•~t-x~E-x~HHE~(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ceived By: Date d Time: 3:4b(?.a
Approved As To Form By: L. W Jy Date l~ Timer-/ak".
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
Receipt No. Amount:
~(x ~E )EiFx~E~E x#xiE x x ~Ex-X"-K f-x *X*-x*x x~HHE )E x jEiEx x !Ex 3E x ~E IHEx x x ~Ex~HF# x x x x~E~E x x x )c x 3E x x~E x x**x x4w-x.**
13125 SW Hail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
K••
!i "SATISFACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN"
0
12000 S.W. 66th AVE.
/ PHONE (503) 639.1131 1 P.O. BOX 23970
TIGARD, OREGON 97223.0138
February 20, 1990
Tigard City Council
Tigard, Oregon
In September 1989 we were appointed the first Daihatsu Automobile
Franchise for the State of Oregon. Daihatsu is an 80 year old
Japenese Automobile manufacturer that is just now introducing
their products to the United States. The franchise was awarded on
a temporary basis subject to completing some basic requirements.
We have complied with all of the basic requirements except the
installation of an approved brand sign.
Additionally we are in the process of finalizing a major expansion
of the Landmark Ford Daihatsu complex. We currently utilize
approximately five acres of land and a 20,000 square foot building
that have 675 feet of frontage on I-5 and 650 of frontage on 68th
Avenue. The land we have aquired and committed to us will give us
over 11 acres on which we plan three new buildings with over
60,000 square feet plus remodeling of the current 20,000 square
foot building. The expanded site will have 925 feet of frontage
on I-5, 1150 feet of frontage on 68th Avenue, 230 feet of frontage
on Franklin Street and 450 feet of frontage on the Haines Road
on/off ramp.
i
We believe the end product will be one of the finest Automobile
Dealer complexes in the Northwest. We foresee our employee count
increasing from the current 120 range to over 200.
I
On December 19, 1989 we met with the Planning Commission to
request a sign code exception primarily to allow us to erect a new
Daihatsu brand sign as required for that franchise. Considering
our expansion, Keith Liden felt it was prudent to address the
overall sign requirements for the entire complex as planned. We
presented it to the Planning Commission in four phases (see letter
of November 7, 1989) which included adding a 139 sq. ft. addition
for Daihatsu to our current readerboard and a 73 sq. ft. used car
free standing sign for a new/used car center building, a 40 sq.
ft. monument I.D. sign on 68th Ave., and to either remove or
replace all other signs with conforming signs within the sign
code. Another alternative discussed at the December 19, 1989
meeting were to reduce the Daihatsu brand sign to 98 sq. ft. vs.
139 sq. ft. I believe some commissioners felt that we should be
able to erect a brand sign of some size but the consensus was that
there could be too many square feet of signage vs. the sign code
E
/lgard City Council
February 20, 1990
/ Page 2
1
regardless of our circumstances. One of the commissioners asked
if there was a sign smaller than the 98 sq. ft. Daihatsu sign
available. I answered that there was but Daihatsu America had not
approved installing their smallest version which is 57 sq. ft.
Additional concern was expressed by the commissioners as to the
overall look of the 57 sq. ft. sign vs. the 98 sq. ft. sign and
that they would like to see a rendering of both to help their
decision. Also, future potential wall signage was discussed and
the Commission decided to table the sign request and instructed
us to meet again with city staff to better define overall signage
on the eleven acre complex.
On January 22, 1990, we met with Keith Liden to discuss
alternatives that might be acceptable to both parties. Since all
of our alternatives were outside the sign code, Keith could not
recommend approval. However, he thought that a proposal to limit
the overall wall signs to some specific percentages along with
other modifications might be viewed favorably by the Planning
Commission but that City Staff would have to recommend against
because it still did not meet the sign code.
On January 30, 1990, we met again with the Planning Commission
with the revised proposal (see letter of January 24, 1990). In
that proposal we dropped our request for the 73 sq. ft. used car
( sign, reduced the new Daihatsu sign from the original 139 sq. ft.
to either 98 sq. ft. or 57 sq. ft. depending only on which the
Planning Commission preferred, severely limited the size of the
future wall signs and agreed to bring the other signs in the I
conformance in accordance with the original request.
We were scheduled to follow the 4 hour hearing on the Bull
Mountain Transportation Study plus the mix of commissioners ;
hearing the request was somewhat different than the original
hearing. A brief discussion ensued with little regard to
directions given at the tabling of the original request. The
application was conditioned unfavorably and we left wondering why
it just wasn't denied at the first hearing.
Grounds for Appeal:
We believe our request for signs for the entire complex fits the
aesthetically pleasing intent of the sign code and is critical to
the economic expansion of our business. We are trying to add
another business, the Daihatsu franchise, to City of Tigard. It
is impossible without a brand sign. Our total complex size of
over 11 acres, large I-5 freeway frontage and three other road
frontages in the commercial zone is unique within the City. Two
free standing signs on the I-5 frontage of 925 feet is not
unreasonable nor sign clutter. The requested size and height of
t the free standing freeway signs is necessary because of the high
speed freeway traffic and the land contours. The third free
standing 40 sq. ft. I.D. sign on 68th is the only sign other than
driveway directional signs on the 1150 foot frontage.
T
/Jgal7d City Council
.February 20, 1990
Page 3
' y
f
The stated purpose of the sign code is to reduce the amount of
sign area and numbers within the City limits in order to provide
for an aesthetically pleasing environment. In other words no sign
clutter. In our estimation that clutter is exactly what we are
trying to avoid. By combining the Daihatsu sign to our existing
readerboard we will add 57 sq. ft. and severely limit our future
wall signs. The sign code allows for 15% of any building face for
wall signs. With the planned large building faces it is possible
to have between 4000 to 5000 sq. ft. of wall signs plus some
illuminated awnings that would meet sign code but certainly would
not be aesthetically pleasing. That is why we volunteered to
severely reduce the potential wall signs if we are allowed to
erect the needed brand sign.
A possible alternative which we have not explored but seems to
make legal sense is to incorporate Landmark Daihatsu separately,
provide a separate facility lease and erect its own 150 sq. ft.
freeway sign. If our complex was divided by lot line adjustments
it is conceivable to have 5 or more businesses each with a 150 sq.
ft. freeway sign. That is real sign clutter and the extreme we
believe the sign code wants to avoid.
If the brand sign is denied we see our choice limited to the total
separation of the franchise as just mentioned or else resigning
the franchise as a lost cause in economic development.
In summary, the entire complex needs to be viewed within the
intent of the sign code. The code was not developed to stop
economic development but rather to provide aesthetically pleasing
environment. We truly believe we are complying with the intent
rather than the letter of the code for the entire complex.
cerely,
J'm Corliss
resident
JC/cj
Attachments
S I G N R E Q Ur' S T R E C A P
Current Sign Original Request Amendments to Request
-------------------------------------FREE STANDING:----------------------------------------
1. Ford Brand Sign 1. Retain 1. None
154sf/35ft high
2. Electronic Readerboard 2. Add 139sf Daihatsu 2. Add either 57sf
151sf/26ft high or 98sf Daihatsu Brand Sign
3. Body and Paint 3. Remove Phase 3 3. None
21sf/8ft high
4
Service 4, Remove Phase 4 4. None
21 sf/8ft high
5. Enter Driveway Sign 5, Retain 5. None
4sf/3ft high
6. Add 40sf I.D. Sign on 68th 6. None
Ave. NW Corner
---------------------------------------ROOF SIGN:------------------------------------------
1. Landmark Ford 1. Remove Phase 4, 1. None
179sf Replace with conforming
wall sign
---------------------------------------WALL SIGN:------------------------------------------
1. Daihatsu 1. Not Addressed 1. Remove
36sf
Temporary sign
2. Body Shop 2. Not Addressed 2. Remove and Replace with
50sf conforming wall sign
Phase 3
3. Other future wall signs 3. Not Addressed 3. Limit future signs to 10% on
2 sales buildings and 6% on
other buildings
J.
"SATISFACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN"
12000 S.W. 66th AVE
/ PHONE (503) 639.1131 1 P.O. BOX 23970
January 24 , 1990 TIGARD, OREGON 97223.0138
Planning Commission
City of Tigard
Tigard, Oregon
As recommended by the planning commission at our hearing on
December 19, 1989, we have met with Keith Liden to discuss our
pending sign code exception request. This discussion focused on
both our sign--code exception request and all future conforming
signs on our 11 acre development.
Based on those discussions we-would like to ammend our request to
the following free standing signs:
1) Daihatsu readerboard combination: Add Daihatsu brand sign of
98 square feet to existing readerboard of 151 square feet
bringing total for this sign to 249 square feet versus the
original request of 290 square feet. We do now have an
alternative approved by Daihatsu of adding a 57 square foot sign
instead of the 98 square foot, bringing the total to 208 square
feet, however we don't believe that option looks as balanced or
appealing. Additionally this sign will remain in it's present
location unless our landlord requires it to be moved when we
negotiate a new lease later this year. In such a case it will be
relocated to the north of the Ford brand sign at least 120 feet.
2) Ford brand sign: Retain as exists, 154 square feet.
3) Northwest corner identification sign: Install 40 square
feet, 6 feet high.
Note: Used car sign originally requested is not needed.
Building modified for wall sign.
To help offset the added square footage in the sign code
exception we have reviewed the future need for wall signs on our
existing and planned buildings. Since we have four frontages and
four buildings, the current sign code for wall signs of 15% of
each building face allows for excessive signage. In order to
keep the total site signage well under conforming codes we
propose to limit our wall signs to no more than 10% on used car
center and new car showroom buildings and no more than 6% on
other buildings. The only other site signage will be conforming
driveway directional signs and interior directional signs.
If approved our signs will be installed in phases as detailed in
a
Planning Commission
January 24, 1990
Page two
our original request. As stated in that request, our needs are
unique because of the freeway frontage and frontage on three
other streets. Our proposal is for more free-standing square
footage that the code allows but substantially less total signage
than the code allows. The result-will be a tasteful sign display
rather than a flashy cluttered display.
Thank you for considering this modified request.
Very truly yours,
LAND RK FORD, INC.
Jim Corliss
President
JC/bjk
of
"SATISFACTION IS OUR MNN CONCERN"
12000 S.W. 66th AVE.
® PHONE (503) 639.1131 1 P.O. BOX 23970
TIGARD, OREGON 97223.0138
November 7, 1989
City of Tigard
Tigard, Oregon
We request your favorable consideration for the enclosed sign code
exception for our business location.
Recently we were awarded the first Oregon franchise for Daihatsu
cars and trucks and one of the manufacturers requirements is to
errect the largest Daihatsu brand sign possible. Additionally, we
are in the process of trying to finalize plans for a major
business facility expansion and the signs are only a small part of
the plans. By February 1991 we plan to have 3 new buildings
constructed for use as a (1) New Vehicle Showroom, (2) Used
Vehicle Center, and a (3) Parts/Service/Body Shop/Detail
Center/Carwash.
These actions and plans are the reason for our current sign code
exception request. Our business situation is unique in comparison
to any others within the city in the following ways:
1. We are located on over 10 acres of C-G zoned land
fronting Interstate 5.
2. Our business has 4 frontages (or will upon development
completion). Frontage on Interstate 5, Haines on/off
ramp, Franklin Street and 68th Street.
3. The sloping topography of our site is such that maximum
heights are necessary to achieve visibility along
Interstate 5.
4. Our business complex resembles the definition of a
shopping center with at least 8 separate business
departments operating in the complex. They are: New
Ford Cars and Light Trucks, New Daihatsu Cars and
Trucks, Medium Duty Ford Trucks, Used Cars and Trucks,
Daily Rental Cars, Parts, Service, Body and Paint and
Detail Shop.
5. Our new Daihatsu Franchise is in essence a new tennant
and needs to be afforded the sign necessary to attract
business.
City of Tigard
November 7, 1989
Page 2
In May of 1986, the City Council reviewed a sign code exception
request and approved the addition of our electronic readerboard
conditioned on our recommended removal of a used car sign which
was in the same proximity as the readerboard. At that time we had
approximately 600 feet of freeway frontage. Subsequently because
of land leases and acquisitions we will now have approximately 870
feet of freeway frontage and 1100 feet of frontage on 68th Avenue.
Our plans are to expand in phases which will be completed not
later than February 1991. Following is our request for signage
which will coincide with our expansion:
PHASE I - Immediately
Move the existing message center north and reconstruct to add the
Daihatsu Brand sign according to manufacturer requirements. This
relocation is requested because the sign would be close to the new
car showroom to be constructed.
PHASE 2 4
Install the previously existing used car free standing sign of 73
square feet, 20 feet high. This sign will be approximately 600
feet south of the Ford free standing brand sign. Additionally, we
want to install a conforming wall sign that says used car center.
Since we are constructing an extensive used car sales facility we
believe it should have a separate appealing entrance and identity.
PHASE 3
Remove two non conforming free standing directional Service and
Body Shop signs of 21 square feet each. Install conforming wall
signs and conforming directional signs for new Parts-Service-Body
Shop-Detail Shop Rent-A-Car building complex.
PHASE 4
Remove roof top non conforming sign. Install conforming wall sign
on new showroom. Install one 40 square foot free standing
identification sign on the northwest corner of the site. This
would be the only free standing sign on the 1100 foot frontage on
68th Avenue.
When we are finished we will have three free standing signs
fronting Interstate 5 and one on 68th. All other signs will be in
conformance with the current sign codes. The dimensions of the
free standing signs are as follows:
F 1. Daihatsu/Readerboard. 290 combined square feet, 35 feet
high.
!City of Tigard
z^~ November 7, 1989
Page 3
2. Ford brand sign. 154 square ft. 35 ft. high
3. Used car center. 64 square ft. 20 ft. high
4. Northwest corner ID sign. 40 square ft. 6 ft. high
If we were considered an "Auto Shopping Center" the code allows
for up to two free standing signs per frontage or eight signs in
our case. That is too many and would be sign clutter. But, we
believe that the number of frontages, the length of those
frontages and the diverse requirements of our business justify the
three free standing freeway signs and one on 68th Avenue. Proper
signage is essential to the long term development and growth of
our business.
T ss
JC/cj
R
~~i ~t nP~ 1U1♦I~
I
V
DAIHATSU 20" btMtB• i4t-l- Pr. pw 2:793("Al" R ~ H). r
~ ~ tiUea.NLS~.
to - --^'--s eM+e.. Grdpr1K. s~R~Wr Pt'. BUCK ,
A: awe' `see (Puss).
I -
vctsnrl~. I.V• ~,FB.
a
C~1CtST1ti16 Mg`SA6lE LBTaTv2
0
0
I
NWJ PlPf hb RMO, (usQl kb MUCT1 of WL-5nKIG
I^ h5 FnSS119srt) • A % WHIFF,
L.
V
L
I^~
I\
~~~,y tJN~o~~
.-g Of tom.
-ftpec AccowV~
opno rl OI -
f T4
-Y HEATH SIGNS
• ALTEPATO4S 1~tltOn~S TO 4~I6i11`~ •G013LkV ACS VI '
_ boor 3~e~° 1, -0 .1 ffiY t` f
ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MUST BE VERIFIED BEFORE PRODUCTION t
' r t
• ~ C
~rte*.W
Witt" I 1A),
- i__~ ~ ~ tyy~~ctV(.6'~' ~ S,K,R~Wr Pik ~~trT• ~"R~ Wr,,a~(i+ar
n n0rr • M~ ~ alAn
- 1A •
1n
p \usg Fs Muc\-N dF
plot a N> t6v~ 1 4r' '►1tt1IV
•
CPT cou
f
{ } Uri
~1 ~6t ~ •
qty 6141
'(ID
pL~,-nods (af•• ~ ~ ~ R` M~~a, `I
- • ~ wt(M vtwnnp nro
L •
N0117f100YJ 3tl0l3S 031JIY3~ 31 anw aw 3'vv"x0YJJY 3YY SU131131Y1SY31S 11Y
}
S ♦r as
f•~ t~~F'~ l -
~3~3 • X69 criff
0 Rom
l
ALM
~zj •.ic~ .',UYI '9~Wa 1,6s { ~t+h•~
' ~H Y ~ d~''~ c6Lt ~ 02+ (~92iA § hla s y ~
Cnt4o
yr'Mall 1 N suaM 1d C"'4 !L-')
~5YVC1 4~C ~E~m2 ,yJ •;ptt '6~W~ jq J, o1. "IT~-`-
• {SV.ot)SeL,dJ ,aroma 4VIA '-16 'g"'
Awl
tis! rYX~
t.
i
I I
i
w t
.L j c~ 'rte .rte
i J
---.Now dim
• _ a. _ - _ 1
` 1;~ Sw rl L_ SERE L
P~'
a/vul R I
♦Q ~ ¢ ` ` ~ - E•OYTN_ _ _1 _ [tT[Nt10N p~ 4 J V
~ !(PDT • _ . -
N • ° a/ /
• . NO
• A ` fw
I O[v[lAR
sw fON2.Y
a~. ~ PML LEWIS N _
.j
ELEMENTARY
r, sa ¢ 1 • sr t
SCHOOL i T
-
M
T-
- -
J I ~ STw[ T
12
X14 .
a/ •
5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 89-14 LANDMARK FOR NPO #4 12/19/89
Barber: We'll have Agenda Item 5.1 and if we may have the Staff's report
please.
Liden: The first item on the agenda is a request for a sign code exception
and variance from Landmark Ford. The applicant is requesting a
phased program to allow the installation for the relocation of four
free-standing signs with a sign face area of 510 square feet. This
would be the total for the signs involved, where two signs with a
sign on separate frontages with a sign face area of 230 square feet
would normally be permitted. Three of the signs are proposed to be
located along the Interstate 5 frontage; and the last sign, the
smallest one 40 square foot sign is proposed to be located at the
corner of Dartmouth and 68th. In the Staff report we have reviewed
the proposal and also have listed all of the signs found on the
property and that, the list includes those noted by the applicant
as well as some others that were found on the property. I've
either listed the sizes and heights based on the applicant's
information or if it was an eyeball guesstimate out on the site, I
put an approximate dimension.
Ah, we have reviewed this proposal in relationship to the variance
criteria since those would apply because the proposal as it stands
would not meet any of the permitted dimensional requirements for
the CG zone, nor would it meet any of the standards that the
commission could allow through the sign code exception procedure.
So variance would be required. The Staff is recommending, as you
can see in the Staff report, denial of the variance request
because, based on the discussion we have in there, that we don't
feel that the variance criteria are satisfied. We would recommend
though as an alternative that the commission take a look at the
sign code exception criteria for some kind of a possible compromise
approval and we would, there are so many options that might be
available, we felt it would be best to discuss those with the
applicant, but we would like to suggest some of the following
guidelines be incorporated in any kind of approval tonight. One
would be that the sign, total sign area for all of the freestanding
signs be consistent with the total area that would be normally
permitted by the zone. That no additional height be allowed based
on the finding that we don't see that there's any problem with
obstruction from either direction on I-5 of the existing signs or
the landmark dealership building. That non-conforming signs be
removed, and the non-conforming signs if you look on page 2 with
the list of signs, the non-conforming signs would include the Ford
sign which is sign A; the body and paint sign, sign C; the service,
sign D; and the sign F, the Landmark Ford group sign would all be
considered non-conforming signs. And finally that permits be
obtained for either the new or relocated signs and also that
permits be obtained for two signs that are existing that did not
receive permits. And I guess with that I'll answer any questions.
Barber: Do any of you commissioners have any questions to ask of Staff at
this time?
What two signs did you mention that would be asked to be on
considered in this? Are they already up is that, are these the new
ones you're talking about?
Liden: The signs that don't have permits?
Uhm-huh (yes).
Liden: Uhm, let me see.
There's a lot of signs.
Liden: Yes, there, uhm, sign A, the Ford, no excuse me sign D, the
Landmark Ford electronic reader board sign does have a sign
permit.
Okay.
Liden: The other sign, the, ah, let's see, then the sign E, the enter
sign does not have a permit.
Does not.
Liden: And sign G, the Dehatsu wall sign, does not have a permit.
Okay.
Liden: The others are pre-existing and, ah, I don't know what permits, if t
any, were required by Washington County.
Now would they be grandfathered, the signs that are already up? Or
is that...
Liden: Ah, some are and some are not.
Okay, okay. Because I was going through and trying to figure out E
and F and G and H.
Liden: Oh, one, ah, while we're speaking about .ion-conforming signs, one
thing I would like to add. The sign code that was adopted in 1978
said that non-conforming signs would need to be brought into
conformance in March of 88. That applied to pieces of property
that were in the City for at least a period of 10 years. As I
noted in the Staff report, the section of this property that was
annexed in 1983 includes all of the signs in question. And, uhm,
under the provision of the code at least if there are no other sign
requests made, those signs will be allowed to stay until 1993.
Okay.
Liden: Now the Conmission would have the authority, through the sign code
exception criteria, to, as a condition of approval, require that
non-conforming signs be removed as a condition of approval. k.
Thank you.
Barber: Are there any other questions? Thank you. We'll go on to the
applicants presentation, please.
Corliss: I'm Jim Corliss, President and General Manager of Landmark Ford.
Most everything...
Barber: Excuse me, would you give your address, too?
Corliss: Pardon?
Barber: Would you give your address?
Corliss: Address is 9750 SW Inez in Tigard. Hopefully you had a chance to
read as copy of my request to the City for these signs. A couple
of them, I guess, I've had several conversations with Keith, ah,
apparently I overlooked, or I didn't realize that a couple of our
signs were non-conforming, ah, or did not have permits. I'm not
sure that one of them needed one, but that can be worked out or a
permit requested. Biggest item is as an automobile dealership is
signage and identification, especially when we're located on a
freeway as we are, is critical and important to our business. Ah,
our Ford brand sign, ah, we feel is most critical. It's what our
dealership is all about, and it's been up for 19 years, ah, in its
present location. What prompts this request is we have another
franchise and each franchise, (coughing) excuse me, requires a
brand sign. And part of the agreement of the franchise is to put
up a brand sign. Ah, without a brand sign, then we have to resign
that franchise. And, uhm, frankly I would resign that franchise
before I would take down my Ford sign. But my requested is coupled
with a facility expansion which becomes quite extensive. We
occupy, or own and occupy a total of, it's almost 11 acres of a 12
acre parcel that's zoned commercial on the freeway. Everything
else around there's I don't believe is zoned coimnercial. It's,
uhm, professional or light industrial. It's right at the Hanes
Road exit with the freeway traffic going by at 50, 60, 70 miles per
hour. Large signage is important to get a message across, ah,
number one. The frontage that we occupy now, and we will over our
phase development this next year, is about eleven hundred feet of
freeway frontage and so in my estimation, uhm, we won't have sign
clutter. I personally don't like sign clutter. The sign code to
me is to try and control that, although when it reads it, it says
it tries to reduce it. I don't know if you can add business and
reduce signs at the same time. But we're trying to spread these
signs out in such a manner that they cover most of this eleven
hundred feet, ah, at the same time propose to bring several of the
signs into sign code. Sign code really doesn't deal with an
interstate frontage situation. Ah, and I realize you can't write a
sign code that deals with all applications. But when your talking
about 60 mile an hour traffic and that kind of frontage, and trying
t to get the different messages that we have, ah, it requires more
and larger signs. The roof-top sign we have, ah, if you read the
proposal when we build a new building showroom here, and if I don't
build it, I'll take the roof top time and make a facia or wall sign
or something that comes in conformance with code. We're building
several buildings of which we'll have facia signs instead of free-
standing signs. But I do want to have the Ford sign, or the reader
board sign that's up now what we're proposing to do is combine the
reader board sign and the new brand sign into one, which I think
you have a draft of. It makes it a one freestanding sign with two
message areas on it. And there's a third sign which we'd like to
add, which we took down when we put up the reader board sign a
couple years ago and that's a used car sign. The used car sign is,
I guess, a wish list; we don't have to put that up. Ah, we can
have a roof top, or not a roof top, but a wall sign on our new
building which will identify the same center. It would be nice to
have with eleven hundred feet of linear frontage, but that's the
one that we can do without. The Dihatsu sign and the Ford sign I
really can't do without. I need to find some method to utilize
those on the freeway. That's it.
Barber: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Corliss?
I have one question. Ah, referencing in your letter references
made to manufacturer requirements, it says any franchise
requirements. And specifically what are those requirements?
Corliss: That I put up a manufacturer approved brand sign. There are,
that's a good point, there are different sizes. Which I, I should
have brought that up. Ah, the size that we propose is about a
medium size. If we're trying to cut down square footage, ah, we
can go to a smaller size. Ah, I needed to get their approval of
the design before I came to the City and the Planning Commission.
I've had their approval for what we propose or one size smaller.
There is one smaller than that and they pay the square footage.
What we proposed, the Dihatsu portion is a hundred and thirty-nine.
They will allow us to go to a ninety-eight. There is one smaller
which is a fifty-six, and if that's all I can get, ah, the Planning
Commission to approve, I can go back and see if that will pacify
them, I don't know. If it, if it does, I'm happy with that. But
that would be on top of our current, our reader board, which we
would like to move that north on the property. Just relocate that
sign and add the Dihatsu portion to it.
Liden: okay. Again just a point of clarification so I understand what
your saying. Currently you're requesting two separate signs.
Corliss: Right.
Liden: But you would be willing to consider one unified sign?
Corliss: Well, currently we have two signs. We have a Ford brand sign which
is A on this list, and we have a reader board sign which is B on
this list. Those two are in existence. We would like to move the
B sign, uhm, north on the property, uhm, and add a top section to
it, which is a Dihatsu message. And then add, uhm, used car sign
which would be about six hundred feet south on the frontage. so
this used car sign would be a new sign, would be the one new pole
that's not up now. Does that make sense?
The used car sign would be new, then. Okay.
Corliss: Yes. That one is not up. It was up for years and we took it down.
That's the one you took down and you still have it in storage your
saving it.
Corliss: That and there's a monument sign which covers 68th street which has
no signs on it as we build construction and as that Hanes Road that
Dartmoth extension goes we'd like to put some kind of monument sign
there and there's just a basic draft one, we really haven't
designed it other than we need some kind of identification on that
street. That's, yes. That's an unimportant sign. But it's, would
be the only sign on that whole 68th frontage of eleven hundred
feet. Other than the entry signs.
Okay, now once again the largest, the sign that you have scaled out
here with your reader board, the Dihatsu, above the Landmark?
Corliss: Uhm-hum (yes).
That represents, did you say, the medium size or the largest of?
Corliss: That is the, that is, well...
The largest that they would...
Corliss: I've got two smaller than that available.
Okay. So it's one thirty-nine, that's the square feet, right?
Corliss: Ninety-eight, that's one thirty-nine. ' I can go to ninety-eight,
and fifty-six, I don't know if I can go to. They make it, whether
I can get them to approve it I don't know.
Okay.
Corliss: They do make them bigger than one thirty-nine. They got them like
a hundred eighty or two hundred. But I don't want that.
Okay.
Corliss: The non-conforming signs that are up, ah, also the C and D on this
list I have no problem taking down, either now or in the future of
our expansion. I don't really care for the signs anyway. They're
directional signs over big directional signs that the County
approved way back when. And, uhm...
You're referring to the two body and paint and the service signs,
right?
Corliss: Right.
Okay.
Corliss: We plan on removing those over the course of this phase.
Now were you going to then replace them, I assume, with a body shop
sign then on the wall of your new body shop? Is that correct?
Corliss: It has, it has wall signage.
Now. Okay.
Corliss: Those, those are just directional signs.
Oh, those are the directional signs to the body...
Corliss: They're really enter signs for two streets.
Okay.
Corliss: Like that sign E is a, that's an enter sign we just put up
according to the City code of, you know, we need to get a permit to
do that, but...
We did.
Corliss: Okay so apparently we do have a permit for that.
Okay.
Corliss: But, ah, we'll straighten that out. But anyway, the new enter
signs will be that same size, which is the City code's size twelve
square feet.
Barber: Are there any other questions? Thank you. You'll have a chance
afterwards .
Corliss: Pardon?
Barber: You'll have a chance later to rebut any people who have spoken
against this.
Corliss: okay.
Barber: Is there anyone here from the NPO? CPO? Okay, we're down to the
public testimony for the sign and Mr. Corliss, your name is on here
but you have already spoken. So Mr. Allen Conant?
Conant:
Barber: There are no people signed up as opponents, that is against the
proposal. So that means that the, you the applicant has a chance
to rebut, if you wish. Whatever has not been said.
Barber: Since there's no, since there weren't any opponents and you don't
wish to rebut the zero testimony, we do have a Commissioner that
wishes to ask a question of staff please.
The comment was made that the sign code makes no provision for
businesses that tend to be located along freeways. And it's my
recollection that there is a provision for that. Would you
elaborate on that.
Liden: When the previous sign code exception was allowed for the Landmark
Ford electronic reader board sign, at that time we did not have a
provision for freeway oriented signs. We had a standard provision
for freestanding signs with a size range of seventy to ninety
square feet per side. It was the feeling of the City Council when
they reviewed this that the code should make some provision for
freeway oriented signs; and, ah, they approved this request, and
then also with that direction when we were looking at sign code
amendments, we did include a section that does allow for freeway
oriented signs. And freeway oriented signs are allowed to be one
hundred and sixty square feet per side, instead of seventy to
ninety. And they are allowed to have a maximum height of thirty-
five feet, as opposed to twenty to twenty-two feet. So at least
in the City's view we did, we did try to address that question
that had come up earlier for freeway oriented signage.
Are there any other businesses that have more than one, change
that, more than two freestanding signs? Did the Planning
Commission approve anything like that? I can't recall one, I'm
just asking.
Liden: There is a situation for Park 217 where we have three. We have one
on the freeway, we have one at the Pacific Highway entrance, and we
have one at the Hall Boulevard entrance. The feeling there,
though, was that it was a unique situation with the different
frontages and different entrances that three signs were permitted
there.
And that is a shopping, would that be considered a shopping center.
Liden: Yes.
If there were two dealerships here, two separate lots, then they
could have two separate signs.
Liden: If they, if they were, if they were separate operations and so on.
I, you know, I realize that there's a, there's a little bit of a
fine line here, if they were separate dealers, if the Dihatsu was
owned by owner X and Ford Motors was owned by Mr. Corliss on
separate, legally separate properties, they would both be entitled
to separate, separate sets of signs.
So right now our code says we can have a hundred and sixty square
foot?
Liden: Per side for one freeway oriented sign, and that normally we would
also allow for one freestanding sign, if that freestanding sign is
oriented to another frontage. So our reading of the code would be
that, that, that we could, that the staff could, uhm, grant permits
for would be one free, one freeway oriented sign, one hundred sixty
square, thirty-five feet in height, and freestanding sign on
another frontage, Dartmoth and 68th being a good example. Here at
no more than seventy to ninety square feet and twenty to twenty-two
feet in height. That's what the code, standard code requirements
would allow the City to grant.
What was that, ah, seventy-two feet?
Liden: Seventy to ninety square feet, depending on the set-back of the
street.
Okay, so right now what we're looking at is one of the Ford signs
are coming down. I mean, we've got two freeway oriented signs in
reader board and then the Ford sign.
Those exist now, yes.
Right okay.
Barber: Are there any other questions of staff?
Keith, do you know if there's any Federal beautification act
requirement? I mean, Lady Bird was running around. Is there any
Federal on this for fronting a freeway? Do you know if there's any
Federal?
Liden: Well I'll admit to not be totally up on that. My understanding of
what is being regulated by the State of the Federal Government is
billboard signs.
Okay. Okay.
Barber: Any other questions? If not, we thank you. And public hearing...
Could I ask Mr. Corliss one question? In lieu of the predicament
that, that I see that we're in, do you have any suggestions other
than what you've, you've proposed?
Corliss: Uhm, only to perhaps, ah, I guess not put up all the signs I
request but keep up more than what the code says. As you just
mentioned, I've got eleven acres. If it was parcelled up in eleven
businesses, we could have eleven signs. Or if I sold one of the
dealerships, the sign code says if I own them both I get one; but
if I got joint ownership I get two signs; if I got three ownerships
I get three signs. It just isn't fair because we have the number
d_
Y.
i
of businesses to justify those signs how the ownership is handled.
And my comment was probably not right. The sign code does deal
with the freeway owners, oriented signs. To my estimation doesn't
deal with Interstate 5 and our type of, ah, business and there's a
few that would fit that. There just aren't any in Tigard or many
like it that fit this so a sign code doesn't deal with that
situation. The only thing, other thing that's commercial in Tigard
on the interstate that's down where you got, was it Durham Road
exit or down, yeah, down that area. But I would like to have, ah,
at least the two signs, uhm, that I request, the Ford brand sign,
which, ah, I'll do anything to keep up, and the readerboard sign
which we had the city council approve a few years ago, and put the
Dihatsu brand sign on top of that.
The rest of the signs, the used car sign I don't need to put up.
The new building's going to have facia signs which meet all code.
Uhm, the other non--conforming signs, ah, can be brought into code
including the rooftop sign. Although I'd rather wait til we build
our building here within the next six or twelve months to go to
that expense, but we plan on bringing that down. It's not an ugly
rooftop sign like some might be, but I realize they want rooftop
signs down. But that really leaves us with two signs. The problem
is the total square footage, ah, is over the sign code rules. We
could bring them down so they probably could meet close to what, I
think you have a latitude of some 25 or 50 percent exception.
Liden: Twenty-five percent.
~t
Corliss: Is it 25? Then it may be open up. Because the current ford sign's
within code. Thirty-five feet high and 150 some square feet and
that's within the code. Uhm, the second one would be the
combination of readerboard and the Dihatsu sign. The
readerboard...
That's 151 feet, readerboard?
Yes.
Corliss: Okay. That's 151 and, ah, if we went to the 98, that'd be 250 or
if I got, say, the 56, I, ah, if we got the smallest Dihatsu, be 56
so you're a little over 200 square feet and that, I don't if within
your, ah, power to approve that. That would be two poles with, one
with 151 square feet and one with a, or no, 154 square feet, the
other one with, ah, 207 square. Both about 35 feet high. I would
say really that's, that's about the minimum I could use and
accomplish all that we need.
I guess I'm losing track a little bit of
1
Barber: The square footage gets to be
Do you have these, this her?
Yeah, I that. I mean which signs exactly are we, I mean,
principally we're talking about the readerboard with the new sign
on top of that. And leaving the Landmark...
Barber: Roof sign right.
...or the Ford sign up on the north end.
Corliss: I, I didn't understand your question.
I just wasn't sure exactly what we're trying to add here.
Fessler: No the Ford sound, the Ford sign is not standing at this time, is
that correct?
Corliss: It is.
Fessler: Oh, it is. Okay.
Corliss: Do you have this, this photo of signs?
Fessler: What's that one? Okay.
Corliss: Okay the bottom right one is standing. The top right one is
standing. Those are the two I'd like to keep and put the Dihatsu
on top of that top right one. Because of the function of the land,
I want to move that one but it's going to be about equal distance
north as it is south now. I don't think the proximity plays a part
other than the square footage plays a part. The rest of the signs
on that photo, ah, with the exception of the middle bottom, that
one we have a permit and meets code. The other three, ah, would
come down and come within code.
Barber: Staff, may we ask if what Mr. Corliss has been indicating, would
that be within our power to grant for the two on, ah, the frontage.
Have a variance, yes.
Technically you can grant anything you would like through variance.
It's the sign code exception where there are some limits. Criteria
are easier to meet with a sign code exception than the variance.
Fessler: Okay. So if I have this right, your readerboard sign is about 151
square square feet.
Corliss: Yes.
Fessler: One surface. So if you took an additional 25, if you added 25
percent to that, that would bring it up to about 227 total. Right?
Am I doing this right?
Corliss: Okay.
Fessler: And then, and then went for the medium size Dihatsu sign which is
98 square feet. Right?
i
Corliss: Yes.
Fessler: Okay, so that would be 249, is that right? Is that right? Is
that, is that how you go about, I'm trying to break these signs
dawn. Okay, so it would be about 249 instead of the conventional
if we went 25 percent it would be a little bit over the 25 percent.
Is that right, Keith and Mr. Corliss? okay. On that one sign.
On the readerboard sign?
Fessler: Uhn huh (yes).
i
Fessler: I don't have my calculator tonight, I'm lost.
Liden: The code would allow 160 square feet. And the sign code exception
criteria if you want you could find that it was reasonable and
allow another 25 percent.
Fessler: Twenty-five, okay.
Liden: A hundred and sixty.
Fessler: Sixty, okay.
Liden: And that turns out to be
It's 200.
Two hundred.
Two hundred square feet.
Fessler: Yeah, okay.
I know we're adding all these square feet. How about visually
what's this all going to look like? I mean that's what I get a
little more concerned about than the square foot. So we're having
square, two or three square feet one way or the next, cause it
looks terrible that doesn't really make any difference, I mean I
think we're trying to look at something that's going to be, that's
not going to have, you know, a visual pollution here. Is this
smaller sign that we're talking about, how's that going to fill,
they're still going to put this on top of the Landmark Ford
readerboard sign?
Corliss: Yes. Yes. Visually, I think, ah, the next size up will look
better. And I don't, we didn't do a schematic with the smaller
sign on it because we did not have Dihatsu approve the, they look
the same, the, this happens to be the smallest...
That's the smallest.
Corliss: But there just, it's dawnscaled so it'll be a, across the top is 14
feet versus what the readerboard is across now.
Is the readerboard 19? Cause that's one thing that wasn't marked
on our, okay 19.
We must have to deal with a lot of jurisdictions I know. I assume
that's the reason we have different sizes there.
So your readerboard sign is about 19 feet wide at this point,
existing one, okay. And the Dihatsu, the medium size one would o
be
about 14 feet, is that what you're saying?
Corliss: Right. This is 19, ah, the largest was 22.
Okay.
Corliss: The middle, middle one was 18. And the smallest was 14.
Okay.
Corliss: It would look all right, uhm.
Twenty-two, eighteen and fourteen. Okay. So the 18 foot one would
be pretty close to the same size as... i
Corliss: Almost identical, yes.
Yeah. Okay. }
Corliss: Half inch, half foot in on each one.
Okay. That gives us some idea, thank you. That helps a lot.
The 18 footer is how many square feet?
Corliss: Pardon?
Haw many square foot is the 18 footer sign.>
That's the 98 square foot. Each sign. Okay.
Now you plan on moving this sign north right?
Corliss: Pardon?
s'
You're going to move this sign toward, ah, north t.
t`
Corliss: Right.'
How close to the Ford sign is that going to be?
i
i
Corliss: Uhm, may, as I recall it's 120 feet, ah, it's in the proximity of
where we're going to build a new showroom is the reason why we're
moving up there.
Barber: Mr. Corliss, in essence you originally asked for three freestanding
signs on I-5 on that side. And now you're saying that you would
be content with two. Is that correct?
Corliss: It would be workable, yes. I would rather have three, that's my
wish list, ah, if it's not feasible, ah, Mr. Castile asked what was
workable, and workable is if I don't have that I still have a means
to accomplish that through having a facia sign on a used car
building that we're going to build, which will be attractive and
nice and meet all the codes. Ah, it would be nice to have that
identification of that sign. But I can, I can live without it.
Castile: Could you reduce the size of the Ford sign at all?
Corliss: No.
Castile: To get us into close to where we need to be?
Corliss: No, it's really not feasible. And, ah, if I was forced to do that,
I'd take down all my signs and still leave that thing up. That's,
that is our livelihood.
Barber: Are there any other questions. Either of Mr. Corliss or of staff?
If not then we'll close public testimony. And we'll have our
discussion. May we start with you, Commissioner Leverett?
Leverett: Well, I think we should be able to do something here, I haven't
quite got it figured out so maybe somebody else can help me right.
Uhm, kind of hate to see us start designing signs. I guess what
I'd really like is exactly what it's going to look like, ah, with
perhaps a smaller sign, ah, I don't know if anybody else has any
carunents, ah. The sign is readable now from, I don't see any
visibility problems with the sign, particularly. It'll even be
more visible as they move it to the north. I'm getting a little
concerned about when they move it to the north how close it's going
to, you know how stacked up it's going to be with this other Ford
sign.
That Ford sign is going to be moved at the same time or that's
going to be moved later. Is that part of the second plan, then?
Okay. Is that correct? Is it going to be moved, is the Ford sign
going to be moved?
Corliss: No that stays.
i
R
6'
r
Okay so that stays in that. Okay.
Barber: Commissioner Fessler?
Fessler: Yes it's, ah, it's kind of going through the numbers. I'm sure you
gentlemen have done the same thing. Uhm, looking at the Planning
Commission's recommendations and the 25 percent, uhm, if we were to
go the medium size 98 square foot Dihatsu sign, in addition to the
Ford Landmark sign, it still pushed it over, quite a bit over the
more over the 25 percent. Uhm, and then add that to the Ford sign.
I guess the other thing would be to compromise on the readerboard,
the size of the readerboard, and I don't know whether.
Barber: Was that it then?
Fessler: That's it.
Barber: Okay. Commissioner Saporta?
Saporta: Let's see a dilemma, ah. You know on the one hand is we deny the
sign code exception variance, then they're essentially out of
business as far as the franchise is concerned the way I'm
understanding it. And I don't think I want to do that. So I'm
willing to try and strike some sort of compromise. Uhm, I, at this
point I don't think I would be in favor of adding another sign. I
would only want to go with the two signs. But it is a little
bothersome as to the size of the, that would be added to the
readerboard. Uhm...
Barber: Commissioner Castile.
Castile: I wouldn't, I wouldn't have any problem in this particular
situation in giving them a second sign under the conditions of a,
off, or as it was had two frontages. Uhm, and that would give them
160 feet and then they'd have another 90 foot that they could put,
put for another sign. Uhm, you know, I'm sure that they can take
it to City Council and, uhm, maybe have a better chance there.
What I, one thing that I wondered was that if putting the Dihatsu
sign where the Landmark Ford sign is on the readerboard. Right
here where the, putting this right here. Uhm.
Castile: They wouldn't.
Who is Dihatsu?
Fessler: Ewen if it was left on all the time?
No, no, no where it says Landmark Ford.
Fessler: Right, okay.
To put Dihatsu there.
h~.
Do you understand what's being proposed? What we're saying is not
that we, not putting the sign on the readerboard itself but
removing this portion here and putting. I don't well I guess I'm,
I'm not understanding why that would be disapproved when you're the
sign's there. But I'm not going to speak for the manufacturer.
Corliss: The answer is their sign or no sign, in some size, and then you
have the five different sizes.
Castile: So is that why they want to separation between the readerboard and
their sign?
Corliss: They really want a separate pole.
Fessler: Okay.
Corliss: We got them to compromise by
Well we have, you know, British Petroleum up here, I believe, had
to build a separate sign different from anything else they had, and
they did that. I guess I, I appreciate Corliss's position here but
I don't think that we can be dictated by some company decides it
has to be the sign that they're going to have on a piece of
property.
Castile: I would, I'd say that we either go with, with the Dihatsu sign or a
combination of Dihatsu and the, ah, readerboard and the other sign
and, that's what, but not both, not all three.
Leverett: Yeah, go with that.
Barber: Okay, I would agree with Commissioners Castile and Leverett on the
two signs. I can't see that the three would be allowed at all.
Staff do you have any advice or information that we have completely
missed?
Liden: I don't think so. I think they're M. I think that the reason
our recommendation is such, is really two reasons. One is
criteria, your talking about certain sign sizes and sign code
exception for allowing slightly larger signs or different numbers
of signs under different circumstances. It is our feeling as
proposed it is also very inconsistent with sign issues we've looked
at because of the sign limitation program. We feel it would be, as
proposed anyway, would be inconsistent like what's happened
elsewhere in the City and won't be approved elsewhere in the City.
Yeah, we required some signs, a lot of signs be taken down and to
be changed, and I think we, Standard Oil cut that sign down I
guess I don't think that what the manufacturer requiring the dealer
is something that we should have to consider. They have to do
business in a lot of jurisdictions and I'm sure that jurisdictions
that have rules and regulations that perhaps don't fit into those
five signs that they've designed.
ri
C Fessler: I did have one other brainstorm. You know how brainstorms are,
some of them are better than others. Now the Landmark Ford sign
that's on the roof is non-conforming, right? What would make it
conforming?
Nothing.
Fessler: Nothing. Okay. What I was thinking would be as possibly a way to
keep his Ford sign, would be to somehow attach it as a facia to the
main part of the building rather than a freestanding. And it's
still the square footage, right? Or is the facia a different ball
game? The facia square footage.
Ten percent.
Fessler: Ten percent. Okay.
Wall signs are different. They're, ah, considered a separate type
of sign and it's limited to 15 percent of the size of the wall that
it's mounted on.
Fessler: Okay, fifteen percent.
Liden: Now one thing the Commission can do with, if you want to look at
all the signage on the property, wall signs, freestanding signs and
anything else, sign code exception criteria do let you look at the
total sign program and as a condition of approval, you can limit or
cause the applicant to modify other signs that otherwise wouldn't
comply with the code. For example...
Fessler: Now construction, construction will start six to twelve months, did
they say? Or or so this will the new showroom will not be built
tomorrow so. Okay. Okay.
You wanted to say something about, you wanted to add something
about.
Liden: Oh, just for example as far as what you can do through sign code
exception one, one possible option would be to look at all the
signage allowed on the property and for example if the Commission
decides to allow more than what would be allowed for freestanding
signage you could, for example, you could if you wanted limit other
signage on the property, such as wall signs.
Barber: Okay. With all of that information is there anyone who wants to.
Fessler: Now we're totally confused.
Well Nor. Castile had down right here that, Castile had kind of a
good idea there, I don't know if I heard it right or not, but maybe
you can start all over.
Castile: What did you hear me, which one did you hear me?
a,
ai.
Fessler: Which plan?
Castile: What I'd like to see would be to immediately we would approve one
of the signs, plus an additional sign as if it was on a side
street, so that they would be getting an additional 90 feet besides
the 160 feet. Uhm, and for them to go back to staff and work out
some kind of a system with something within regarding the total
signage for the buildings so that, uh, we could come up with some
kind of a compromise and we could allow both the Ford sign and this
sign as proposed. Is that possible?
If I follow you, you can approve it tonight with a 160 foot per
face sign on 190 square foot face sign with the idea that we would
work out an entire sign program that would possibly allow them to
have two signs of 160 square feet.
Right.
Well this, this other sign is more.
Fessler: It's a hundred and, the Ford sign.
A hundred and fifty-one feet plus then another 60 feet was the,
somewhere I wrote it down here, 60 foot for the Dihatsu sign, was
the small one?
Fessler: Fifty-six.
Fifty-six, so what are we looking at here. We're looking at 151
and so it's a hundred, or 216 feet, whatever, would be the
readerboard plus the Dihatsu sign and then keep the Ford sign. And
to come up with some kind of a plan for the total signage on the
property so we didn't have a, 400 feet of readerboard or whatever
along that face of the building. And I think then we could, could
justify our actions more than we could say okay you can put these
signs up and then we can have, have the rest of the sky lit up with
signs along the building. That sound workable?
Liden: I guess if you delegated that to staff, you're going to need to
clear under what circumstances we would allow the additional
signage, or you could just have it came back to the Commission
after that's been.
Castile: I think that be the best way.
Fessler: I do too.
Castile: Come with your recommendations. So how do we do, if your
interested, how do we do that?
We'll move that, and I'll second it. f
"7: Well I think, yeah, I, what you're saying is that it'll come back
with a, it's going to come back to us again.
Yes.
Fessler: With a total plan with the rest, for the rest of the
Would you have any problem with that?
Corliss: Uhm, I have no problem. I, first thing I need to do is see if I
can get the small sign approved Dihatsu which I can do that
simultaneously working on buildings we can give drafts of signage
so we don't have 15 percent of every sign of every building with
signs, cause theoretically the code allows that and I think that's
what you're eluding to. And we have some of those signs already
designed. Ah, we can give draft architect sketches not to exceed
and perhaps return the next Planning Commission for final approval.
If that's what you're talking about.
That's what I'd like to see.
Corliss: And that's basically what prompted the whole request is trying to
put them all together so you knew what the whole project was going
to be like when it's done.
Yeah.
C~ But we're also trying to reduce the square footage on the two
existing freestanding signs. If we're going to add this other...
Well, I don't think we'd be able to do that. But we would be
taking signage off the building in order to allow two good looking
signs there.
Do we need a motion for that?
Barber: I think we need to reword it.
Can we just table that?
Leverett: I make a motion we table this item until next Planning Commission
meeting date.
When is that?
that we wanted to talk to the Commission about it would be
toward the middle or end of January.
Barber: You've made you motion, then, to table this item until next
meeting.
Til next Planning Commission meeting.
Barber: Is there any discussion on that? Is there a second on that?
Castile: Second.
t~ Barber: It's been moved and seconded that we table agenda item 5.1 until
the next meeting which will be some time in January of 1990. All
those in favor say, "Aye."
Aye.
Barber: Opposed? The motion carries. And let the record reflect that
Connnissioner Peterson has arrived. Okay, that finishes agenda item
5.1.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 30 1990
5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 89-14 AND VARIANCE V 89-33, LANDMARK FORD NPO #4
Moen: Let's go with item 5.2. Staff could we have the report please?
Liden: Okay. Ah, let's see on December 19th the Commission reviewed an
application for a sign code exception and variance for Landmark
Ford and the proposal include, included a request to have four
freestanding signs, three of which would have frontage on I-5 and
one additional sign would have, would be located at the northwest
corner of the property. The Commission did not want to make a
decision that last time and requested that the applicant and staff
get together and evaluate alternative sign programs. Ah, we have
had such a meeting and you do have a memo from me, also a letter
from Mr. Toros of Lark Ford indicating how he plans to revise
his request and also included a sign drawing of his preferred
alternative for one of the freestanding signs.
Ah, let me just summarize the proposal quickly. The preferred
alternative is to have Landmark Ford Daihatsu sign combination
with the total square footage of 249 square feet. Then for the
second sign on Interstate 5 to have, to keep the existing Ford
sign, which is 154 square feet and then to have a third
freestanding sign on the northwest corner of the property at 40
square feet. Just an alternative for the Landmark and Daihatsu
sign would be to have a somewhat smaller Daihatsu sign with a
total square footage then of 208 square feet. Uhm, in dealing
just with the signs on Interstate 5, the code allows for a 160
square foot freeway sign and the code also says that if you take
advantage of the freeway sign option that a property would be
entitled to one other freestanding sign on an, on a different
frontage, street frontage, or different orientation at the normal
size allowed for freestanding signs, which in this case would be
70 to 90 square feet depending on the setback of the sign. Uhm,
this would, this would give then a total square footage of signage
for two freestanding signs allowed in the code of 230 square feet.
The proposal that we have for just the two large freestanding
signs on I-5 would either be 403 square feet, or the preferred
alternative or 362 square feet. Uhm, if the Commission felt that
the two freestanding signs, let me back up a little bit, uhm, okay
we're look, so we're looking at the code allowing 230 square feet
the proposal being ranging somewhere from 362 to 400 plus square
feet. Sign code exception would allow the Commission to grant, if
you felt that for aesthetic reasons or other reasons that a 25%
increase in sign area would be permitted that total of 230 feet
could be increased to 287 1/2 square feet. Uhm, the concern the
staff has is not so much the number of signs or even the location
of signs, but it's more the square footage of sign area,
freestanding sign area that's going to be allowed. Uhm, as you
can see, unless we get into a variance type of request, even with
a sign code exception the footage that's allowable is still
PLANNING COMMISSION NINUI"ES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 1
exceeded by this proposal. Not even getting into the 40 square
foot sign on the northwest corner, which at least in my mind is
more than incidental request. Uhm, we've been through the sign
amortization program. We've had a lot of people that have had to
take down signs that have been this large or smaller, and, ah, so
the staff's concern is mostly on square footage. Ah, I guess
there would be a number of options that the applicant could
propose. One that I would suggest would be to possibly take a
look at the total square footage, allow the Landmark Daihatsu
sign, which would provide advertising for both the Ford dealership
and the Daihatsu or the upcoming Daihatsu dealership. And that
total sign area would be within the total sign area that you could
allow if you granted a freeway sign, a freestanding sign and then
gave some allowance for additional size. But at least as far as
the staff recommendation's concerned I really would not, or the
staff would not recommend exceeding 287 square feet per side of
total sign area.
Moen: And where we are now is 362 if you go with the small version.
Liden: 362 to 403, that's correct.
Moen: And that's including the area of both signs together.
Liden: Both, both freeway signs...
Moen: One and two.
Liden: Right, but excluding the 40 square foot sign.
Moen: Not too concerned about that one.
Liden: Well, I think, I think you could take a look at this with a
variance and the way that we have looked at some other properties,
Park 217 being one where you have an interesting situation where
you have more than two frontages. You really, this property
ultimately is going to have four street frontages. And, uhm, also
let's say another area where we've granted some additional signs
has been for PacTrust Development where they also have large
development, many street frontages, entrances and so forth. In
both those cases, however, I don't believe we've exceeded the
total square... (side one of tape ended)
Corliss: I'm Jim Corliss 9750 S.W. Inez in Tigard, President of Landmark
Ford. Most everything that I proposed in this last memo and the
testimony in December the only other comment might be it was in
1986 the city Council approved our readerboard as an additional
sign, so the two signs we have now are ones that are there and
existing. What we're trying to do is add this Daihatsu brand sign
which we spoke before. And last meeting I didn't have approval to
put up anything smaller than I proposed. We gave you drawings of,
C now I hope they're in front of you, of two sizes. These are not
PLANNING COM USSION MERYI'ES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 2
the largest one we proposed before, but the smaller that we
proposed before which is 98 square feet, and one that Daihatsu has
approved which is 57 square feet. One of you, I don't remember
which one of you, was concerned about the look if we did that.
This is what it will look like with the two sizes. I prefer the
look of the large one. I really don't care. I need to get that
brand sign up for identification for what we're selling. I didn't
hear Keith's recammPndation that was to have just the readerboard
Daihatsu sign, is that what you said?
Liden: Well I was suggesting that as one possibility where we could be
within the total square footage take it a while without getting
into a variance for square footage.
Corliss: It's not an acceptable option on my behalf. I would throw
Daihatsu away before I would take down my Ford sign. Uhm, cause
obviously where our main business has been for the last 20 years
in that location. One thing I propose in the letter is an
oncoming, or it's a upcoming problem or opportunity. If we looked
at the possibility to put up all the maximum signs we want to put
up, we're putting up some buildings that are going to have a lot
of walls and if you multiply out those 15 percent factor, we could
have, I don't know, hundreds or thousands of square feet of signs
which we don't want. But we can offset what we don't have with
freestanding signs with wall signs and that's why I proposed and
met with Keith to find out, ah, what would be reasonable. We
limited, ah, there's going to be one building that's going to be a
forty or fifty thousand square foot building that's going to have
lots of wall space. Limit that to no more than 6 percent for
wall sign size, I think it' 11 be less than that, but talking to
the architect just trying to find a number that we know won't
exceed and then we're, our parts or used car center which we
dropped one of the signs that was our original request, to put up
a wall sign that wouldn't exceed 10 percent and that's not going
to be a huge sign, and the same for the new showroom, not to
exceed 10 percent of the space, which is less than the code allows
significantly. Trying to compensate for the total development
sign exposure and still trying to acconnodate having this freeway
signs our situation's unique because of our business and our
location, the freeway access and all those things and the size of
the development that's occurring. We need to expose those two
products. That's all.
Moen: okay. Commissioners some questions?
Barber: Mr. Corliss is this Daihatsu sign the 57 square foot one or the
98? ;
Corliss: That's 57 there. The 98's almost identical width as the
readerboard. You don't have both pictures?
E
Moen: I just have, just have this one.
PLANNING Co OUSSION MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 3
Corliss: Supposed to give you both.
Corliss: Okay. Let me drop this one down a little bit.
The current readerboard sign says Landmark Ford just like that,
right? I mean it's similar we're just adding a post to the top of
the existing sign.
Corliss: Yeah, the readerboard, that's the readerboard. And we're adding,
we want to add the sign to the top.
The Daihatsu.
Fessler: So it looks like it'll go up an additional 6 1/2 above this right?
Corliss: Right.
Which probably the height probably isn't any problem, Keith, from
the code standpoint? j
Liden: The code allows for a freeway sign to be 35 feet in height and
then the Commission can grant additional height if it's deemed
necessary to be visible from the street. i
Moen: What's, and what's the sign of the, the size of the readerboard
sign now?
Height is twenty...
Moen: Now by itself? r
Well it would be the difference between these two, right?
Twenty-two feet as it is now I think.
Existing readerboard sign is 151.
One fifty.
The lower sign is 150.
Corliss: Also in the original proposal we were going to move the
readerboard. As it is now, we'd like to leave it where it is, ah,
unless at some point I have to move it because my landlords, but
in looking at the layout and the, ah, it'll be seen in the spread
I like it better where it is. So it's a matter of just adding a
sign to the top. And then phasing in and out some other signs as
we're going through this building project in the next 12 months or
18 months for the final project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 4
r
Moen: So which, uhm, Keith let me ask you just, let me ask you a
questions here make sure I understand that. We have what's
allowed now by the code for freeway sign is 230 square feet?
Liden: No, what's allowed by the code for a freeway sign is 160.
Moen: 160? Where'd we get the 230 from?
Liden: I was looking at the fact that the code would allow Landmark Ford
to have two freestanding, or excuse me, one freeway oriented sign
at 160 and one freestanding sign on another frontage at 70 to 90
square feet depending on the setback.
Moen: Okay.
Liden: So the point I was trying to make is that I don't see the sign
location as being as critical to the intent of the sign code as
the total square footage of freestanding sign area. So I'm saying
okay if we, and commission also last time seemed to feel that they
didn't, that you didn't have a problem with two signs with
orientation towards I-5, so I thought well okay, take all the sign
allotment, put it on I-5 and then we come up 230 square feet or
something like that.
Moen: For two signs.
Liden: For two signs.
Moen: Or for however many signs you have.
Liden: For two signs. And then the sign code exception criteria allows
you to grant an additional 25 percent in sign area if you feel
that that increase is you're either going to result in a more
aesthetically pleasing sign or that in some other ways is
consistent with the intent of the code. So if you add the other
25 percent, this 230 foot allotment, you come up with about 287
1/2.
But we're...
Liden: And my point was is the
Way above the...
Liden: At least the one, the one Landmark sign, the readerboard sign with
the Daihatsu, the preferred alternative is going to be, uhm,
excuse me, 249 square feet.
Moen: Commissioners, do you have some other questions of the applicant?
PLANNING COMMISSION MIlJitI`FS - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 5
6
s.
Moen: Okay. Uhm, let me just ask, is there anyone in the audience to
speak on this issue? Well that finishes that off. Ah, with that
I guess I close the public hearing unless the Commissioners come
up with another question, you might as well just stay there in
case we have another question.
Fessler: Keith, I have a question. I was, I'm still confused. If I add,
uhm, 151 square feet to the readerboard and then 57 square to the
Daihatsu, that's the smallest. That's the smallest of the three
signs?
Corliss: Yes.
Fessler: I come up with 208. Is that right?
That's right.
Fessler: Okay.
Moen: That's 208 for that sign alone.
i
Fessler: Yeah, okay. t:
a
Moen: And then there's another sign that says Ford...
Fessler: That they want. They want the Ford...
Moen: That's 150 square feet or roughly.
Fessler: Okay.
Moen: Whatever it says here. 154.
Fessler: Yes, right, okay.
Moen: So we got two freestanding freeway sings on that property and I
assume Ford is oriented to the freeway as well.
Corliss: Pardon?
Moen: Ford, the Ford sign is oriented towards the freeway?
Corliss: Yes.
Moen: Okay. Commissioners? Commissioner Rosborough?
Rosborough: Well I'm still trying to add here. 208 that's total? That's both ;
sides.
s
c
208 would be the, no, that would be the square footage per side of
the smaller Landmark readerboard Daihatsu combination. All the.':
z-
PLANNING COMMISSION NIDVUII'S - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 6
i_
c.
n
i
dimensions I'm giving you is just per side. !
k:
I, uhm, just like to make the comment, it's just a comment at this
point that now we've gone through a significant effort and the
number of applicants who had existing signs that we had them redo
to come into compliance with existing sign code, and as much as
I'd like to, and I appreciate the applicant has made a good faith
effort here to try to come up with something, but if I want to
treat him like, fairly or not, like, as, as we treat, as we've
been evenhanded with all of our applicants, ah, guess I tend to
think maybe this has gone farther than we, than we can probably ;
go. I guess to me what we have is two, we have two signs that
right now are in compliance or are not in compliance but are in
close, close enough to compliance to call it good. We've got
maybe 300 square feet on two signs. One's a readerboard and one
isn't. And, ah, I guess I have to tend to agree with, if, if
that's what we were going to do and completely change the signage
on there to read Daihatsu Ford or whatever combination you wanted
to do, you know, that as far as I think I could go.
I would agree. I think we've, in the past, I think we've looked
at some of these and saying that if it's an existing sign we've
given them a little more leeway than we would have had our new
sign come in and I have a hard time, you know, and then we've even
still gone back and required some people to take some signs down
and reduce the size.
Moen: And we've retired a number of them. I think of the gentleman at
the Hi Hat who took his sign down and came up with a miniature
version of the same thing.
So I, I would agree with Keith's recommendation on this one.
Barber: I do too.
Moen: Okay. A motion then? Mr. Rosborough unless anyone else has some
comments, I don't want to cut you short. Okay, Commissioner
Rosborough?
Rosborough: Are we going to make a motion to deny, do we have a, where's my
agenda?
Moen: Ah, SCE 89-14/V 89-33.
Rosborough: That's the one?
Moen: Uh-huh (yes).
k
Rosborough: Based upon the findings of the staff report.
Liden: We weren't, I don't think we were recommending denial. I, aren't
I hearing the Commission saying you're willing to approve a
PLANNING Cx2,1ISSION MINUITES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 7
modified request that I was proposing? Because if it's denial
then it goes back, comes back with another proposal comes to you
again. You give it an approval then he can decide.
Moen: I'm not so sure that you know what we're prepared to approve, well
okay, is this the end?
Liden: What I was, and what he was saying he approve it as I was
recommending, I was recommending that the sign go to exception.
With the one sign not to exceed the square footage.
Moen: Oh, not to exceed...
Well that's one option.
Anyway it's getting late, maybe I'm just getting kind of tired.
Barber: Two, 287.
Well I guess we have a couple...
Fessler: Not to exceed 287.
Moen: Let me just interrupt you for a second, commissioner Rosborough,
we have a couple of options. We can, the, the, the staff
recommendation is to allow one sign not to exceed 287 square feet
or some number.
Liden: Or I'm recommending not to exceed 287 whether it's on two or one.
Moen: Whether it's on two or one. Or if, if we denied that, the
applicant has, already has these two signs, right? He's got one
that's 151 and one that's 154. Which is a little bit bigger than
your 287, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.
That he already has. Does he have to come to us for anything to
change what that says?
Liden: Well the, uhm, I don't have the other Council decision, but when
approval was granted for the readerboard sign, Council also said
that that, that they, they said something to the effect that they
recognized that same of the other signs on the property were non-
conforming and that their approval of the readerboard sign did
not affect the status of those. So in other words if those were
still non-conforming and subject to sign amortization, that when
that time came they were still, what they were saying is that
we're approving the readerboard sign but we're not granting
approval to all the other signs that are there. And, ah, sign
amortization, at least where code is set up that the non-
conforming signs on this property would need to be brought into
conformance somewhere around I think it was 1992, 93, anyway ten
years from the time the property was annexed with this.
PLANNING COMMISSION M DR= - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 8 }
Moen: Okay. Is that as clear as mud?
Yeah, pretty much, yeah.
Moen: I think, you know, we can deny the, we can deny the request or we
can approve...
The modified.
Moen: Approve the modified request, which is one sign. Or we can
approve, I guess we have an option here to approve the brand sign
and the readerboard sign and it's existing, that be two signs at
300 and some odd square feet, 304 square feet. I'll leave it up
to you, it's your motion.
Rosborough: I think I withdraw it and let somebody else do it.
Moen: Okay, well I'll, do you have any comments?
Corliss: None of those options do me any good. So approving, we need a
Daihatsu sign up. Ah, in my letter I, we have some signs that I'd
like to get down, phase in quickly a rooftop sign and some other
freestanding signs that are not addressed here. I'm just planning
to take them down. But if you can't adding a Daihatsu, ah, then
I'll need to appeal it to the Council. Either that or I'm going
to give the franchise sign away cause I got to have a sign up.
Moen: I understand you need some signage. It's a question of how you,
how you put it together.
Corliss: And I think I mentioned before if I incorporated the business
differently and we ran it, I could run it out of a different
building. We're building, we have a new business with a false
front, we can have a hundred, another 154 foot sign.
Fessler: On the building itself right is that what you said?
Corliss: And I could split it out into 3 or 4 businesses and come up with a
couple thousand square feet of sign. It becomes a, the
technicalities of incorporation and how you run. them and that's
one of the problems of this kind of development. I can do that
but we're trying not to do that type of thing. I understand the
complexities because I've been through with this in the City for a
long time. But that's why we're trying to take dawn all the non-
conforming signs, limit our potential wall signs to much less than
what they can be. I don't want Stereo Super Stores and that kind
of thing, when you put it up have a nice pleasant sign exception
being it's a freeway oriented signs that we need for I.D. for that
eleven acre development. And if you can't approve that, then just
deny it and then I'll have to appeal it.
Fessler: Now refresh my memory a little bit Mr. Corliss, ah, this is about
PLANNING COFMSSION MINUI'F5 - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 9
the smallest sign that Daihatsu...
Corliss: The 57 square foot's the smallest one that they make.
Fessler: Cause we started, you brought the, the...
Corliss: And I'll take that. I just like the other one, the other one to
me looks more appealing.
Fessler: That's the smallest one they make.
Corliss: But the small one's cheaper, I mean. But I need to get the sign
UP-
Well, what I hear that, let me make a suggestion. I guess what I
would suggest is that we approve one of two options for the
applicant. Either two signs not to exceed the existing 305 square
feet. Okay. We're not talking about sign number 3, we'll leave
that as it is, or what I, what you call 3 here. That would be the
305 square feet which basically means you have the same sign area,
you can put whatever kind of things you want on it. That's option
one. Or option two, that you have one sign not to exceed 287
square feet.
Corliss: Yeah, those don't work. I need...
I understand, but that's what, that's what I feel that I can, I
can okay. If you need to appeal that, that's, so be it.
I would make that motion that we approve...
Well we need, we have to deny it or he can't appeal it.
No he can appeal it.
Moen: No he can appeal it either way.
Oh, okay.
Moen: He can appeal it. That would be my recommendation. That we
approve the two existing, that he can retain the two existing sign
areas, which would be two signs at a maximum of 305 square feet.
Because I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and
287. I can't see changing a sign for that.
Or option B that he have one, one freeway oriented sign that not
to exceed the 287.
That second.
So you're giving him both.
PLANNING COMMISSION MnR= - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 10
Either way. Either or.
Okay.
Fessler: You're approving if two signs at 305 square feet maximum?
Which basically amounts to the existing signage area of the two
signs.
Fessler: Okay. And then one, or one freeway sign not to exceed 287 square
feet.
Which would be would apply to one sign like this but then he would
possibly lose the Ford sign.
Fessler: Okay.
That's what I, I feel comfortable in doing based on our sign code
and the way we've treated all the other folks that have come
before us.
Barber: second.
Moen: We have a second? Further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion as made and seconded signify by saying "Aye."
All: Aye.
Moen: Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You do understand you
have the right to appeal.
Corliss: Yeah, I understand. I did that before, so. All right thanks.
Moen: We thank you for going through this.
t
i
I
s
x:
PIT UNG 0=41SSION M DXITES - JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE 11 r;
Y
35ey)d a /P:em 5
3/zip 1 qD
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council March 22, 1990
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Council Agenda - March 26, 1990
Meeting Material
Enclosed please find staff information concerning the UPAA agreement. This
is scheduled for discussion at the 3/26/90 meeting, Agenda No. 5•
Thanks.
ow
et..
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director March 15, 1990
FROM: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: Murray Boulevard Extension
Review of UPA Agreement: 1983, 1986, 1988
UPAA 1983 - June 28
The City and County were in disagreement on at least two major transportation
issues when this agreement was ratified. One of these issues relates to the
Murray Boulevard Extension as follows:
the need and location of the extension of Murray Boulevard to
Pacific Highway.
This agreement was effective until January 1, 1984. During this period, the
parties were obligated to resolve this said issue. Until resolution, the
parties shall take no action to preclude alternative solutions to this
extension.
UPA 1986 - September 9
The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to
the following stipulations regarding the Murray Boulevard extension from Old
Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street.
These three jurisdictions agreed to amend their respective Comprehensive
Plans to reflect the following functional classification and design
considerations:
1. Designation: Collector.
2. Two travel lanes (plus turn lanes at major intersections).
3. Bike Lanes.
4. 60 foot Right-of-way (Plus slope easements where necessary).
5. 40 foot minimum pavement width.
6. Access: Limited.
7. 35 MPH Design Speed.
8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet.
r 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on Street.
10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, connection may be planned
to eventually accommodate additional lanes at Murray/Old Scholls Ferry
and Murray/New Scholls Ferry intersections.
11. Intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray Boulevard as a through street
with 135th Avenue terminating at Murray connection with a "T"
intersection.
Above said general alignment is illustrated in Exhibit B of the agreement
(attached).
Any changes to land use designations to the Murray Boulevard connection area
will be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic impacts
are adequately analyzed.
Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and Pacific Highway
99W should occur coincidentally with connection of Murray Boulevard from
Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected
property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of
Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st
Avenue/Gaarde Street intersections in 1986.
This UPA agreement repealed and replaced the UPA agreement dated September
26, 1983.
UPAA 1988 - December 19
Amendments to the UPA Agreement.
Prior to the commencement of periodic review for the City of Tigard and the
County's Urban Areas, the City and County shall mutually study the following:
1. The feasibility of expanding the "Active Planning Area" to include the
current "Area of Interest" and assigning land use planning
responsibility to the City.
2. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of City and County contracting to
provide building inspection and plan review services, administer
development codes and collect related fees within the active planning
area.
This UPA agreement repealed and replaced the UPA agreement dated September 9,
1986.
There were no changes in the 1988 UPAA concerning the Murray Boulevard
provisions.
The relevant sections of the APA agreements discussed above are attached.
{ br/UPA.rp
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of
Interest subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area
of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services
for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall
not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to
complete the island annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre-
sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress
Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,
within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the
foregoing, the City reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individualproperty owners to
annex-to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the
CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to
CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the
density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. _
Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for
one year after the effective date of annexation unless both
the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of i
annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should
be amended before the one year period is over.
e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to
the CITY, the area shall continue to be considered as part
of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose of calcu-
lating county-wide new dwelling unit mix and density as 1
required by OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07-035. This provision shall
apply until the CITY and COUNTY plans have been acknowledged by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
C. General Policies
1.EThe CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major
transportation issues: (1) the classification and use of Durham
,Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway; and
X2) the need and location of the extension of Murray Boulevard
to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have
agreed to a process for resolution of their conflicts and agree
not to preclude potential transportation options or road system
improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans,
notwithstanding their disagreement.
PAT A
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review,
the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request,
or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that additional review
is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the
CITY and COUNTY:
a. If consistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in
the review process as outlined in Section IV (3), the CITY
and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a
study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsis-
tency, and shall be completed within 30 days of said date.
Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of
the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the
recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the
record of review. The agency considering the proposed
amendment shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years,
or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness
of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary
amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from
the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both
parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsist-
encies'that may have developed since the previous review. If,
after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still
remain, either party may terminate this Agreement.
VI. Effective Date
This Agreement shall be effective until January 1, 1984. During this
period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding
between them:
1. Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan
for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and
2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage
facilities consistent with and adequate to carry out CITY'S
Plan; and
3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit "B", by the Board
of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County.
4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the
parties, including:
-8-
x.
a. consistent street classification standards;
b. the status of Durham Road; and
c. the need and location of the Murray Boulevard Extension from
Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W.
[Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties
hall take no action to preclude alternative solutions to those
sues.
As of Januray 1, 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently
in effect between the parties shall revive, unless:
1. The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and
2. The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement.
This Agreement commences on 19 ?3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
By y ~ Date ,4-u~ l9 213
Ma r:
yor
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By Chain` Date '2- 19 -J-3
Board-of County Commissioners
4vn ~ Date E3
Record" Secretary
APPROIT9 'COUNTY
DATE -9-
.z
Page 7
5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an
agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing
future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with
the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A".
Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of
interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual
agreement of both cities.
C. Special Policies
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to their respective recognized
Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce-
dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement.
2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1)
amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3)
amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to
the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall
be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
F. 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have
agreed'to the following stipulations regarding the connection of
Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection
of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street:
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County
agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect
the following functional classification and design
considerations:
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major
intersections)
3. Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements where
necessary).
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
Page 8
6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street
10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec-
tion may be planned to eventually accommodate additional
lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and Murray/New
Scholls Ferry intersections.
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray
Boulevard 'as a through street with 135th Avenue
terminating at the Murray connection with a "T"
intersection.
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection
is illustrated in Exhibit B.
b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard
connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to
assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed.
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County
shall support improvements to the regional transportation
system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP). -
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and
Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection
of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by
affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment
for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th
Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec-
tions in 1986.
5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative
procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and
review notices required by Sections II A, B and C of this
Agreement.
?i
S
d
i
f
f Page 10
B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following.
topics:
Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility
of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the
Metzger-Progress Planning Areqa as shown as an area of interest on
Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III
B.4.d., which now requires the City to maintain County plan
designations for one year after the effective date of annexation.
Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by.the
parties as data is available as soon as possible after
September 1, 1986.
C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or
more freAuently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of
the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments.
The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of
execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall
make-a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have
developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60
day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may
terminate this Agreement.
V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning
Area Agreement dated September 26, 1983, Washington County-Resolution and
Order No. 84-73, and City of Tigard Resolution 84-19B:
This Agreement-commences on 9 19 ~(o
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement
on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
By / -.---l Date `~-~~r/-24
21Z_~_'
~ - Mayor
W/(SHINGTON COUNTY
Date 7-q-$(o
Chairman, oar o ounty ommissioners
Date
Recording Secretary
vD. CNN
M~~RP►~l DL ~G~M~
pa_
g 1986
5 ` 600 107
602 501 301 106
+
800 .108
601 101
604 500
}C
100 i
I
q 200
l loo
*W~
1101 1
1301 k5
1302
1200
100
1300
201
101
-EC-NON
200 MuNRAY ~Lyp, CONN '
Now
SEEM-
~r
' TIGARD AREA
ING
UR'B AN PLANN
c /
EXH181T A _ -
of << e
AGREEMENT
CJ
TY-TtGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA r j C i~ • j 3
W ASHtNGTON COON
• _ ( SJ f' yt~i:~,~ . t-' of
; III •J i~... ty s~:~~
/"I' I + +n~ Pt
IV.
i i 1t ~F 1 41 •1• itt
~
1111 pp
i • ill f gCi u r't ` , i ~:.G y'„ v
NN-ju
n ! { l • l•,...._~ 11!'31('
Y ~ r ~ , ~L-•1~j 's.. - r ~~hy- • • 1~ 1'li :Ilea i 1 ~ r'` ~1 y' ~
N G AREA
!URBAN PLANNIN
"Wow BOON RY _ i ' yji
G AREA ~ ~ ~ ~ t' ~.1~•, ~
ACTNE PLANNIN ~ ~ /l
p1 ~ Uk**
AREA OF INTEREST
Page 8
4. The City,of Tigard, City of. Beaverton and Washington
County have agreed to the following stipulations
regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from old
Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st
Avenue and Gaarde Street:
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County agree to amend their respective
comprehensive plans to reflect the following
functional classification and-design
considerations:
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at
major intersections)
3. Bike Lames: Yes
4. Right-af-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements
where necessary)
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
-6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: Norte provided on street
10. Upon` verification of need by traffic analysis,
the connection may be planned to eventually
accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old
Scholls Ferry and Murray/New Scholls Ferry
intersections.
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with
Murray Boulevard as a through street with
135th Avenue terminating at the Murray
connection with a "T" intersection.
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard
connection is illustrated in Exhibit B.
b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray
Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated
with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic
impacts are adequately analyzed.
U PEA t
Page 9
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County shall 'support improvements to
the regional transportation system as outlined in
the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st
Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur
coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard
from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with
involvement by affected property owners, sha31
jointly develop an alignment for the connection of
Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut
Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street
intersections in 1986.
5. The-CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish
administrative procedures and designate appropriate
personnel to receive and review notices required by
Sections II A, B and C of this Agreement.
IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and
the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the
Urban Planning Area Boundary:-
1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates
the proposal, shall submit a formal request for
amendment to the responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why the
proposed amendment is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend the planning area
boundary, a map which clearly indicates the
proposed change and surrounding area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the
originating agency, the responding agency shall
schedule a review of the request before the
appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be
held within 45 days of the date the request is
received.
4. The CITY and COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to
resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon
completion of the review, the reviewing body may
approve the request,' deny the request, or make a
Page 10
determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that
additional review is necessary, the following
procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY:
a., If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be
resolved in the review process as outlined in
Section IV (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree
to initiated a joint study. Such a study shall
commence within 90 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an
inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90
days of said date. Methodologies and procedures
regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be
mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY
prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and
the recommendations drawn from it shall be
included within the record of the review. *The
_ agency considering the proposed amendment shall
give careful consideration to the study prior to
making a final decision.
B. Prior to the commencement of periodic review for the Citv
of Tigard and the County's Urban Areas (April,. 1989), the
. CITY and the COUNTY shall mutually study the following
topics:
1. The feasibility of expanding the "active planning
area" to include the current "area of interest" and
asmigning land use planning responsibility to the -
1 ~ CITY.
2. The-feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the CITY and
y the COUNTY contracting to provide building inspection
and plan review services, administer development codes
and collect related fees within the active planning
area.
Proposed revisions.to this Agreement shall be considered
by the CITY and the COUNTY as soon as analysis of the
above topics is complete, subject to the time constraint
and other requirements of the COUNTY's land use ordinance
hearings and adoption process.
C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two
(2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to
evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth
herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review
process shall commence two (2) years from the date of
execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both
parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any
inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous
review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period
inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate
this Agreement.
Page 11
V.- ET is Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the
ban Planning Area Agreement dated September 9, 1986.
This Agreement commences on D2cem b&i 19 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the.parties have executed this Urban Planning Area
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
By Date lo~ p L gS
Mayor
_ WASHINGTON COUNTY
~'ZL 04 A A ~
- By 9-~
Chairman, Board of ou Commissioners Date
Date -o? 9 r5_
Recordin Secretary
• 3
i
MURRAY E !D. CONNECTIM
GENERAL ALIGNMENT
m
EXHIBIT B
800
Jf
VMM
aD
e02 URBAN PLANK tJG AREA Aa
-
801
804 501 107
301
Soo 108
500 108
101
1100 100
4 200
- 1101
1301
1200
1302
1300
100
201
101
200 p
MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION
i
CITY OF
TIGARD tl ~ -•'a°
~o b ~ -r
URBAN PLANNING AREA
s
EXHIBIT
A " • Alr
WASHINGTON COUNTY-TI4ARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
d+
1 - TIG RD. * ,
a f~~%v; I r TI AR
J' t 'r~}}.'~~ ity~++• $1:•y'~~~;tr.C~'1,~.~,' 7 J.. v ~ ~l'li~~_
:%s,L',:}}rt•'f #y {ri,,•s.r:'x•`••r'•~~~,rr.?'`'•:"~ •''r.+•+•~ s .G:;• -1 6..r, + )
~ % ~ :}v::.,ffr•r,•;i;%•v} ••:.y; :G•xsys%: •Yrr'• ! ®
{ •i%';li i{:~ „ys4' :i•'!1}•N•?+: r: } }t,+.f•!.•r.Y' / i - C
; ~i~: 'x:}s fi'' ''r • •.,..~r,.:,? r ~^'~,~•}°siyW;y i~ "1'. r
i 1 '::f.~ • +})sff>+s{•::~ ii~•vr} . E~ ~ t ! ~ f,.
}✓r• i~,.k~'• firs"+' ~
I :r'i,.'r. .}.~k'r''r ~'~rv ~Yi ••{+~Y~'h'•}:•:f~r: ~ ,
/ 1 ~ •j'rfC:f.•:r;•, 'f• .sf. % I 1 i ~ / 1pr
ryyf•.%::•• i~~ 1 0 oy.M zr-
•hr. ?f?tf?ff{'~:X lr,+,,E~i•}h::r:• y ;:y:~rss740-1.1
~,i
iGARD
%f;~'3•if. s.^>.if.?` ``iii 2, ff:, s ' • s I r ) '
:'.~rc r%?'rr~;k•,'•.+,:, . r,. orr}.` Sty O!„~' ~ cn 7` ~ 1
u~u :?f:%r'.~Sf55,•:,`{;,,••:+.6'.~r'y:.~. ?"`'•~''f~ .e>~'yy/',/•. fs•~'~ ~ t ,~I• I I•
:+ititifs.... v,'{r 'h,;r; ri:5;: .,~l IIL R +n
%?%u'.riii'+'{'h' +`ff•Y`+'• i'+.;'.•r, 1>, C] •:J(~ j: " f' .Vi f • I ,1`n II •n I
31
f;;r 1
1888 _ %%%tt, i . + • ~~F~~-- „~I 6t -I ~ 1 ~-=V (f 'II..+tn~~ lr r
TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA k.: :.c I / i f,r4_ i I_irf
~!!1 BOUNDARY
_ ~~~wrKtr ' 1. • ! , rat„-I.='
ACTIVE PLANNING AREA
+ I:t 71+a
1 r 11 ..~•.±F ._i. i rf/;.:. + p
r fit AREA OF INTEREST _ `iWLJL
ATIN
Oak,
66
• ~ ~ ~ rt ro rn
dL4
M ~ to ~ is b t3.
M
ro ao c+ co
~r g W
to ~ • M ~ R 1
Lh it
1m
o
,
M
M w ~
M co
Ilk ~
oil
RECEIVED
• G 12 1~ 1988
WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this jL~Irhday of J_),Oc .m ~PJI~ ,
19!~% by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Oregon, hereinafter' referred to as the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF
TIGARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon,
hereinafter referred to as the 11CITY1'.
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local government may
enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and
activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents,
have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that
City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and
actions shall-be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the
cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197;
and
WHEREAS, thd.Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgment of compliance to
submit an agreement setting forth the means by which comprehensive
planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will
be implemented; and
WHEREAS,' the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and
consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to
establish:
1. A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional
Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the
CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning;
2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and
development in the.Urban Planning Area;.
3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development
in the Urban Planning Area; and
4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Location of the Urban Planning Area
The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the
CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this
agreement.
Page 2
II. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or
Implementing Regulation
1. Definitions
Comprehensive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) means a
generalized, coordinated land use map and policy. statement
of the governing body of a local government that
interrelates all functional and natural systems and
activities relating to the use of lands, including, but
not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation
systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities,
and natural resources and air and water quality management
programs. "Comprehensive Plan" amendments do not include
small tract comprehensive plan map changes.
Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning
ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS
92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing
standards for implementing•a comprehensive plan. .
"Implementing regulation" does not include small tract
zoning map amendments,. conditional use permits, individual
subdivision, partitioning or planned uriit development
approval or denials, annexations; variances, building
permits and similar administrative-type decisions.
2. The County shall provide the CITY with.the appropriate
opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed
amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan
or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the
COUNTY with the. appropriate opportunity to participate,
review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption
of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations: The following procedures shall be followed
-by *the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one
another-in the process to amend or adopt a-comprehensive
plan or implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction
over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency,
shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the
responding agency, of the proposed action at the time
such planning efforts are initiated,'but in no case
less than 45 days prior to the final hearing on
adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of
Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning
directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The
Page 3
"Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline
the process by which the responding agency shall
participate in the adoption process. If, at the time
of being notified of a proposed action, the responding
agency determines it does not need to participate in
the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to
negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding".
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft
recommendations on any proposed actions to the
.responding agency for its review and comment before
finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a
"Memorandum of Understanding", the responding agency
shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing. -Lack of .
response shall be considered "no objection" to the
draft.
c. The originating agency shall respond to the comments
made by the responding agency either by a) revising
the final recommendations, or b) by letter to the
responding agency explaining•why the comments.cannot
be addressed in the final draft.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public record on the
t proposed action. If after such consideration, the
originating agency acts contrary to the position of
i the responding agency, the responding agency-may seek
appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals
body and procedures.
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the
originating-agency, it shall transmit the adopting
ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly
available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever
other written documentation is available to properly
inform the responding agency of the final actions
taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to
Property owners
1. Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by
a local government which requires notifying by mail
the owners of property which could potentially be
affected (usually specified as a distance measured in
feet) by a.proposed development action 'which directly
affects and is applied to a specific parcel or
parcels. Such development actions may include, but
not be limited.to small tract zoning or comprehensive
Page 4
plan map amendments, conditional or special use
permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or
planned unit developments, variances, and other
similar actions requiring a hearings process which is
quasi-judicial in nature.
2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity
to review and comment on proposed development actions
requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning
Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the
opportunity to review-and comment on proposed
development actions requiring notice within the CITY
limits that may have an affect on unincorporated
portions of the designated Urban Planning Area.
3.• The following procedures shall be followed by the
COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of proposed
development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction
over the proposal, hereinafter the originating
agency, shall'send by-first class mail a copy of
the public hearing notice which identifies the
proposed development action to the other agency,"
hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten.(10)•days prior
to the date of.the scheduled public hearing. The
failure of the responding agency to receive a
r notice shall not invalidate an action ifa good
faith attempt was.made by the originating agency
to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency.receiving -the notice may respond at its
discretion. Comments may be submitted in.written
form or an oral response may be made at the public
hearing. Lack of written or oral response shali
be considered "no objection" to the proposal.
c. If received in a.timely manner, the originating-
agency shall include or attach the comments to the
written staff report and respond to any concerns
addressed by the responding agency in such report
or orally at the hearing.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public record on
the proposed action. If, after such
consideration, the originating agency acts
contrary to the position of the responding agency,
the responding agency may seek appeal of the
action through the appropriate appeals body and
procedures.:
x
p. CpNNEC-f10Ei
MURR~Y gLV
ENERAL A~~NM
CC
m
600 107
602 501 301 106
601 800 108
604
600 101 .
100
p 200
1100 ¢ 5
- 4
1101
1301
1200 1302
` 1300 100
201
101
200
~y gLVD- GQNNgC~oN
NIURR .
Page 5
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to
notify one another of proposed actions which may
affect the community, but are not subject to the
notification and participation requirements contained
in subsections A and B above.
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction
over the proposed actions, hereinafter the
originating agency, shall send by first class mail
a copy of all public hearing agendas which contain
the proposed actions to the other agency,
hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior
to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The
failure of the responding agency to receive an
agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good
faith attempt was made by the originating agency
to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may
respond at its discretion.r.Comments may be
submitted.in written form or an oral response may
be-made at the public hearing. Lack of written or
oral response shall be considered "no objection"
to the proposal.
c.. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the.public record on
the proposed action. if, after such
consideration, the originating agency.acts
contrary to the position of the responding agency,
the responding agency may seek appeal of the
action through the appropriate appeals body and
procedures.
III.- Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies
A. Active Planning Area
1. Definition
Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and
certain unincorporated areas contiguous to the
incorporated area for which the CITY conducts
comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate
development activities to the greatest extent
possible. The.CITY Active Planning Area is designated.
as Area A on Exhibit "A".
2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive
KR`' planning within the Active Planning Area.
Page 6
3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption
LL and amendment of the public facility plan required by
OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area.
4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the
Active-Planning Area which would create lots less than
10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water
service are available to the property.
5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the
Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide
for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable
plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent
with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon
annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY
Comprehensive Plan.
6. Approval of the development actions in the Active
Planning Area shall be continent upon provision of
adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm
drainage, streets, and police ana fire protection.
7. The COUNTY -shall not oppose annexation to the CITY
within the CITY's Active Planning-Area.
B. Area of Interest
r'
t•.._ 1. Definition
Area'of =Merest or Primary Area of Interest means
unincorporated. lands contiguous to the Active Planning .
Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive
planning but in which the.CITY does maintain an
interest in comprehensive planning and•development
actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on
the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of
' Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated
as Area B on Exhibit "A".
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive
planning and development actions within the Area of
Interest.
3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation,
adoption and amendment of the public facility plan
required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest.
4. The CITY may consider requests for•annexat`ons in the
Area of Interest subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in
the Area of Interest as a condition to the
provision of urban services for.development. F
q.
a'
t '
Page 7
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of
Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY
declares its intent to complete the island
annexation.
c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or
other representative means for annexation in the
Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which
includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area
of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the
CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individual property
owners to annex to-the CITY pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statutes.
d.- Upon annexation of land within the Area of
Interest to the CITY, the CITY agrees to convert
COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations
which most closely approximate the density, use
provisions and standards of COUNTY designations.
Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this
designation for one year after-the effective date-
of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY
Planning. Directors agree at the time of annexation
that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an
amendment may be initiated before the one year
period is over.
5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have - .
reached an agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard
boundary establishing future annexation areas of
interest. This boundary coincides with the northern
Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A".
-Washington County recognizes that the future •
annexation area of interest boundary line may change
i.n'the future upon mutual agreement of both cities.
L
C. Special Policies
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of
comprehensive planning and development actions to the
Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the
notice procedures outlined in Section III of this
Agreement.
2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which
proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan,
(2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the
COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY
within five (5) days after its introduction.
3. At least one copy of any. COUNTY ordinance which
proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the
corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the
CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
Page 8
4. The City of Tigard, City of. Beaverton and Washington
County have agreed to the following stipulations
regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from Old
Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st
Avenue and Gaarde Street:
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County agree to amend their respective
comprehensive plans to reflect the following
functional classification and.design
considerations: ,
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at
major intersections)
3. Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements
where necessary)
5: Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H.
8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street
10. Upon verification of need-by traffic analysis,
the connection may be planned to-eventually
accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old
Scholls Ferry and.Murray/New Scholls Ferry
intersections.
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray
Boulevard connection will be designed with
Murray Boulevard as a through street with
135th Avenue terminating at the Murray
connection with a "T" intersection.
12. The general alignment of-the Murray Boulevard
connection is illustrated in Exhibit B.
b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray
Boulevard connection-area shall be coordinated
with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic
impacts are adequately analyzed.
Page 9
C. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and
Washington County shall support improvements to
the regional transportation system as outlined in
the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st
Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur
coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard
from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with
involvement by affected property owners, shall
jointly develop an alignment for the connection of
Murray Boulevard between the 235th Avenue/Walnut
Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street
intersections in 1986.
5. The-CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish
administrative procedures and designate appropriate
personnel to receive and review notices required by
Sections II A,.B and C of this Agreement.
IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and
t" the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the
Urban Planning Area Boundary:-
1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates
the proposal, shall submit a formal request for
amendment to the responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A-statement of findings indicating why the
proposed amendment is necessary.
c. If the request is to amend the planning area
boundary, a map which clearly indicates the
proposed change and surrounding area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the
originating agency, the responding agency shall
schedule a review of the request before the
appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be
held within 45 days of the date the request is
received.
4. The CITY and COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to
resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon
completion of the review, the reviewing body may
approve the request, deny the request, or make a
Page 10
determination that the proposed amendment warrants
additional review. If it is determined that
additional review is necessary, the following
procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY:
a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be
resolved in the.review process as outlined in
Section IV (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree
to initiated a joint study. Such a study shall
commence within 90 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an
inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90
days of said date. Methodologies and procedures
regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be
mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY
prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and '
the recommendations drawn from it shall be
included within the record of the review. *The
agency considering the proposed amendment shall
give careful consideration to the study prior to
making a final decision.
B. Prior to the commencement of periodic review for the City
of Tigard and-the County's Urban Areas (April'.. 1989), the
CITY and the COUNTY shall mutually study the following
topics:
i
1.' The-feasibility of expanding the "active.planning'-
area" to include the-current "area of-interest" and
assigning land use planning responsibility to the
CITY.
2. The'feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the CITY and-
the COUNTY contracting to provide building inspection
and plan review services, administer development codes
and collect related-fees within the active planning
area.
Proposed revisions to this Agreement shall be considered
by-the CITY and the COUNTY as soon as analysis of the
above topics is complete, subject to the time constraint
and other requirements of the COUNTY's land use ordinance
hearings and adoption process.
.C. The parties will jointly-review this Agreement every two
(2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to
evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth
herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review
process shall commence-two (2) years from the date•of
execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both
parties shall-make a good faith effort to resolve any
inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous
review.' If, after completion of the- 60.day review period
inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate
this Agreement.
.
Page 11
V." This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the
Urban Planning Area Agreement dated September 9, 1986.
This Agreement commences on l)P c,em ber I 19 c~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
By Date a ( I
Mayor -
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By Date
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners*
Date
Recording Secretary
,1 r~; U1
CITY OF
TIGAR®
URBAN (PLANNING AREA ~ t: i~~~~
EXHIBIT
• t
WASHINGTON COUNTY-TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT 4K ,y » -~1
ar ' .ice t.......a•,T1 ~O , i
TI ARD
v - , l" x J S A
IGAR
9j W U 1 ~ ~ 1. e
1GARD .41
los8 uRR1r
URBAN PLANNING AREA .,t ' * !,r +"~},,[r'.
!!R!1 BOUNDARY r. _ .i +~--~ttJ, P•\~ t.' I:IV~) (`,Il: J-~
LuuL1i~~a~uu{JJLL~~33-~
A ACTIVE PLANNING AREA
; , 1 >ti• i! i L~`I~ U ATIN
AREA OF INTEREST
. -Di•s~~b.~t-ec1 I~ ' '
~m ~vu-Ic-\ Ua uolop►~,~vvV
WASHINGTON
t'UL1N'rY, Ccn d .4tQ-+~ + S
OREGON
March 26, 1990
Pat Riley, City Manager
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Subject: Murray Boulevard Connection
As we discussed last week, I have developed some additional back-
ground information for you and the City Council on the establishment
of the Murray Boulevard Connection. Following is a chronology of
events as they relate to the County's Plans and the Urban Planning
Area Agreements (UPAAs) between the County and the City:
June 28. 1983 - Washington County Transportation Plan adopted,
stating that the Murray Blvd. Connection from old Scholls
Ferry Road to-Gaarde Street should be a minor arterial or
major collector. Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain and Bull t
Mountain Community Plans also adopted, showing the proposed k
alignment for the Murray Boulevard Connection.
June 28, 1983 - Washington County-Tigard UPAA adopted, includ-
ing language stating that the need and location of the Murray
Blvd. Connection was an unresolved issue, but that until the
issue was resolved, that City and County agreed.to take no
actions which would preclude alternative solutions.
January 1, 1984 - Washington County-Tigard UPAA expired.
March, _1984 Tigard reviewed Park Place Planned Development.
The proposed development contains a street design violating
County major collector standards. County appeals approval of
Park Place to City Council.
Anril 22, 12ffi - After lengthy discussions between the City of
Tigard, and the County, the Tigard City Council adopted
revisions to the park Place project design which.addressed the
county's concerns and preserved the integrity of a major
collector Murray Blvd. Connection through the project.
April 24.1984 - Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopts R&O
84-73 reactivating the UPAA which had expired. The R&O con-
tained a process for resolving transportation issues and adopt-
ed interim design guidelines for the Murray Blvd. Connection.
June 30. 19851- UPAA expires again.
R
s
Department of Land Use And Transportation. Adrninibtration
150 North t-*ireot Avenue Hiiistroro. Oregon 97124 Phono: 603/648.8761
Murray Boulevard Extension
March 26, 1990
Page 2
Seo ember 2,1286 BCC enacts Ordinance 307 adopting a new
UPAA with Tigard which-includes the following policies ralat-
ing to the Murray Blvd. connection, and adopts the general
alignment for the road from Old Scholls Ferry toad to 135th
Avenue:
t
/1...C. Special Policies...
4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washing-
ton County have agreed to the following stipula-
tions regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard
from old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of
SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde street: z
a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Wash-
ington County agree to amend their respective
comprehensive plans to reflect the following
functional classification and design consider-
ations:
1. Designation: Collector
2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2(plus turn lanes
at major intersections)
3. Bike Lanes: Yes
4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope ease-
ments where necessary)
5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum
6. Access: Limited
7. Design Speeds 35 M.P.H.
e. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet
9. Parking Facilities: None provided on
street
10. Upon verification of need by traffic
analysis, the connection may be planned to
eventually accommodate additional lanes at
the Murray/Old Scholls Perry and Murray/New
Scholls Ferry intersections.
e
Murray Boulevard Extension
March 26, 1990
Page 3
11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the
Murray Boulevard connection will be de-
signed with Murray Boulevard as a through
street with 135th Avenue terminating at the
Murray connection with a 'IT" intersection.
12. The general alignment of the Murray Boule-
vard connection is illustrated in Exhibit
B. (attached)
b. Any changes to land use designations in the
Murray Boulevard connection area shall be co-
ordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that
traffic impacts are adequately analyzed.
c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, and
Washington county shall support improvements to
the regional transportation system as outlined
in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP).
d. Improvements to SW Gaarde street between SW
121st Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should
occur coincident with the connection of Murray
Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde
street.
e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with
involvement by affected property owners, shall
jointly develop an alignment for the connection
of Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/
Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street
intersections in 1986....01
Opt2k2r 25,--128a - BCC enacts Ordinances 332 & 333 adopting
UPAA with Tigard including the same policies and design stan-
dards as the 1986 UPAA. These Ordinances also adopted an
updated Washington county Transportation plan including the
proposed Murray Blvd. Connection, the generalized alignment,
and collector classification.
The UPAAG note that Tigard, Beaverton and Washington county support
the improvements in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
RTP includes the Murray Blvd. Connection in the category of projects
intended to improve 12gal circulation and arterial operations. The
section from Old scholls Ferry Road to 135th Ave. is considered a
committed project in the RTP and in the region's Transportation
Murray Boulevard Extension
March 260 1990
Page 4
Model, because of the on-going development activity dedicating por-
tions of the necessary Right-of-Way and constructing portions of this
segment as needed to access their developing properties.
The section from 135th Ave. to Gaarde Street is listed as a project
recommended to be completed over the next 10 years, with the RTP
further noting that the extension of Beef Bend Road from Scholls
Ferry Road to Hwy. 99W in Sherwood, and widening and other
improvements to Hwy. 217 should both be completed bgfore the
completion of the Murray Blvd. Connection. Beef Bend Road, Scholls
Perry Road, and Highways 217 and 99W are intended to serve as the
needed arterial connections and access in'the area. The Murray Blvd.
Connection is envisioned to provide improvements to the local Tigard
circulation system and is not intended to serve any broader
transportation needs.
The connection of Beef Bend Road to Elsner Road and Highway 99W is a
project that the County is considering for project development. If
the cities in southeast Washington County, including Tigard were to
offer their support for this facility, Preliminary Engineering could
be started for this project.
The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation study completed by City of
Tigard staff, with assistance from Washington County and Metro staff,
indicates-that the majority of the traffic projected to use the Mur-
ray Blvd. Connection is generated locally from the Bull Mountain/
Tigard area. A very small proportion of the traffic is expected to
be through traffic to/from points north of Old Scholls Ferry Road or
to/from the area south and east of Highway 99W.
More importantly, the Murray Blvd. Connection is predominantly a new
road on a new alignment, and thus preserves the lower traffic volumes
on existing streets and protects the neighborhood livability in the
135th Ave., Walnut St., and 121st Ave. areas. For example, only
about 2% of the traffic on Walnut street is projected to be through
traffic as defined above.
The City's NE Bull Mountain Transportation Study noted that the
buildout of the Bull Mountain area will result in nearly 13,000
dwelling units housing over 29,000 residents within the study area.
The recommendations developed by your staff reflect the need to
accommodate that planned growth, to support that development with a
system of collector streets, and to minimize impacts on existing
neighborhoods. Your staff's conclusions beginning on page 29 of the
Report and Recommendation note that elimination of the Murray Blvd.
connection would not reduce traffic volumes on Walnut or Gaarde
Streets. Traffic would double on 135th Avenue, which would serve as
the alternate route to the Murray Blvd. Connection. In addition,
traffic would be projected to increase substantially on 121st, North
Dakota, Davies, Greenburg, and Scholls Perry.
FROM:PLNNG TO: 503 694 729? MAR 26. 1990 4:0?PM #622 P.06
Murray Boulevard Extension
March 2E, 1990,
Page 5
In light of the foregoing discussion of the history and intent of the
Murray Blvd. Connection, and the recent analysis by City, County, and
Metro staff which support the retention of the Murray Blvd.
Connection,, I would urge you-to recommend to your City Council that
the Murray Blvd. Connection from Old 5cholis terry to 135th be
retained as adopted, and that the staff recommendations for the other
minor collectors in the Bull Mountain study area and the alignment
for the connection from Walnut to Gaarde be adopted.
Again, I want to emphasize that the County agrees with the City and
the Regional Transportation Plan, that the Murray Boulevard
Connection to Gaarde Street should not be completed before necessary
projects are in place to improve the capacity of Highway 217, and to
provide the connection of Beef Bend/Elsner Roads from Scholls Ferry
to Highway 99W The County is willing to begin project development
and Preliminary Engineering for Beef Bend/Elsner if Tigard and other
cities in the area would support that project. Please don°t hesitate
to call me if you need any further information on the Murray Blvd.
Connection, orif you wish to discuss the Beef Bend/Elsner Road
~li tr 044•
d
3
Z..s al.l t ~Y • ~
i
nice A. Warner, P.E.
Dirootor
Attachment
c: Linda Davis, City of Beaverton
i
a
FROW PLNNG TO: 503 684 7297 MAR 26. 1990 4:07PM 53622 P.O?
' MURRAY BLVD, CONNECTION
u GENERAL ALIGNMENT
a~ EXHISrr B
0 19536
r - URBAN PLANNM AREA AGREEMENT
602
801
604 801
107
301
800 100
500 108
101
100
1100 400
i
a
1101
a
~y 1301
1200
1303
1300
100
201
101
)l lilies I I?
MURRAY BLVD. GONNEOTION
~ I Y
F:
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 26, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: March 16, 1990
16- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 90-02, ZI PREVIOUS ACTION:
Northeast Bull Mountain Trans rt
tion Plan REPARED BY: Citv Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK, CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY:
P ICY ISSUE
Shall the Comprehensive Plan Tra portation Map be amended in the area of
Northeast Bull Mountain?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On February 26, 1990, the City Council held a hearing to consider the Northeast
Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. The report recommended certain
changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.
At the hearing, the Council heard opposition to the Murray Boulevard extension
currently shown on the Transportation Map and to the Gaarde Street extension
recommended by the Study Report. A final decision was not made on the Murray
and Gaarde extensions.
The hearing was continued and staff was directed to meet with NPO #3 to define
the portions of the recommended plan on which there is agreement. The NPO
meeting was held on March 7, 1990. The attached ordinance would amend the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map to adopt the portions of the Study Report
recommendations on which there is agreement. Specifically, the ordinance would
add an extension of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview, an extension of 135th
Avenue south of Walnut Street, an extension of Benchview Terrace west of 132nd
Avenue, and the realignment of Gaarde Street at Pacific Highway. The
ordinance would also add Note A to the Map to clarify the design standards for
the three new road extensions. The ordinance would make no other changes to
the existing Transportation Map. Additional changes could be considered at a
future Council meeting, following appropriate public notice.
Attached is a copy of a portion of the existing Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map for comparison with the proposed map amendment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map.
2. Direct that '-he ordinance be amended.
3. Take no action, leaving the existing Transportation Map unchanged.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. This is a plan change only. Street improvements will be constructed in
conjunction with future development.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance.
NOTE: The ordinance leaves the route of the future extension of Gaarde Street
undecided. Staff recommends that the decision on Gaarde extension be deferred
until it is known whether the Murray extension will be deleted.
rw/c-bullM
y. t s
0 a
'Q mass
1 v e u , ?
t '
J s+
! t a ~
L
city OAS . e5
tvTes a SeCL of [ect St•
i
S1 -
miser ~aq
g
be
25
30 40 a*~
=30 _
t
e s . G t
0
. ci ai
t ~
r
14 1
p„
Q
E~,iSTING - ~ _ _ _
PI
-A .
cO~PgEHEN
MA
4N
gull Mtn•
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BETWEEN
WALNUT STREET AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD (CPA 90-02)
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map designates the arterial and
collector street system within the City of Tigard; and,
WHEREAS, the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report, attached
hereto as Exhibit B, recommends amendments to the existing Transportation Map
as it pertains to the northeast portion of Bull Mountain; and,
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on January 30, 1990, the Planning Commission voted
to deny approval of the recommendations of the Study Report and recommended
certain guidelines for collector streets in the northeast area of Bull
Mountain; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations at a
public hearing on February 26, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the Council finds that a portion of the recommendations of the Study
Report are consistent with the guidelines recommended by the Planning
Commission and that said portion can be adopted independent of the remaining
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, said portion includes the proposed extension of 132nd Avenue south of
Benchview Terrace, the proposed extension of 135th Avenue south of Walnut
Street, the proposed extension of Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue, and
the proposed realignment of Gaarde Street at Pacific Highway; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the remaining recommendations of the Study
Report require further review by the council.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Statewide Planning
Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings:
Statewide Planning Goal #1 - Citizen Involvement
The City of Tigard assures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the
review of all land use and development applications. There were numerous
public meetings with citizens and neighborhood groups beginning in February,
1989. These meetings are described in the Public Input section of the
"Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study" (Exhibit "B").
The City of Tigard Planning commission reviewed the proposal at its public
hearing on January 30, 1990, and made a recommendation to the City Council.
i
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
Page 1
The City Council received the public testimony at its public hearing on
February 26, 1990. Notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper as
required by the Community Development Code for both hearings.
Statewide Planning Goal #2 - Land Use Planning
This goal is satisfied through City procedures and measures which require
the city to apply all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City
Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements to
the review of the proposal being presented.
Statewide Planning Goals #3 and #4 - Agricultural Lands and Forest Lands
These goals do not apply because the entire area involved in the proposal is
within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary and has been
designated in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and in the Washington
County Bull Mountain Community Plan for residential development. The Urban
Growth Boundary and the land use designations have been previously found by
LCDC to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. Also, the
street system proposed by this Plan amendment will not have an adverse impact
upon resource lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
Statewide Planning Goal #5 - Open Space Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources
The Bull Mountain Community Plan and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan identify
the need to preserve open space, natural resources, and wildlife habitat.
Q7 The plans illustrate general areas where these attributes exist, but do not
locate specific areas of concern that must be preserved or protected in some
manner. The plans call for the protection of these resources to the extent
that is practical as property develops. No historic sites or structures
have been identified by the County or the City for this section of Bull
Mountain.
The street system called for by this Plan revision will provide appropriate
access for the residential development anticipated by the Bull Mountain
Community Plan and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. It will have no adverse
affect upon the open space, scenic features, historic areas, or natural
resources identified for protection in either of these plans.
Statewide Planning Goal #6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
This goal is satisfied because the street system contemplated will provide
for improved traffic circulation in the area, leading to fewer vehicle miles
driven. This increased efficiency will in turn have a positive impact upon
air quality. Water quality and land resource quality should be unaffected as
noted in the discussion of Goal #5 because the street system is providing
adequate access for development that is already contemplated in the Bull
Mountain Community Plan and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
Page 2
i
Statewide Planning Goal #7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Both the Bull Mountain Community Plan, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the
Tigard Community Development Code contain requirements for the mitigation of
natural hazards such as flood plain, drainageways, steep slopes, and erosion.
The primary natural constraints identified for the Bull Mountain area are
steep slopes over 20 percent and drainageways. This goal will be satisfied
and the potential for creating natural hazards shall be greatly reduced or
eliminated because the development of the streets will be accomplished in a
manner that is consistent with the provisions of these plan and code
documents as well as appropriate engineering practice. Also, the street
alignments are designed to avoid the steepest terrain and drainageways to the
maximum extent possible. Necessary mitigation measures will be developed and
approved by the applicable regulatory agencies for the street projects.
Statewide Planning Goal #8 - Recreation Needs
The need for providing outdoor recreation opportunities in the area is
discussed in the Bull Mountain Community Plan, but specific sites are not
identified. This goal is satisfied because the collector street system is
intended to serve the residential development envisioned by the Plan and it
2
shall not have any affect upon or reduce the potential amount of outdoor
recreation and open space areas.
Statewide Planning Goal #9 - Economy of the State
f
This goal is satisfied because the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will
t substantially improve the access to the Bull Mountain area and therefore,
encourage the development of this land as contemplated by the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan. This development
activity will be beneficial economically because of the construction jobs
provided.
Statewide Planning Goal #10 - Housing
This goal is satisfied because the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will
substantially improve the access to the Bull Mountain area and therefore,
encourage the provision of single family housing in accordance with the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Statewide Planning Goal #11 - Public Facilities
This goal requires that the necessary infrastructure must be provided to
accommodate future development. Residential development requires domestic
water, fire, sewer, storm drainage, roads and other important services
including police, and fire protection. The installation of an adequate
street system for this area helps satisfy this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal #12 - Transportation
This goal is satisfied because the proposed street system will provide
improved access to existing residential areas as well as those properties
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
Page 3
which will be developed similarly in the future. An extensive transportation
analysis has been conducted by the City of Tigard and Washington County staff
to determine the appropriate street locations and alignments. This street
system was then reviewed by the public, as well as the Planning Commission
and City Council, prior to approving the system that is to be incorporated
as an element of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Statewide Planning Goal #13 - Energy Conservation
This goal is satisfied by creating a situation where traffic circulation on
the north side of Bull Mountain will be more efficient by providing the
appropriate connections between the residences and other destinations. Also,
school bus routes shall be run more efficiently. This enhanced efficiency
will result in modest energy savings.
The remaining Statewide Planning Goals #14 through #19 do not apply in this
case.
Section 2: The proposed amendment is in conformity with the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan based upon the following findings:
The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1
because the proposed street system has been planned to provide a safe and
efficient street system to serve current needs and anticipated future growth
and development.
y The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.2
because it is in conformity with the adopted transportation plan of Washington
County, the regional transportation plan, and the plans of adjoining
jurisdictions.
The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.3.1
because the minor collector street routes to be adopted by this ordinance are
not expected to change the impacts on existing residential structures on SW
121st Avenue and Gaarde Street.
The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.3.2
because this ordinance does not change the arterial street system.
Section 3: The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map is hereby revised to add
a proposed extension of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview Terrace, to
add a proposed extension of 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, to
add a proposed extension of Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue,
to add a new Note A, and to realign Gaarde Street at Pacific
Highway, all as shown on attached Exhibit A.
Section 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
ORDINANCE NO. 90- F
Page 4
4
PASSED: By vote of the council members present after being
read by number and title only, this day of ,
1990.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1990.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
i
ORDCPA.RW/kl
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
Page 5
s
a
i - 0 1
! fil~
J
1 r i
i- I
NOTE: The City oL Tiga has NOTE A: ;
zaggem ed a series of i irect 0 Approximate alignments are sham for
minor llector connecti the extensions of 132nd Aivno ue South Fff t
betwec'i Murray Blvd_ and rde-St. of Ben mi Terrace, 135 Avenue
south of nut St., and IN iew
' T ves of 132nd A These
J ♦ s as minor ,
y~QJ cull th a design of '
~
25 `
30
0010 <
S 4 ♦ 3 • 0
9 to
30
= 1 Q _
--E TF
O ~ R
Z
■ OR Yl /
W tt 9
Exhibit A
4 r~
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE 0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
(Exhibit "B" is the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation
Study Report previously reviewed by Council)
PUBLIC MEETING
MORIHmkST BULL M TRANSPOFMMOH STUDY
on
MONDAY, march 26 1990
7:30 PH
before the
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TOWN HALL ROOM
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Presentation by City Staff on the history of the urban Planning Area
Agreement (UPAA) which requires the Murray Blvd. extension.
Comments by NPO #3
Comments by CPO #4
2. Consideration of an ordinance to adopt portions of the Northeast Bull
Mountain Plan. The Murray extension and the route of the future
extension of Gaarde Street west of 121st are NOT included in the
ordinance.
For further information contact Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator,
City of Tigard, 639-4171 ext. 308.
Sherry Abrahamson Dana Barker
12735 SW Marie Ct. 11340 SW Viewmount Ct.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Daren Adams Donna Barker
9984 Sw Walnut # 13 12920 SW Walnut
Tigard, or 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Jim Adam Jeanie Bates
13250 SW Bull Mountain Road 9820 SW Janzen Ct.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Martha Allen Kathy Baxter
8715 SW Bomar Ct. 12950 SW 135th
Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Robert Ames Garve and Marilyn Beckham
12500 SW Bull Mountain Road 12620 SW 135th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Fred and Phyllis Anderson Chris and Madeline Bednarek
11550 SW Bull Mountain Road 14465 SW Hazelhill Drive
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
J.D. Annand BenjFran Development
14600 SW Pacific Highway Dave Ramberg
Tigard, OR 97223 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, OR 97228-6400
Myra Austin Teresa A. Berg
12945 SW 135th 9984 SW Walnut # 12
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Lew Bacon Ed Berger
12035 SW Rose Vista 13192 SW Benish
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Robb Ball Kathy Bhyre
12765 SW Bull Mountain Road 4040 Douglas Way
Tigard, OR 97224 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Jim Blackaby John Brosy
13379 SW Bull Mountain Road David Evans and Assoc.
Tigard, OR 97224 2626 SW Corbett
t Portland, OR 97201
Steve Bleak Richard Brown
PO Box 6835 12380 SW Corylus Court
Aloha, OR 97007 Tigard, OR 97223
Pete and Virginia Bloore Marilyn Bryant
PO Box 231148 10045 SW McDonald
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Kathy Bodyfelt Bob and Robin Burk
12820 SW Walnut 14340 SW Hazelhill Drive
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Thomas D. Bohan Ed Burns
14115 SW Fern 11570 SW Glenwood Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Tim A. & Tracy Bolte Howard Busse
14000 SW 98th Ave. Handel, Hasson, & Jone Realtors
Tigard, OR 97224 15480 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
H B & Virgina Boone Jerry Cach
122427 SW Morning Hill Drive. 12525 SW Main St.
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Bruce Bower Jan & Scott Carlson
16615 SW Florence 9747 SW Elrose
Aloha, OR 97007 Tigard, OR 97224
Marv Bowman Steve Castellanos
9230 SW Templar Place 11920 SW Gaarde St.
Beaverton, OR 97005 Tigard, OR 97223
Tom & Carol Boyle Bill & Margaret cassells
13640 SW Fern Street 14125 SW 97th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Alan & Linda Churchill Dean and Ann Coy
14145 SW 98th Ct. 13580 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Sherry Churchill Terry E. Crane
14125 SW 98th Ct. 9155 SW McDonald St.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Tom Clarey Diane & Teresa Crawford
1318 SW 12th 14300 SW Hazelhill Drive
Portland, OR 97201 Tigard, OR 97224
Randy Classen Dobert & Karlyne Crewse
8392 SW 184th 14120 SW 98th Ct.
Aloha, OR 97007 Tigard, OR 97224
Jim Clune David Cronauer
12240 SW 106th 50905 SW Murray Blvd. # 418
Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97005
Bill and Judy Clyde Gerald Daniels
12365 SW Corylus Court 13615 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Nancy & Cole Roger Davidson
14060 SW 98th 12315 SW Marion
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Robinson W. Collins Wayne K. Davis
9425 SW McDonald St. 4055 NW Columbia
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97229
Fred Cooper Marie Day
15165 SW Sunrise Lane 5311 Childs Road
Tigard, OR 97224 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Astrid Cornelius John T. DeJong
PO Box 23125 8835 SW Canyon Lane, No. 405
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97225
Linda Delucia Grant E. & Gaylon Dudley
12010 SW Westbury Terrace 11340 SW Viewmount Ct.
( Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Thomas E. Demaree Bruce Dunlap
10105 SW McDonald PO Box 1408
Tigard, OR 97223 Tualatin, OR 97062
Maybelle DeMay D. Dyer
16250 SW Royalty Parkway 12532 SW 123rd
Ring City, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Gary R. Denison Fred Eberle
Michele Morales-Denison Washington County DLUT
14045 SW 98th Ave. 150 North First
Tigard, OR 97223 Hillsboro, OR 97124
Dennis Derby Jeff Emmett
5950 Jean Road 12245 SW 122nd
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tigard, OR 97223
Kathy Dorsett Shannon D. Engstrom
13847 SW Hindon Court 10030 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Chuck and Georgia Dorsey Dale & JoAnn Evans
12705 SW 124th 12502 SW 123rd
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Carol Dougherty Bev Farrell
14500 SW McFarland 14025 SW 98th Ave.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Doreen Dove Judy Fessler
14680 SW 141st Avenue 11180 SW Fonner
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
John Draneas Karlene Fitzwater
15225 SW 133rd Avenue 12350 SW Corylus Court
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Ralph & Jessie Flowers Roger & Dixie Gustafson
11700 SW Gaarde 13880 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Don Forrest Ron Haas
8985 SW McDonald 14920 SW Ashley Drive
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Anthony Francis Kenneth E. Haggatt
12305 SW Duchilly Court 13890 SW 114th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, Or 97223
Beverly Froude L. Hairland
12200 SW Bull Mountain Road 13625 SW Fern St.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Meleni B. Fry Linda Hallet
13600 SW Bull Mountain Road 14050 SW Pacific Highway
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
L. Galvin Beverly & Delmer Hansen
13700 SW 115th 12645 SW 135th B
Tigad, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Dennis & Gloria Garland Kent Hansen
13895 SW 114th 12255 SW Duchilly Court
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Jerry Graley Russell Hansen
13890 SW 118th Ct. 13540 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Debbie Gray Leonard Harris
14160 SW 98th Ct. 14890 SW Sunrise Lane
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
t Judy Grimes James A. Hartmann
12640 SW 135th 13420 SW Scotts Bridge Dr. x;
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
~t
Jury & Hugh Hassell David S. Hoffman
11275 SW Viewmont Ct. 12025 SW Rose Vista Dr.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Gregory S. Hathaway Paul R. Hoffman
Attorney at Law 13985 SW Fern St.
11th Floor, 121 SW Morrison Street Tigard, OR 97223
Portland, OR 97204
F. G. Hausmann RaNaye Hoffman
12357 SW Duchilly court 12300 SW Duchilly Court
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Connie Hawes John and Mae Ruth Hong
13255 SW Bull Mountain Road 12181 SW Westbury Terrace
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Paul Heavirland Mr. & Mrs. Houghtan
8685 SW McDonald 14150 SW 97th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
i
Lavelle Helm Mary Lou Howden
13280 SW Walnut 11829 SW Morning Hill Drive
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Dennis and Nancy Helseth Linda Hunston
14420 SW Hazelhill Drive 12218 SW Westbury
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Steve Heuser Martin L. Johanson
12775 SW 111th Place 13535 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Roy L. Hill Bryan Johnson
10170 SW Kable St. 1385 SW 118th Ct.
Tigard, or 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Deane K. Hinds Callen Jones
9980 sW Walnut # 331 14320 SW 100th Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Ron & Carol Jungwirth L A Development Corp.
7733 SW 50th Art Lutz
Portland, OR 97219 8925 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy.
Portland, OR 97225
Anne Kamberger JoAnn Ladlum
13930 SW 118th Ct. 14065 SW Fern
Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Berne R. Kesler Bill & Nita Lamb
12225 SW Walnut 11925 SW Gaarde
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Mr. and Mrs. R. A. Kester Bob & Jane Lamb
13620 SW Fern Street 9735 SW McDonald
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Ralph and Alice Kimmel Marian Landstrom
14960 SW Sunrise Lane 12000 SW Gaarde St.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Dave & Carol Klingele Donna Lang
12900 SW 132nd 14120 SW 97th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Paul Kohler Gary & Barbara Langer
12060 SW Rose Vista 14020 SW 98th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Jerry Kolve Don Larson
14357 SW Pacific Hwy 13870 SW 121st
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Marcy and Mike Kroll Douglas & Ailene Larson
13615 SW 121st Avenue 9815 SW Janzen Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Rod Kvistad Courtney Lasselle
13535 SW Fern 12175 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
- f
Kathleen Leary Charles and Becky Mansfield
10020 SW Johnson 13265 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Dick Leffler Robert & Barbara Maracle
14292 SW 114th 9810 Sw Janzen Ct.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Brian Lewis Rick & Barbara Martin
12902 SW Walnut 12600 SW Walnut Street
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
David R. Lewis John Martin
13695 SW 118th Ct. 14105 SW High Tor Drive
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
John Lewis Karen & Martinez
13990 SW Fern 13830 SW 118th Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Larry Lewis Margaret McMillan
12415 SW 122nd Ave. 14040 SW 98th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Jill Link Barbara Mennell
13050 SW Walnut 13680 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
Robert Ludlum Jane P. Miller
14065 SW Fern Street 10920 SW Highland Dr.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Charlene Luker Tom and Sandra Mintner
14285 SW Fern Street 12425 SW Corylus Court
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Rein Magi Bert Mitchell
12905 SW 135th Street Box 30179
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97230
Clarence Mohr Patricia Najdik
( 16655 SW 131st 11145 SW Morgen Court
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
J. Brian Mohr John and Shirley Newman
12505 SW North Dakoa #1001 12615 SW 136th Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Victoria Moonier ODOT
10634 SW Cook Lane Jerry Swan
Tigard, OR 97223 7165 SW Fir Loop
Tigard, OR 97223
Elaine & Gordon Moore Maureen Ober
13535 SW 121st Ave. 15538 NW Melody Lane
Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97006
John Moore John & Mary Jo Olsen
15800 SW Boones Ferry Road 11760 SW Gaarde
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tigard, OR 97223
Ted and Linda Moore OTAK
13870 SW 114th Greg Rurahashi
Tigard, OR 97223 17355 SW Boone Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Val & Jema Morley Tony Orlandini
10345 SW McDonald 12925 SW 132nd
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Fred J. and Pauline Moyer L. & Kathryn Ostrow
12300 SW 132nd Ct. 14130 sW 97th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Susan L. Muir Ina Rae and John Overby
14017 SW 97th Ave. 13300 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Dennis D. Murphy Mr. and Mrs. David Ownby
12750 SW Marie Ct. 14050 SW Fern Street
Tigard, OP 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
w
f
Jerry Palmer Nora A. Pirrie
Alpha Engineering 9705 SW McDonald St.
1750 SW Skyline Blvd., Suite 19 Tigard, OR 97224
Portland, OR 97221
Alice Panny Herman Porter
7409 SW Tech Center Drive 11875 SW Gaarde Street
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
David and Beverly Paull Curtis Prewitt
13277 SW Bull Mountain Road 14077 SW 97th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
i
Rich Pearson Gertrude J. Pulicella
13830 SW 114th Ave. 13780 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 i
i
Tim Perrine Real Estate Group
8935 SW McDonald George Diamon
Tigard, OR 97224 2839 SW 2nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97201
Bill and Thelma Perry Linda Reeder
11710 SW Wildwood Street 14900 SW 141st Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Pauline Petterson Steve & Cindy Reinhart
12921 SW Walnut 14035 SW 125th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
LouAnn Piekrski Marilyn Reskey
9980 SW Walnut # 31 10160 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Bob and Deanna Pierce David Ritchie
14010 SW High Tor Drive 13910 SW 121st
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Mary and Jim Piestrak Wilma W. Rittlesey
13275 SW 132nd 9986 SW Walnut # 3
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Georgenia Rivera Tom Schwab
13800 SW 115th 9002 SW McLoughlin
Tigarrd, OR 97223 Milwauki, OR 97222
Bonnie and Harry Robinson Peter & Gertrud Schwarzer
14390 SW Hazelhill Drive 9330 SW McDonald
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Sara Rooney Clayton Scott
12020 sW Rose Vista 14550 SW Hazeltree Terrace
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
D. C. Rothery Scottco Building Design
14255 SW 125th 11640 SW 135th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Robert M. Root John Setniker
12045 SW Rose Vista 11830 SW Gaarde
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
X. E. Rueda Rob Shallenberger
11135 SW Novare 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
L. Sacker James C. Shelton
13820 SW 115th 12015 SW Gaarde
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Julie Saling Esther, Gertrude, & Adam Shepsman
12465 SW 112th 13420 SW Scotts Bridge Drive
Tigard, Or 97723 Tigard, OR 97223
Samual Harold & Rosemary Shrauger
9986 SW Wlanut # 8 13030 SW Walnut
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Martha Schulz Alan Siewert
14550 SW Hazeltree Terrace St. James Episcopal Church
Tigard, OR 97224 11511 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224
Paula L. Silici Ron Soberg
7705 SW Gentlewoods Dr. 13755 SW 116th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Bill & Dorothy Sinclair Tony and Suzie Spanu
12660 SW 135th 12885 SW 132nd
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Ken and Reva Sisco Cindy L. Spanu
14295 SW 112th 13750 SW 118th Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
Louis Sloss Joy spencer/Barbara spencer/James
2929 SW Vista Center
Portland, OR 97219 13900 SW 114th
Tigard, OR 97223
Colleen Fuller-Smith Larry T. St. Pierre
9982 SW Walnut # 22 13992 SW Fern
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Karen Smith Don & Hazel Starbuck
9986 SW Walnut # 10 9988 SW Walnut St. # 12
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Mrs. Mary Smith William M. Stebbins
12015 SW Rose Vista 13273 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Rex & Nancy S. Smith Gary & Nancy Steele
12630 SW Walnut Street 12645 SW 135th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Steven & Jan Smith Lynda K. Steiner
12036 aW Wildwood 9165 SW Elrose Ct.
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
! George Snow Marshall Stevens
8775 SW McDonald 12400 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Tillman J. Stone Carole Valentine
t 13720 SW Fern St. 13715 SW Ash Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
George Summers Gary Vallens
12000 SW Rose Visa Drive 14645 SW 141st Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Bob and Donna Swan Charmayne & Van Cleave
13285 SW Bull Mountain Road 13815 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
Karin Thorin Kerry Viestenz
PO Box 23125 13570 SW Fern
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Tigard Times Karen & M. Voorhees
Donna Schmidt 11290 SW Viewmont Ct.
9730 SW Cascade Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223
Tigard, OR 97223
Janet Maxwell-Tilp & Dick Walker
14185 SW 98th Ct. 14215 SW 125th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Joe E. Truxal Gordon V. & Susan B. Walker
11573 SW Woodlawn Ct. 13900 SW 115th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Venitia Turnbull Bob Walsh
11735 SW Gaarde 3015 SW First Avenue
Tigad, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97201
Terry Upchurch Kevin & Gail Watkins
6601 NE 78th Court, Suite A-3 11330 SW Viewmount Ct.
Portland, OR 97218 Tigard, OR 97223
i
Jon and Mary Ann Vahle Larry and Jody Westerman
14405 SW Hazelhill Drive 13665 SW Fern Street
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223
C. C. White Lee Wilson
415 SE 70th 14105 SW 117th St.
Portland, OR 97215 Tigard, OR 97224
Debbie White Cal Woolery
11746 SW Gaarde 14150 SW 150th
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Wayne Whitman Robert & Pat Wyffels
8665 SW McDonald 9777 SW Elrose
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Paul Whitney Candace D. Yates
12035 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. 14130 SW 105th # 27
Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224
Lynnell Whitworth John Young
9982 SW Walnut # 20 12425 SW 122nd
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Blake Wiland Lin A. & Kathy Zimmerman
13527 SW Ashbury Lane 11990 SW Rose Vista Drive
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Ted Willenburg Mary and Leah Zednick
12745 SW Walnut 13995 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Diane Williams Craig Zell
13530 SW Fern St. 6500 SW Beaverton Hwy.
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97225
Donnel N. Williams
13865 SW Fern 13805 SW 118th Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Thomas Williams
11770 SW Walnut St.
Tigard, OR 97223 0041S.WPF
BETH VARELDZIS JOHN & LIZ FERGERSON MARIEL HATELY
13035 SW WATKINS 12700 SW WATKINS 13205 SW WATKINS
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
.OBERT BERG DALE & CECILIA PAULSON BELINDA HOLCOMBE
12975 SW WATKINS 12760 SW WATKINS 13485._SW WATKINS
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
CHERYL SIVY ROGER & SANDRA CLIFTON WARELLA MARLIN
10665 SW WATKINS 12840 SW WATKINS 13525 SW WATKINS
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
MICHELLE MONICE WALT & JERALYN CUNDIFF MIKALEE LEWIS
10645 SW WATKJINS PLACE 12860 SW WATKINS 13570 SW WATKINS
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
DAVE SEXTON KURT CUNDIFF ALEX TRIFFINGER
10635 SW WATKINS PL 12860 SW WATKINS 13530 SW WATKINS
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
DENIS COOPER CHERYL NEAL TAMMY CORNILLES
r 12875 SW WATKINS 12880 SW WATKINS 10620 SW COOK LN
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
JULIE RIZZUTTO MI YOUNG LEPPE MARY L. A'DUE
12805 SW WATKINS 13060 SW WATKINS 10605 SW COOK LN
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
JOAN & RON WHITCHER JUDY KILI DUANE & ARNE MEYER
12735 SW WATKINS 10635 SW WATKINS 13210 SW WATKINS AVE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
ERIK WHITCHER ALLAN MILLER TERI LAFFA GASIK
11393 SW SPRINGWOOD DR #28 10665 SW DERRY DELL CT 14275 SW FANNO CRK LP
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
RICHARD REMILLER KIM & TAMMY r.TTSTEN CATHLEN DRAZN
12656 WATKINS 10670 SW DERRY DELL CT 13901 SW HINDON CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
LESTER & MARJORTF. CTRPP.q ROBERT & KATHLEEN BRADEN BOB DRAZEN
12660 SW WATKINS 10175 SW WATKINS ST 13901 SW HINDON CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TILGARD OR 97223
JANE LOMLA LOUISE FINCHER DELINDA & ALEN CARPENTER
9735 SW MCDONALD 10765 SW FONNER 12435 SW 112
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
RESIDENT LLOYD & BARBARA HAWLEY JEANETTE & DON HARVEY
9980 SW MCDONALD 10705 SW FONNER ST 12440 SW 112 TH
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
CORI SCHRYEN DEN WORRALL EDITH & JOAN ELSNER
9840 SW OMARA ST 10680 SW FONNER 12520 SW 112TH
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
GARY SROCHA GEORGE. & MARLENE ERICKSON RESIDENTS
9905 SW MCDONALD 11175 SW FONNER 12525 SW 112th
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR (7223 tigard or 97223
RESIDENT RESIDENT J.& M. LOHRENZ
13990 SW 100th AVE 11195 SW FONNER ST 12555 SW 112th
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
MICHAEL MERRILAN ROR & DIANE RISSMILLER JANE MEEKER
11090 SW FONNERST 11230 SW FONNER 11180 SW ERROL
OIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
1
DOROTHEA SZYDLOWSKI CM MUNION MICKI LIND
11050 SW FONNER ST 11235 SW FONNER 11070 SW ERROL
TIGARD OR (7223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
DARRIN & KARREN DE SANNO RICHARD Tt^ :71^. RESIDENT
11010 SW FONNER ST 11345 SW FONNER 11045 SW ERROL
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
RESIDENT CECILIA MCMICHAEL RESIDENT
10935 SW FONNER 11345 SW FONNER 10840 SW ERROL
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
GARY BLODCUTH VALBORG WILKIE RESIDENT
10855 SW FONNER 11200 SW FNNER 11015 SW ERROL
( TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
ALLEN BUBR KATIE SANDERS WALT SALING
1.
10805 SW FONNER 12405 SW 112TH AVE 12465 SW 112TH=
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
LYLE LAVERTY RESIDENT SHELLEY VANTASSEL
13169 SW CHIMNEY RIDGE ST 12184 SW ALBERTA 10140 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
NA LEONARD SALLY LARLANTE KEVIN BALLE
X2945 SW WALNUT 12145 SW ALBERTA 11565 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
PATTY STUART DELBERT & MANA FENNELL BRUCE JAMESON
12925 SW WALNUT 12355 SW ALBERTA 13585 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
RICHARD & ANNIE ALLOM MARGARET VAN THIEL HAZEL SEELIKEN
12949 SW WALNUT 12360 SW ALBERTA 12955 SW WALNUT
Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
TOM PETERSON PAUL SRAU CLARA OVERBY
12921 SW WALNUT 10360 SW WALNUT 13320 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
JOSEPH WIRTHIN MILDRID HEALY TED PAZDERINI
2919 SW WALNUT 10275 SW WALNUT ST 13435 SW 107th
GARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
NANCY KELLY DARLENE KNOX BARB ZECHMAN
12385 SW ALBERTA 10265 SW WALNUT 13350 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
NANCY LEE MELINDA BROOK JON & ROXANNE CUYLER
12265 SW ALBERTA 10250 SW WALNUT 12056 SW WESTBURY TERR
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
VIRGINIA FINCH PATRICIA ZIGLINSKI R. & CATHY MURPHY
122300 SW ALBERTA 10230 SW WALNUT 12915 SW SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
NANCY NASH HOWARD WALP CLIFF & SHIRLEY LEONARD
12270 SW ALBERTA 10200 SW WALNUT 12810 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
&QNN44 SAN STEVEN ERICKSON LOU HAYS
12235 SW ALBERTA 10140 SW WALNUT 11310 SW TIGARD ST
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
FRANCIS P. WISER PETE JARRYEN GIDEOU F. THOMPSON
9940 S.W. MCDONALD 9880 S.W. MCDONALD 9760 S.W.MCDONALD
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
MARK 0. GIBRIN JOAN MATHEWS RICHARD L. RECKNOR
8685 S.W. MCDONALD 10975 S.W. WALNUT 12435 S.W. 122nd.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
ELEANOR S. OLSON WILLIAM L. RICHEY BONNIE BERY
12730 S.W. 122 12445 S.W. 122 9986 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
RICKY J. OAK BETTY J. TIPPIE PATRICIA K. HENSEL
9986 S.W. WALNUT #6 9986 S.W. WALNUT #5 9982 S.W. WALNUT #26
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
CATHREIN EAKAN PAT ANDERSON JOSEPH PAHARSKE
9982 S.W. WALNUT #21 9980 S.W. WALNUT #34 9980 S.W. WALNUT #27
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
SHIRLEY SPRAULE JAMES D.BECHEFUT PEGGY RIDARD
9990 S.W. WALNUT 11925 S.W. WILTON 12061 S.W. WILTON
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
CLAUDIA HANIFIN MAGGIE BARDSTROM CODY KILLN
12085 S.W.135 th.#8 12085 S.W. 135 th. #6 12085 S.W. 135 th. #13
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
MIKE BRITH SADIE OLSON RALPH KAYS
12085 S.W. 135 th. #11 12630 S.W. WALNUT 8955 S.W. BURNHAM ST.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
CLANY COLEMAN JOHN MEALY MARGRET OWEN
9221 S.W. LEHMAN 13355 S.W. 110 th. 11410 S.W. 112 th.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
MICH HURLLS JOHN CRIVING GONUL JONES
16695 S.W. COOK IN. 13325 S.W. 113 th. AVE 11840 S.W. 113 th.PL.
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
DON ERDT RESIDENT:. MR. & MRS. HERGEED
13760 S.W. 121 st. 12060 S.W.ROSE VIETOR 12040 S.W. ROSE VISTA
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
OLME AND HOWARD BECKER LEE HARTFIF.LD LAURA GRAHAM
12555 S.W. 124 th. 12500 S.W. 124 th. AVE. 12430 S.W. 124 th.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
DALE TUMA RESIDENT HOWARD C. RAEH
11000 S.W. WALNUT ST. 10940 S.W. WALNUT ST. 10900 S.W. WALNUT ST.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
JOHN DAHSEN ROLAND R. WORD EUGEN ROGERS
10920 S.W. WALNUT 12070 S.W. WALNUT ST. 11695 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
RICHARD J. GOORDE JUDITH A. GOORDE NEAL N. SOREMSE
11765 S.W. WALNUT 11825 S.W. WALNUT 11865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LYNN SCIOGGIN MASHIVR L. JUNIVIUH TAMARA R. HEINTZ
11545 S.W. WALNUT 11525 S.W. WALNUT 10700 S.W. DERRY DELL CT.
i
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
k
4
F
t
f
TOM MLYERS V.W. KACZYNSKI KATHLEEN NORTON
11325 S.W. WALNUT 12985 S.W. 135 th. 13590 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
DON BROWN JtjDY WESTUMAN KATE AND MICHAEL LAWRENCE
13590 S.W. WALNUT 13665 S.W. WALNUT 11445 S.W. FAIRHAVEN
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
i
EVAN E. WHITAHRE BRUCE HAMIESON ROXANNE COHOON
12665 S.W. 136 ct. 13555 S.W. WALNUT 14145 S.W. 97 th.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
STEPHANIE KING JILL L. AIMCHTOM BARBARA J.AMENS
14155 S.W. 97 th. PL. 14135 97 th. PL. 9850 S.W. MCDONALD
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LAIS D. KECH BILL CHIH DONALD E. SRIF
12775 S.W. MARIE CT. 14040 S.W. 98 th. AVE 11992 S.W. WILTON
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
l
NANCY DAVIS LOREN TAWR MARGART HAMPTON
10315 S.W. MCDONALD ST. 10040 S.W. MCDONALD 9960 S.W. MCDONALD
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223'
GORDON & DEBORAH DAMRON JOHN PHILLIP fi1AHBI~WCBTA!'_
13923 SW HINDON CT 13938 SW CRIST CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
'AROL CUTTING CHARLES TRIGG
`-.-3870 SW HINDON CT CLAUDIA CLARD
12570 SW WALNUT ST 11285 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
TIGARD OR 97223
MARK & MARGAREY SAMMONS JIM ANDERSON ARNE HASLEY
12070 SW WILTON AVE 12470 SW WALNUT 11100 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
'r
LYNN KLEIN WILLIAM H. FORD DEWITTE BOYD
12049 SW WILTON AVE 12675 SW 124ht 11070 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
G
t
r
i
t
DEBBIE HAMUS LORI DEVENY }
VITTE CROUN
13916 SW CRIST CT 12515 SW 124th 11030 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
r
4
i
DAVID & MARY BOOTH ROLLAND DANIEL ALICE NILSSON
13874 SW SW CRIST CT 12200 SW WALNUT ST 12180 SW WALNUT
IGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 '
i
BILL LAMERS MILDRED DANIELS MIKI LAYTON
13916 SW CRIST CT 12200 SW WALNUT ST 12980 SW 132 ANE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
KRISTI PHILLIPS MAY RAMIS JEAN EMMERT
13938 SW CRIST ST 11970 SW WALNUT 12245 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
PAT WEST RAY & SUZANNE CAPPOEN MICHAEL ROAD
13909 SW CRIST CT 11710 SW WALNUT ST 11480 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
MATT MILL JUDITH FALCONER & E. TERALLE REX SMITH
13887 SW CRIST CT 11440 SW WALNUT 12630 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR (7223
i.:
LISA PERRY PAMELA LAVERTY
13865 SW CRIST CT "-'I" `IA!^.ISO'J
11275 SW WALNUT 13169 CHIMNEY RIDGE ST,-
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
JAN FRANZIN ED KUHN DUANE WYLDER
12605 SW 124th 10645 SW WALNUT 12512 SW 123
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
'SIDENT SANDRA & KENNETH OLSEN KELLY MARKS
~t2475 SW SW 124th 10640 SW WALNUT 8815 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
LES CULWELL DIANE KUHN CORRINE BUSH
12800 SW WALNUT 10645 SW WALNUT 8895 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
RESIDENT BARRY KALTANCH D. ARTHUR DASH
12520 SW WALNUT 10625 SW WALNUT 8895 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
i
VERNON TRIGG PHYLLIS FIRLR'E GARY MARKS f
12585 SW WALNUT ST 10620 SW WALNUT 8815 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 F
i
1
t
ATTEI MAY ANNE EDWARDS KATHY WALSH s
1580 SW 124th 10610 SW WALNUT 9050 SW MCDONALD
GARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
i
RESIDENT JOE AESITY CHARLOTH &_.FLOYD LIZZY
12320 SW 124TH 10160 SW WALNUT 13270 SW ASH DR
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
SHIRLEY HINTZ M.D. LEWER NORA PIRRIE
11015 SW WALNUT 12900 SW WALNUT 9705 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
LINDA BURKHART S. GONHOLN PATRICIA MARTIN
10860 SW WALNUT 12705 SW WALNUT 14003 SW 97th AVE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR.97223 TIGARD OR 97223
- - I
RESIDENT
STEPHANIE BROWN I DAVID STRAND
10830 SW WALNUT I 12725 SW WALNUT i 9740 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 i TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
MATT MARTINI LEOLA, DAVE & SHANNON SIMMONS DEBRA JOHNSON t:
10675 SW WALNUT 12522 SW 123RD'' 9740 SW MCDONALD
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
lj~
PETER & ANN LESAGE VANCE & JOYCE CQLLINS CHRISTINE TODD
12495 SW 112TH 13114 SW CHIMNEY RIDGE 11821 SW MORNING HILL DR
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
(--NE WHOMPSON AMY FATCHER David Henderson
12480 SW 112TH 13870 SW HINDON CT 12014 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
WILL O'NIEL CAROL DUNN Kim Grimberg
13585 SW FERN 12083 SW WILTON AVE 11992 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
ELAINE COOPER DICK & KENDRA STEPH Kevin & Midele Gladys
14120 SW FERN 12169 SW WESTBURY TERR 11889 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
SUSAN ELLIOT JEANIE SUTHERLAND Ron & Laurie Vrnild
14150 SW FERN 1wg96 SW WESTBURY TERR 11867 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
KTM CALDWELL RICHARD HART Roy & Sandy Pfeifer
40 SW FERN 12067 SW WESTBURY 11845 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
R.S. & L.M. HAVELAND KATIE ELLIOTT Ron & Ann Turner
13625 SW FERN 12076 SW WESTBURY TERR 11787 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR j97223 Tigard, OR 97223
JANICE COLE TOM CUYLER Mark Lowman
11878 SW WILTON 12054 SW WESTBURY TERR 11743 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
K. SORENSEN ROBERT REED Paul Jones
11890 SW WILTON AVE 12023 SW WESTBURY TERR 13821 SW Ashbury Ln
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
G.C. BURKE PAUL CARPENTER Mai Harlan
13125 SW CHIMNEY RDG 12001 SW WESTBURY TERR 13789 SW Ashbury Ln
i ARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
RESIDENT G. ALLEN Don Gerdes
13125 SW CHIMNEY RDG 11985 SW WESTBURY TERR 11674 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
WILLISM SMITH HOPE SMITH WAYNE LOLL
12005 S.W. ROSE VISTA SR. 12005 S.W. ROSE VISTA 13830 S.W. 121st.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
RESIDENT JOE SCHAFFMER DAN WARREN
11844 S.W. MORNING HILL DRIVE 11837 S.W. MORNING HILL DRIVE 1186 S.W. MORNING DRIVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LYNDA DONAGALLA SALLY BOVERO JONATHON MULKEY
11877 S.W. MORNING DR. 11876 S.W. MORNING HILL DR. 11868 S.W. MORNING HILL DR.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LARRY LA BOU PRESTON PAUSHORN JANET ESTOUP
11852 MORNING HILL DR. 11820 S.W. MORNING HILL DR. 11804 S.W. MORNING HILL
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
MICHELE GLADYSZ KEITH & VICK SIRENSON CARRIE STYRMANN
11889 S.W. WILTON AVE 11880 S.W. WILTON.. AVE. 11823 S.W. WILTON AVE.
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
i
RUSS CLAIR HEAD Mr. & Mrs. Dettired
11689 S.W. WILTON AVE 11710 SW Wilton Ave
TIGARD, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
i.
Jim & Renee Grieb Bruce & Debbie May Dave & Sandy Carnahan
11732 SW Wilton Ave 11754 SW Wilton Ave 11776 SW Wilton Ave
Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Dave & Tanya LaDuca Bruce & Evelyn Kaiser Carol William
11856 SW Wilton Ave 8860 SW McDonald 13935 SW 87th Ct
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
Randy & Priscilla Hendy Paul S. Olsen Richard Gardner
13905 SW 87th Ct 13920 SW 87th Ct 13945 SW 87th Ct
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Or 97223
A
Monte & Karen Mull Clifford & Sharon Cabe Fred & Marlys Kuhn
9150 SW McDonald 9335 SW McDonald 9455 SW McDonald
Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, or 97223 Tigard, or 97223
i
Teresa Crane & Robinson Collin Vicki Nicholson Betty Fletcher & Paul Fletcher c;Y
9425 SW McDonald 9675 SW McDonald 9555 SW McDonnld
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 ;Y
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NA,ME ADDRESS PHONE
7 S w mc n aLc.( a S
D -Ail C -
R)tj qj'5'~- Swj hf6&tt,,V 6-S-V- W
q I Z -
--7 7cl '5; ulu
of 1-37,7P S, jv ~}sG, .fir. 39- 2Zf `7
'er`g ~`s.~t 4420Sx,54) 0/7Wk zh t 43 Q~1 3
s'-r PN0 c1 710 sL,)_ N►L oN~ ~4- 8'~ J
6, 2
Vs ,f-A S. Ic - 'tom
1
i
I
i
F
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
c.
r
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD'CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
I ti ~ /J J~.-,i~GlAi t f ~ ~ L~ `l(iJ1 ~n Jltk yl VIT ~ ~J
ftj l k7 tj 0 cc1 loll. c.c.s L / Z 47
/0&yo 'sw fa 92-2-95
129oo 5, V,4 /n66-~ 39' 7 7 _
zs. ,tea
n
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
-c-- OD l• -6 ZsS
~ j 6 .•o6a 5
St 6
x AA
y
Mel -:?y
z05y c.> lJ b~ -Esc Co2(~-31o4Z
/25 s 3'1~ 6~a 02'20
S V~3 -
zcc? ti ZC rl I
0 AJ
r
b'ML' 54il
r
I
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD-CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
.3~
-46 t~ 1 a33o 6Li bev-4,x ao - F"75 6
e, 4e- e. t, wL 1.z2 v .J . e &.zcAl 6liz - 'logs
S 276 -1-2-77
3 2 -,Yid Z
~ • 'X310 ~~9--~/3y/
' 1C`3b0ste. V-411-/L-7y T- ~~d 6 zo- u~ ~6
a ,7 17 > y~
L _n t~-Sty 1414 w-! , '?'7223
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
e, 6 6, 7-
ti,07r7 _ 1 2 V 7 U S(AJ W,) Lev
L P\ yi ~j> ► z A 7 7 S 12-4 4 -4-4-1
et ~jdl 1,-z 7 6 7-1
av ~l - 5~a
t ,
/z-7z o
CQ /7 2 GU 7~
lr~.,6L,,
~ ~('/~~0-44"m"L o~-J 2-- POO 66d 1,Jm>n. d7 6TY-2-7`73
{
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
611 2-
lop,
~r~Y rJ D AJ 11 ay+A r o AJ Lj g::1 db-lt
cl,
o~W Z -t`LZ-(off 1
i l7 , J
3~oy S.~✓ . c:c%s i fir'- 1~7,rde 7 &?-36c6_! /I%.
v
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCROLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
V o 'LA2 , 4,3 469
f IV
6 63
-ZDL
t~67~ S w j r C- J aa!
lar-~sS',ca~ cJ s ~ Gag-l2~9
0 - 573
,CJ 3crS.~ IAA Mks a- b7
3,2 t,J . S s
G C&l L~ v 9 G
a~
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
&44\ I Q1 Till 5 c v LkL -~.'r\S ~b - 7 Sy
Z ;fir 4~
r C~3 -57~ 2
lvacl Jvlc)nlil~ LaA5 mv I W~'
DquG kxpl-l tGb:55- 51t) 11 5 Al. 6S479-1q
Qu" ,tJ~'Y-ir~'O CI\ caw 21 n-IJ v ~V 'bV \ ] t J7 I O~ .l 7 .l
a x-) (K (05q 2-I) I
J~ J26 ~57
<r
J-kfl-40-
1AL0 S w w h-Th rfi s AV, 6- a t
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCROLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
tod gep-P it 2YlcJ 8'6 YS /H`D4,VL ~ 6395/223
New S
D Cc1-
1 7-1- /717
l ~O Gf~ lrJ~ 9- 7--'Z 6s
a~~ ~1 p l13`~~ yie?CJtfyLhtl~Lr'f- 1 t t 1
, j Gt1n 6 r► rAt- t z %4f,5- S& J. UJ91n. f 4 39-6 -70 7
o &1,4a& -19t3
~P~. 3/G sw C'~1-r r►~ n ~ Sri- k~ `f ~
~ S47 ~ -44~3
i s , 38
1A, 25S-i
63 I U 03
9 04
PETITION
JANUARY 26, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM IE135THRAND/OR SOUTIiWESTEWALNUTOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST
STREET. TIGARD CITY
THIS PETITION IS 5MAND WASHINGTONHCOUNTY OFFICIALS
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION,
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
-
~ ~ J ~Sw Wd ~tn~ 1 LD~O~
4J rif'r
OkA*v
IL
S
0 7 v ,t d Gj 7Z
ryn ~ ~Lyj2Z
0~3 ~cJ
9 zz3
q ~2 b,;~6-3692-
IZa~ mow. w 7i3~ b4*-¢S
lF,
U=
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD:CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
5-5-32-
au z ~ 6 s ~ b 3 a 67~
( M/fi
qe~
e
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD.CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
N ADDRESS PHONE
c ~
Aff
4~3
1187 . Am 11561 5' Llul arc 6,- u ` D-. 6 q3-75Y'6
I f $51 Ste. Sh . y y - 7~~6
-7aa~
X889 ~oZD-~~/~
!Cd Z~ S OJ Ivy AtT t atd
XAZ
F5 8 a
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
X71 Gr _ t~ L'~1 l ,2c//S
b,A
~L' ~L 13 5-_ S S, CCU
~1v X39'
7 _ •
G 7 i
~~~~~'~t~ ?3 S. ; Gam). ~ Ulu •
i
-1Y-ZL
1210 cS l v
3 ~~o
S q-&915-C)
639- 1,7-7-1
I
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
. vo sn n ~ Aso is 3d s. , wetNu-r' ~3 - ya3
i
li is
ti~ '
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS.
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD:CITY 5
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
-5~--j 12414 .7113 6j6
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD.CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
tS J-S~ Ge7allc.ti ~oo~~"~~
i.
]4
S
D
0
L
Y
f.
f
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCROLLS.
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD:CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME
ADDRESS PHONE
` ic11a1r k:Ve- )lor /aj-/3s sty /,2 a, G3(~-oO~o,3
is &o 5W 6a i
Ca_
y r S~J a-naC 3 ~o~
i
ze%i~
17
~s~[;c`~;►~%G.t~1 -4 ,2I
L lei- --4S
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
~c~,~ )0 jdS S~J c ~n ca.1c~ 5~
• ~o S 1r1 •
zoo va__ w 141,c T>
~ Z" GeJ C
) 7 7
41 T
I've ,/6-: . -
zl~
.i.'~ ZZ,
C-i ,.~,.J 7 .~-rr3EJ /3~'~s~9~ %2 ~ l:it..G~9-<,i~~s
R
PETITION
JANUARY.28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD'TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD:CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1~~ u 1 qa77 q-1147
a e) Eat ~ 51 y~
4L
7 Sr,) j'12af c c~ ~~"I
c"J
1199 2 S.(-cl. ti ~a,. 'C . Co -2zZ3
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD'CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING.COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME j]]]//////(~~~~•••+/n ADDRESS
-rte PHONE
nc~
1
S 72
(r jAGi ~C.ri 5 ~L 7 5 `r
I/!„r Z "Y NW-15 S • C(
12-665- S14J 13 6 9 ST
rc ~
s s 40
i
a PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS-CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ?771
y~CL. %V <<=//- ~ ~J j.~C~ `i ~ ~ ~~!r!' /T~rf~) V'rT` ~l'LS
(A 47-1 1 2-.
fill &
i i P6 s' S u/ L ~9~6 Z
cl
4.5 _2~7
s zz~~
0-1oo S.w. vv 1 90-4-7
[D. o art 9 c tr"
t ~ti~'h~~
,j-
{
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME / ADDRESS PHONE
lam -
i~ s w z 39-
a
K2
sourly <i
01 -Z
12-5
639-15 33 'a~
emu) Oux-at (a 15 9 - 0-1516
~r
,2o c- ~f 9 /S 0
~06t-'j k
-72_6
C ~Z +v I Z`~' 6
OT -
i
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME /1/f ADDRESS PHONE
4/
CGS H- "ArlU 11610 5w i ~T - S.g-
- da
Xryl-a lot, 5~~
s k/ 0 'y f-i G P, 3
if j
- `I
3 o S L"/ /FO., 6 03.2
zo ~~v lv .20 - 6).7
is 5
' _w _
PETITION
JANUARY 26, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD.CITY
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
11,17 s Co'(s 5 7101
JA J~~W/
j
`6 Z ( S . . S ~f2y L % vrv'z /J to Z_~ 6 } (S
r blt l--T~y
Z 17-5-l' ZZw 441?- 21a
1/3s8
am to ok.
Jed
PETITION
JANUARY 28, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF MURRAY
BOULEVARD FROM ITS CURRENT TERMINATION POINT NEAR SCHOLLS
FERRY ROAD TO SOUTHWEST 135TH AND/OR SOUTHWEST WALNUT
STREET.
i
THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED AS A MANDATE TO THE TIGARD.CITY F;
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICIALS f
TO PERMANENTLY ABANDON ALL PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS
MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION.
i
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
3 q -S'l 7
S2'60 S' W. McDoll'- ld ~3y-0
13,-12S -SeJ 97"'
.1-1/ 1376 1 S IV 6 7' F- 7467.7
a . X35 -7L'?
13 70 6 20
j39s-~7~` 63~_i3~ 7
Ana 3 ^ gLl$? Li
~5 . 'p4
W ~~~.nc/r yyl S ~S~ •~C~ G lo+f L2S ~ D 0 li ~ '
f